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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-4, 6-10, 12-18, 39-43 and 45-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacCallum et al. (US 2019/0314243 A1) in view of Uerkvitz et al. (US 2021/0285668 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 14 and 39, MacCallum discloses a computer-implemented method for sharing operational parameters for operational control of a pool or spa (e.g. Abstract & [0004, 0028, 0067, 0121]: sharing and receiving control commands and parameters between pool/spa device and user devices), and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computer system (e.g. [0003]), cause the computer system to perform operations relating to sharing operational parameters for operational control of a pool or spa, and a pool system for sharing operational parameters for operational control of a pool or spa, the pool system comprising: a controller (e.g. Fig. 1A: 102-103) configured to, and a system, comprising: a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions; and a processor configured to access the memory and execute the computer- executable instructions to at least (e.g. Fig. 1A, Abstract & [0003]):
Accessing, via a pool automation controller (e.g. Fig. 1A: 102 & [0045, 0046]) of a pool system (e.g. Fig. 1A), a set of operational parameters (e.g. Fig. 2 & [0067, 0121]: settings, commands, sensor data, etc.) of at least one piece of pool equipment of the pool system (e.g. Fig. 1A-1B: 110);
sending the set of operational parameters to the user device (e.g. Fig. 1A & Fig. 2 & [0045, 0046, 0067, 0072, 0095, 0118, 0121]: user device could be mobile devices, remote user devices, wireless control panel, quicktouch remote, etc. for receiving and accessing operational and/or setting parameters; thus, the controller 102 is sending/sharing the operational and/or setting parameters to the user device).
MacCallum fails to disclose, but Uerkvitz teaches sending the set of operational parameters to the user device responsive to detecting the proximity of the user device (e.g. Fig. 5 & [0044, 0047, 0052]) with respect to a main controller (e.g. Fig. 5 & [0054]: controller 124 may be a component of the thermostat 110; thus, the proximity detection is with respect to the user device in proximity to the thermostat within predetermined distance 106) using a local network connection (e.g. [0054, 0058]: internet connection and/or other manner of communication: since the controller 124 is a component of the thermostat within the house, it implies the communication network is local internet network).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of MacCallum with the teachings of Uerkvitz to grant or deny sharing of operational parameters of a device in response to proximity of a user device so as to ensure user is in close distance to observe and/or correct operations during maintenance or testing to reduce costs of installation and/or maintenance (e.g. Uerkvitz: [0044, 0072]).
Regarding claims 2 and 40, MacCallum discloses receiving, from the user device, a change to at least one operational parameter; and responsive to receiving the change, configuring the operation of a component of the pool system based on the change to the at least one operational parameter (e.g. Fig. 11A & [0121]).
Regarding claims 3 and 41, Uerkvitz teaches connecting to the user device responsive to detecting the proximity of the user device (e.g. Fig. 6 & [0057-0062]) via the network connection or a different network connection (e.g. [0054, 0058]: internet connection and/or other manner of communication: since the controller 124 is a component of the thermostat within the house, it implies the communication network is local internet network).
Regarding claims 4 and 42, MacCallum discloses accessing the set of operational parameters comprises generating the set of operational parameters based on one or more present or past conditions of the pool system (e.g. [0121]: usage data and device status).
Regarding claims 6 and 45, MacCallum discloses sending the set of operational parameters to a cloud-connected server (e.g. [0117, 0121]).
Regarding claims 7 and 46, MacCallum discloses the user device is configured to share the operational parameters with a cloud-connected server system responsive to sending the operational parameters to the user device (e.g. [0117, 0121]), wherein the cloud-connected server system is distinct from the pool system and the pool automation (e.g. Fig. 1: 132).
Regarding claims 9 and 47, MacCallum discloses the operations further comprise sending other information to the user device (e.g. [0121]: usage data, sensor data, etc.).
Regarding claims 10 and 48, MacCallum discloses sending the operational parameters to the user device comprises sending the operational parameters via Bluetooth (e.g. [0048]).
Regarding claims 12 and 49, MacCallum discloses receiving the set of operational parameters comprises receiving via a first communication protocol (e.g. [0021, 0041]), and wherein sending the set of operational parameters comprises sending via a second communication protocol (e.g. [0048]).
Regarding claims 13 and 50, MacCallum discloses the first communication protocol comprises power line communication (PLC) (e.g. [0041]) and the second communication protocol comprises Bluetooth (e.g. [0048]).
MacCallum fails to explicitly disclose the physical cable is a PLC; however, the examiner is taking Official notice that PLC is a known in the art communication protocol, and the modification of MacCallum with the use of PLC would have been obvious to one skilled in the art since it is merely simple substitutions of known method with another according to KSR
Regarding claim 15, MacCallum discloses a pool equipment, wherein the controller is included in the pool equipment.
Regarding claim 16, MacCallum discloses the set of operational parameters relate to operation of the pool equipment (e.g. Abstract & Fig. 1A & [0004, 0028, 0067, 0121].
Regarding claim 17, MacCallum discloses the set of operational parameters relate to operation of a pool automation system that includes the controller (e.g. Abstract & Fig. 1A: 102 & [0004, 0028, 0067, 0121]).
Regarding claim 18, MacCallum discloses a pool automation system, wherein the controller is included in the pool automation system, and wherein the set of operational parameters relate to operation of the pool automation system or a device controlled by the pool automation system (e.g. Fig. 1A: controller 102-103).
Claim(s) 43, 51 and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacCallum et al. (US 2019/0314243 A1) in view of Uerkvitz et al. (US 2021/0285668 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 39 above, and further in view of Muller et al. (US 2017/0166169 A1).
Regarding claims 43 and 51, MacCallum and Uerkvitz in combination fails to disclose, but Muller teaches the processor is configured to automatically authenticate the user device based on detecting the proximity of the user device (e.g. Abstract & [0073-0075]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of MacCallum and Uerkvitz with the teachings of Muller to automatically authenticate a user device so as to gain access to a control device based on detection of location and/or proximity of the user relative to the control device.
Muller suggests that automatic authentication is advantageous over conventional authentication (requires user interaction, e.g. teachings of Uerkvitz requires owner approval) to reduce time for user to gain access to a controlled device (e.g. [0003]). The modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art since it is merely utilizing known method in a known device ready for improvement.
Regarding claim 52, MacCallum and Uerkvitz in combination discloses sending the set of operational parameters to the user device responsive to detecting the proximity of the user device (see rejection of claim 1), and Muller further teaches automatic authentication based on proximity of the user device is known in the art (see rejections of claims 43 and 51). Thus, the combination of MaCallum, Uerkvitz and Muller discloses the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to MacCallum regarding to claim 1, the examiner disagrees with the arguments. MacCallum discloses control system load center 102 and expansion panels 108 in Fig. 1A may be connected to one ore more of the pool/spa devices 110 through various wired connections (e.g. [0037]); thus, MacCallum not only focus on remote control as argued by applicant, MacCallum also discloses a system that can be controlled locally by controller and expansion panels via wired connections.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to Uerkvitz regarding to claim 1, the examiner disagrees with the arguments.
Rejection of claim 1 has been revised in view of amendments. The limitation “location network connection” is broadly interpreted as internet as taught by Uerkvitz in [0058].
And, argument regarding automatically detecting proximity of the user device is irrelevant to the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 since the feature is not recited in the claim. In addition, Muller is further cited to teach automatically authenticate a user device based on proximity in rejection of claim 43, for example.
Limitation regarding sending the set of operational parameters is rejected in view of MacCallum. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights