DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed 03/30/2026 have been entered.
All 35 USC 112(a) rejection(s) not addressed herein are hereby withdrawn.
All 35 USC 112(b) rejection(s) not addressed herein are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 7 and 8 of the Remarks that “Applicant has not defined “inlet” to narrowly mean an “opening.” Applicant argues that “inlet” is meant to mean “the place or means for entry,” and not just an opening.
In response, it’s unclear how one would enter something without an opening. As such, this is not persuasive. A “means for entry” inherently requires an opening. A “means for entry” just seems to be a synonym of opening. If Applicant can name a way of entering something without an opening, then this may persuade examiner.
Additionally, it’s unclear what an agreement from the examiner would solve in this matter. An inlet is opening, and an opening is an inlet. The only possible difference is intended use, where an “inlet” is meant for a certain direction. But, as it is intended use, it does not structurally differentiate an inlet from an opening. If, for example, one goes into a building through a door, it becomes an inlet. If they leave through the same door, it becomes an outlet. The only difference was how it was used, and nothing structurally different between the inlet and the outlet. Therefore, an inlet and an outlet don’t differ in terms of structure, but only in terms of how they are used. Similarly, an “opening” and an “inlet” would be the same, with the possible exception of intended use, which wouldn’t differentiate an opening from an inlet and vice versa.
Applicant seems to define an “inlet” as not even a structure, but merely a “place,” meaning a particular region or location. But the specification would actually disagree with this as the “inlet” is an opening in the body, as shown in the figures. Furthermore, a “location” would not be understood to be capable of operating as claim 9 and 15 state without being an opening, specifically since it literally acts in an “open” configuration, and even a “closed” configuration, meaning that it has a physical boundary that can be shut or closed. In other words, you can’t “open” or “shut” a region or location, except by first closing it off to create an opening, and then blocking the opening to close it off.
Lastly, if Applicant were persuasive, and the term “inlet” didn’t even require an opening, but could merely be a location, then independent claim 1 would only be explicitly claiming a “body” of the APC, making it extremely broad to cover any structure that had a body and a location (i.e. a region or a location) thereon. While this is acceptable to claim, it would potentially undermine arguments regarding the prior art not showing the claimed structure as this would be broader than already interpreted.
Applicant argues that “cleaning element” is defined in the specification as “devices and/or mechanisms suitable for cleaning a surface and/or directing debris into the APC 10 and/or towards the filter 20 of the APC 10”. Applicant appears to argue that it is just broad and not indefinite.
In response, terms like “devices” and “mechanisms” are placeholder terms that have no inherent structural meaning. One could not name a single structure that is inherent to ALL cleaning devices and mechanisms, which is what makes something like “cleaning devices” or “cleaning mechanisms” structurally indefinite. If I point to an edge of a scraper and say that’s a “cleaning element,” one person might argue that it’s scraping and not cleaning, creating a disagreement that can only be solved by applying some standard, which would be a structural definition. A broad definition, where the structural boundaries are wide, is okay. A definition so broad that one cannot ascertain if there are even structural boundaries (i.e. infinite claiming) is not.
Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340, 94 USPQ2d at 1167. For instance, a single means claim covering every conceivable means for achieving the stated result was held to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph because the court recognized that the specification, which disclosed only those means known to the inventor, was not commensurate in scope with the claim. Hyatt, 708 F.2d at 714-715, 218 USPQ at 197.
Applicant agues on pages 8 and 9 of the Remarks that the pool cleaner in Figure for “is not on a surface of the pool but instead is floating at the waterline 7 to perform the skimming operation.”
In response, it would not be correct for the Examiner to state “is not on a surface of the pool but instead is floating at the waterline 7 to perform the skimming operation” as the reference explicitly states the opposite, that the water line 7 is “the surface 7 of water pool 1” [Henkin; paragraph 0032].
While, from the arguments, it is understood that Applicant is meaning that the surface of the pool is the hard surface of the pool, as opposed to the water surface as shown by Henkin, the claims do not make this distinction. One of ordinary skill would understand the surface 7 to be a surface of the pool, as shown by Henkin [Henkin; paragraph 0032].
Furthermore, Applicant does not show the APC on the “surface” of the pool in such a way as being argued. The claim is to a functional limitation and/or intended use, which is meant to define the structure. To structurally differentiate Applicant’s claimed invention from the structure of the prior art, said function must result in a structure not shown by the prior art. In arguendo, even if Figure 4 was not on the surface of the pool, as argued, this does not inherently mean that the claimed structure differs from the prior art structure.
For these reasons, the argument(s) is/are moot.
Applicant argues on pages 9 and 10 of the Remarks that the prior art fails to disclose the gate 129 operating as claimed, in an open/closed configuration.
In response, and as laid out in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), the claim is not understood as requiring any gate/valve structure. The claim doesn’t explicitly require anything beyond an inlet, such as a door that closes the inlet or opens the inlet.
As best understood, the structure that opens and closes the inlets isn’t the inlets themselves, which are just an open opening, but the filter body that slides back and forth covering the inlets, causing them to enter the closed configuration.
While the filter is claimed, the functional limitation doesn’t require the filter to close and open the inlets. Rather, the claim just states the inlets are open/closed. Claiming an inlet without claiming the structure that closes it means that it is essentially just considered an open inlet, which is what the rejection shows.
As such, stating that the inlet is open/closed depending on movement is akin to intended use, which does not structurally differentiate an inlet from an inlet that is intended to be closed.
In short, one has to claim the structure that closes the valve.
In arguendo, even if the claim did require a structure that closes the inlet, and also possess a structure that closes the inlet in accordance with the claimed function, the gate 129 opens only when water flows through and is buoyant, as quoted in the rejection of claim 9 below. Therefore, the gate closes in accordance with the claimed function of having “a closed configuration in which water flow on the second path is impeded,” [emphasis added] wherein “impeded means to interfere with or slow, and “wherein the second inlet is in only the closed configuration when the swimming pool cleaner is submerged below the waterline,” as the gate 129 is capable of closing when submerged if no water is flowing through.
For these reasons, the argument(s) is/are not considered persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10 and 11 of the Remarks that Henkin fails to teach or suggest the functional limitations regarding the “second inlet” of claim 15. Applicant argues that the inlet 125 is open or closed purely based on the flow of water and not “based on the depth of the APC relative to a waterline of the swimming pool” as claimed.
In response, the depth of the water would effect buoyancy, wherein the gate 129 being “sufficiently buoyant to rise and prevent the outflow of debris” would be effected the more it was submerged (i.e. where the depth of the APC is increased). Therefore, it would meet this functional limitation and, therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 9, and 15, and those depending therefrom including claims 10-14 and 16-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claimed “control inlet comprising an open configuration in which water flow through the controlled inlet is enabled, and a closed configuration in which water flow through the controlled inlet is impeded” is indefinite. Applicant discloses a the filter closes the inlets, and not the inlets themselves, and therefore it’s indefinite if the claim requires the mechanism for closing and opening the inlets as claimed (i.e. the movable filter), or is merely stating an intended use (ex. “intended to be closed and opened”). For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be intended use.
Regarding claim 9, the claimed “comprises an open configuration in which water flow on the second path is enabled and a closed configuration in which water flow on the second path is impeded” and “wherein the second inlet is in the open configuration when the swimming pool cleaner is at a waterline of the pool and/or during a skimming operation and in which water flows through the second inlet” and “wherein the second inlet is in only the closed configuration when the swimming pool cleaner is submerged below the waterline and in which water flow into the second inlet is obstructed” is indefinite.
The structure that makes an opening/inlet/outlet closed is a separate structure than the opening/inlet/outlet itself. For example, US-2003/0201218 shows an opening/inlet (mouth 132) that is open and closed by a gate 129. Without that gate 129, the opening could not close or alternate between two states. Therefore, for that inlet to function in a “closed configuration,” one must have that additional gate structure.
In Applicant’s device, and as best understood, the filter 20 closes and opens the inlet 32 by being biased by mechanism 34. In order to enter the “closed configuration” as claimed, then the filter 20 must be present in order to close the opening 33 (i.e. the second inlet, located at filter opening 32 on what appears to be the longitudinal side of the filter 20).
This creates an issue in that the filter is not claimed. If the filter was explicitly claimed, and the opening/closing were a function of the filter, which closes and opens the inlet 32, then the function would be clear, requiring a movable filter that slides over the opening to close it or away from it to open it.
However, this requires one to assume that the function itself, only in relation to the opening, requires the filter. While the filter is claimed, the function itself, which would normally require the structure for opening and closing the inlet, is not tied to the filter, but to the inlet. In short, the claim could be merely claiming an inlet intended to be used with a gate/valve/etc., rather than inherently requiring a gate/valve/etc., like the filter used in Applicant’s device.
Applicant is advised to tie that functional language to the filter such that it requires the filter to be movable in a fashion that closes and opens the respective inlets in the way Applicant intends. This would make it clear what structure is being required in the claim and aid at differentiating from the prior art which includes a relatively stationary filter (except for movable shutter elements 126).
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations akin to intended use.
Regarding claim 15, the claimed “controlled inlet comprising an open configuration in which water flow on the second path is enabled and a closed configuration in which water flow on the second path is impeded, and wherein the controlled inlet is adjustable between the open configuration or the closed configuration based on a depth of the APC relative to a water line of the swimming pool” is indefinite.
It’s unclear if Applicant is attempting to use means-plus-function limitation(s) to define the inlet. However, an “inlet” has a meaning and, therefore, is not equivalent to a meaningless term like “inlet.” Furthermore, the means for opening and closing the inlets, the filter, is claimed separately. So, if this functional language was to impart the structure for opening and/or closing the inlets, then it is essentially introducing the filter twice. This is only if the claimed outlet were to be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), which it is not.
Applicant is very clearly trying to define the claimed structure over the prior art structure, which includes inlets, with the use of functional limitations and, therefore, the functional limitations must have a clear meaning to ensure that the claimed structure is or is not met by the prior art.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations akin to intended use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henkin (US-2003/0201218).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Henkin (US-2003/0201218) discloses an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC) comprising:
a body (body 6); and
an inlet (mouth 132) at or proximate to a front end (end with mouth 132) of the body (body 6), the inlet (mouth 132) configured to receive water of a pool into the body (body 6) (shown in Figure 4 receiving water), wherein the inlet (mouth 132) is arranged on the APC such that, when the APC is on a surface of a pool (“water surface 7” of water pool 1, as shown in Figure 4) and at a waterline (line of the water at the water surface 7) of the pool (pool 1) (Fig. 4), wherein the waterline of the pool intersects the inlet (mouth 132) and the APC is configured to perform a skimming operation off the waterline using the inlet (“When the controller 22 defines the water surface mode, the level control subsystem 16 places the body proximate to the water surface and the cleaning control subsystem 18 operates to collect water therefrom, as by skimming or scooping.”) [Henkin; paragraph 0044].
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Henkin discloses the APC of claim 1, wherein the inlet (mouth 132) of the APC is a first inlet (mouth 132) (Fig. 4) (“The water 127 flowing over the deck 119 into the collection bag 138 deposits its debris in the bag and then passes out through the basket floor 139 past the shutter elements 126 into the propeller tunnel 121.”) [Henkin; paragraph 0059], and wherein the APC further comprises a second inlet (lower inlet 140) for receiving water into the body (body 6) (Fig. 4), and wherein a location of the second inlet (lower inlet 140) is different relative to the first inlet (mouth 132).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Henkin discloses the APC of claim 3, wherein at least one of the first inlet (mouth 132) is a controlled inlet (mouth 132 is controlled by gate 129) (“This flow into inlet 125 swings open gate 129 to the position shown in solid line in FIG. 4. The surface water 127 will flow via inlet 125 into basket 130 through the open basket mouth 132 defining the inlet 125. Gate 129 is sufficiently buoyant to rise and prevent outflow of debris from the basket 130, e.g., when the body moves rearwardly.”) [Henkin; paragraph 0059] comprising an open configuration in which water flow through the controlled inlet is enabled [Henkin; paragraph 0059], and a closed configuration in which water flow through the controlled inlet is impeded (“This flow into inlet 125 swings open gate 129 to the position shown in solid line in FIG. 4. The surface water 127 will flow via inlet 125 into basket 130 through the open basket mouth 132 defining the inlet 125. Gate 129 is sufficiently buoyant to rise and prevent outflow of debris from the basket 130, e.g., when the body moves rearwardly.”) [Henkin; paragraph 0059].
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Henkin discloses the APC of claim 3, wherein the first inlet (mouth 132) is adjustable between an open configuration in which water flow through the first inlet (mouth 132) is enabled (Fig. 4) and a closed configuration in which water flow through the first inlet (mouth 132) is impeded based on a position of the APC relative to the waterline (when water flow is not present, as is the case when water is no longer moved through the mouth 132, where the mouth 132 is no longer submerged in water, or where, as Henkin describes, the position of the APC is advanced rearwardly) (“This flow into inlet 125 swings open gate 129 to the position shown in solid line in FIG. 4. The surface water 127 will flow via inlet 125 into basket 130 through the open basket mouth 132 defining the inlet 125. Gate 129 is sufficiently buoyant to rise and prevent outflow of debris from the basket 130, e.g., when the body moves rearwardly.”) [Henkin; paragraph 0059].
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Henkin discloses the swimming pool cleaner of claim 9, wherein the first inlet (inlet 140) is on the body (body 6) (Fig. 4), and wherein the second inlet (inlet 125) (Fig. 4) is on the body (body 6) or on the filter (basket 130 with shutter 126).
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Henkin discloses the swimming pool cleaner of claim 9, wherein the second inlet (inlet 125) arranged on the swimming pool cleaner (body 6) such that the second inlet (inlet 125) is configured to collect water during the skimming operation (Fig. 4) and while the swimming pool cleaner is on a surface of the swimming pool (“the surface 7 of water pool 1”) [Henkin; paragraph 0032] (Fig. 4)..
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended), Henkin discloses the swimming pool cleaner of claim 9, wherein the swimming pool cleaner is configured to simultaneously collect water through the first inlet (inlet 140) and the second inlet (inlet 125) (shown in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), Henkin discloses the swimming pool cleaner of claim 9, wherein the second inlet (inlet 125) is adjustable between the open configuration and the closed configuration based on a pressure within the body of the swimming pool cleaner (gate 129 closes or opens when there is a differential pressure/force on either side of the gate 129, similar to how a door works) (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henkin (US-2003/0201218).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Henkin (US-2003/0201218) discloses an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC) comprising:
a body (body 6); and
an inlet (opening of removable basket/bag 138) at or proximate to a front end (end with mouth 132) of the body (body 6), the inlet (opening of removable basket/bag 138) configured to receive water of a pool into the body (body 6) (shown in Figure 4 receiving water), wherein the inlet (mouth 132) is arranged on the APC such that, when the APC is on a surface of a pool (“water surface 7” of water pool 1, as shown in Figure 4) and at a waterline (line of the water at the water surface 7) of the pool (pool 1) (Fig. 4), wherein the waterline of the pool intersects the inlet (opening of removable basket/bag 138) and the APC is configured to perform a skimming operation off the waterline using the inlet (“When the controller 22 defines the water surface mode, the level control subsystem 16 places the body proximate to the water surface and the cleaning control subsystem 18 operates to collect water therefrom, as by skimming or scooping.”) [Henkin; paragraph 0044].
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Henkin discloses the APC of claim 1, wherein the inlet (opening of removable basket/bag 138) is a first inlet (opening of removable basket/bag 138), wherein the APC further comprises:
a second inlet (inlet 140) of the APC on the body; and
a filter (collection basket/bag 138 and gate 129) (“The surface water 127 will flow via inlet 125 into basket 130 through the open basket mouth 132 defining the inlet 125. Gate 129 is sufficiently buoyant to rise and prevent outflow of debris from the basket 130, e.g., when the body moves rearwardly. The basket 130 preferably contains a removable porous debris collection container or bag 138.”) [Henkin; paragraph 0059] positionable within the body (body 6) and comprising a filter opening (opening of removable basket/bag 138) as the first inlet (opening of removable basket/bag 138) of the APC (Fig. 4),
wherein the filter (collection basket/bag 138) is movable (at gate 129) between a stowed position (where gate 129 is closed) and a deployed position (where gate 129 is open) relative to the body (6) while the APC is within the pool, wherein, in the stowed position of the filter (when gate 129 is closed), the filter opening (at mouth 132) is obstructed (“The body 6 is configured so that when operating at the water surface, pool water flows over deck 119 into inlet 125, as represented by the flow arrows 127. This flow into inlet 125 swings open gate 129 to the position shown in solid line in FIG. 4. The surface water 127 will flow via inlet 125 into basket 130 through the open basket mouth 132 defining the inlet 125. Gate 129 is sufficiently buoyant to rise and prevent outflow of debris from the basket 130, e.g., when the body moves rearwardly.”) [Henkin; paragraph 0059], and wherein, in the deployed position of the filter (when gate 129 is open), the comprising a filter opening is unobstructed as the first inlet of the APC (“The body 6 is configured so that when operating at the water surface, pool water flows over deck 119 into inlet 125, as represented by the flow arrows 127. This flow into inlet 125 swings open gate 129 to the position shown in solid line in FIG. 4. The surface water 127 will flow via inlet 125 into basket 130 through the open basket mouth 132 defining the inlet 125. Gate 129 is sufficiently buoyant to rise and prevent outflow of debris from the basket 130, e.g., when the body moves rearwardly.”) [Henkin; paragraph 0059].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 10, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henkin (US-2003/0201218) in view of Pichon (US2011/0000036).
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Henkin discloses the APC of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the APC further comprises one or more cleaning elements, and wherein the APC is configured to clean the surface of the pool and direct debris into the body using the one or more cleaning elements while the APC is performing the skimming operation of the waterline of the pool.
However, Pichon (US2011/0000036) discloses “brushes 4 are intended to brush the immersed surface and move the debris which are brushed towards the rear of the device in the direction of the liquid inlet 9 which is arranged below the device.” [Pichon; paragraph 0108]. Since Pichon is pertinent to swimming pool cleaners, such as the cleaner of Henkin, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the APC of Henkin with one or more cleaning elements as taught by Pichon in order to “move the debris” brushes from the immersed surface “in the direction of the liquid inlet” of the device [Pichon; paragraph 0108].
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Henkin discloses a swimming pool cleaner comprising:
a body (body 6);
a filter (basket 130 with shutter 126);
a first inlet (inlet 140) defining a first path of water to the filter, wherein the first inlet (inlet 140) is configured to collect water during a surface-cleaning operation of the swimming pool cleaner (skimming operation seen in Figured 4, wherein outlet 140 is shown collecting water);
a second inlet (inlet 125) defining a second path of water to the filter (basket 130 with shutter 126), wherein the second inlet (inlet 125) is configured to collect water during a skimming operation of the swimming pool cleaner (Fig. 4, wherein inlet 125 is shown collecting water),
wherein the second inlet (inlet 125) comprises an open configuration in which water flow on the second path is enabled (Fig. 4) and a closed configuration in which water flow on the second path is impeded (when gate 129 is closed) (“Gate 129 is sufficiently buoyant to rise and prevent outflow of debris from the basket 130, e.g., when the body moves rearwardly.”) [Henkin; paragraph 0059],
wherein the second inlet (inlet 125) is in the open configuration when the swimming pool cleaner is at a waterline of the pool (Fig. 4) and/or during a skimming operation (Fig. 4) and in which water flows through the second inlet (inlet 125) (water shown flowing through inlet 125 in Fig. 4), and
wherein the second inlet (inlet 125) is in only the closed configuration when the swimming pool cleaner is submerged below the waterline and in which water flow into the second inlet is obstructed (buoyancy, which is the upward force created by water, causes the gate 129 to close) (“Gate 129 is sufficiently buoyant to rise and prevent outflow of debris from the basket 130, e.g., when the body moves rearwardly.”) [Henkin; paragraph 0059] (The gate 129 is opened when flow into inlet 125 swings the gate 129 open) (“This flow into inlet 125 swings open gate 129 to the position shown in solid line in FIG. 4. The surface water 127 will flow via inlet 125 into basket 130 through the open basket mouth 132 defining the inlet 125.”) [Henkin; paragraph 0059]; but fails to disclose:
one or more cleaning elements devices configured for cleaning a surface and directing debris into the swimming pool cleaner body and towards the filter through the first inlet or the second inlet.
However, Pichon (US2011/0000036) discloses “brushes 4 are intended to brush the immersed surface and move the debris which are brushed towards the rear of the device in the direction of the liquid inlet 9 which is arranged below the device.” [Pichon; paragraph 0108]. Since Pichon is pertinent to swimming pool cleaners, such as the cleaner of Henkin, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the APC of Henkin with one or more cleaning elements as taught by Pichon in order to “move the debris” brushes from the immersed surface “in the direction of the liquid inlet” of the device [Pichon; paragraph 0108].
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Henkin discloses the swimming pool cleaner of claim 9, wherein the first inlet (inlet 140) comprises an open configuration and a closed configuration, and wherein the first inlet is adjustable between the open configuration and the closed configuration (“In this forward propulsion state, tunnel 121 is closed to port 123 by check valve 124 and open to upper inlet 125 via open shutter elements 126.”) [Henkin; paragraph 0055] (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 15 (Currently Amended), Henkin discloses an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC) comprising:
a body (body 6);
a filter (main pool filter 16);
a first inlet (inlet 125) defining a first path for receiving water from a swimming pool and directing the water to the filter (main pool filter 16);
a second inlet (inlet 140) defining a second path for receiving the water from the swimming pool and directing the water to the filter (main pool filter 16),
wherein at least one of the first inlet (inlet 125) or the second inlet is a controlled inlet (inlet 125, controlled by gate 129) comprising an open configuration in which water flow on the second path is enabled and a closed configuration in which water flow on the second path is impeded (“This flow into inlet 125 swings open gate 129 to the position shown in solid line in FIG. 4. The surface water 127 will flow via inlet 125 into basket 130 through the open basket mouth 132 defining the inlet 125. Gate 129 is sufficiently buoyant to rise and prevent outflow of debris from the basket 130, e.g., when the body moves rearwardly.”) [Henkin; paragraph 0059], and
wherein the controlled inlet (inlet 125) is adjustable between the open configuration or the closed configuration based on a location depth of the APC relative to a waterline of the swimming pool (opens/closes based on buoyancy) (“This flow into inlet 125 swings open gate 129 to the position shown in solid line in FIG. 4. The surface water 127 will flow via inlet 125 into basket 130 through the open basket mouth 132 defining the inlet 125. Gate 129 is sufficiently buoyant to rise and prevent outflow of debris from the basket 130, e.g., when the body moves rearwardly.”) [Henkin; paragraph 0059]; but fails to disclose:
and one or more cleaning elements supported on the body, the one or more cleaning elements configured to clean a surface and direct debris into the APC and towards the filter through the first inlet or the second inlet.
However, Pichon (US2011/0000036) discloses “brushes 4 are intended to brush the immersed surface and move the debris which are brushed towards the rear of the device in the direction of the liquid inlet 9 which is arranged below the device.” [Pichon; paragraph 0108]. Since Pichon is pertinent to swimming pool cleaners, such as the cleaner of Henkin, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the APC of Henkin with one or more cleaning elements as taught by Pichon in order to “move the debris” brushes from the immersed surface “in the direction of the liquid inlet” of the device [Pichon; paragraph 0108].
Regarding claim 16 (Currently Amended), Henkin discloses the APC of claim 15, wherein the first inlet (inlet 125) arranged on the APC such that the first inlet (inlet 125) is configured to receive water during a skimming operation by the APC (skimming operation shown in Figure 4), and wherein the second inlet (inlet 140) is arranged on the APC such that the second inlet (inlet 140) is configured to receive water during a surface-cleaning operation by the APC (shown cleaning the surface 7 of the water in Figure 4), and
wherein at least the first inlet (inlet 125) is the controlled inlet (controlled by gate 129).
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), Henkin discloses the APC of claim 16, wherein the controlled inlet (inlet 125) is a first controlled inlet (inlet 125), and wherein the second inlet (inlet 140) is a second controlled inlet comprising an open configuration and a closed configuration (“In this forward propulsion state, tunnel 121 is closed to port 123 by check valve 124 and open to upper inlet 125 via open shutter elements 126.”) [Henkin; paragraph 0055] (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 18 (Currently Amended), Henkin discloses the APC of claim 15, wherein the first inlet (inlet 125) is on the body (body 6), and wherein the second inlet (inlet 140) is on the body (body 6) (Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), and dependent claim 8, Henkin discloses the APC of claim 6, but fails to anticipate or render obvious a “filter displacement mechanism configured to apply a displacement force on the filter and bias the filter towards the stowed position or the deployed position.”
Regarding claim 19 (Original), and dependent claim 20, Henkin discloses the APC of claim 15, but fails to disclose “wherein the filter is movable relative to a body of the APC and between a stowed configuration and a deployed configuration, wherein:
in the stowed configuration, the filter is substantially contained within the body; and
in the deployed configuration, a portion of the filter comprising a filter opening extends outwards from the body, wherein the filter opening is the second inlet.”
As claims 19 and 20 are currently under 35 USC 112(b), and under subject of interpretation from the Examiner, there is no indication of allowance. However, the claims do have limitations that is not considered taught or disclosed by the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights