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 .
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
1. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0135325) to Schloss et al. in view U.S. Patent Publication (2020/0056890) to Newman et al.
Regarding independent claim 1, Schloss et al. discloses a body (12) housing a pump motor (28) within the body (12); motive elements (14) configured to contact a surface of a swimming pool and to move the body (12) along a surface of the swimming pool;
and a sensor (30) on, in or carried by the body (12) (See paragraph [0074] and FIG. 1B of Schloss et al.). However, Schloss et al. is silent regarding the sensor (30) comprising a sensing region projected below a bottom surface of the body of the APC. However, Newman et al. teaches APC (10) that includes a sensor (14) that is carried by the body (10) (See paragraph [0014]) and a depth sensor. Newman et al. teaches that having sensor (14) that is LIDAR and depth sensor provides accurate mapping of the pool perimeter (See paragraphs [0012]-[0014] and FIG. 5 of Newman et al.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective fling date to modify Schloss et al. with Newman et al. to include a sensor that projects below a bottom surface of the body (12) in order to get a accurate mapping of the pool perimeter.
Regarding claim 2, Schloss et al. as modified with Newman et al. that the sensor includes an optical flow sensor (See paragraph [0074] and FIG. 1B of Schloss et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Schloss et al. as modified with Newman et al. that that the sensor (30) further comprises a light source directed at a surface over which the APC (10) is travelling, and with an intensity of the light source is adjustable (See paragraph [0030] of Schloss et al.).
Regarding claim 6, Schloss et al. Schloss et al. as modified with Newman et al. that teaches that the sensor (30) is configured to track a direction of movement of the APC (10) (See paragraphs [0095] and [0099] of Schloss et al.).
Regarding independent claim 16, Schloss et al. discloses causing operation of an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC) (10) including a body (12), a pump motor (28) within the body (12), motive elements (14) configured to move the body (12) along the surface,
and a sensor (30) on, in or carried by the body (12) (See paragraph [0074] and FIG. 1B of Schloss et al.). However, Schloss et al. is silent regarding the sensor (30) comprising a sensing region projected below a bottom surface of the body of the APC. However, Newman et al. teaches APC (10) that includes a sensor (14) that is carried by the body (10) (See paragraph [0014]) and a depth sensor. Newman et al. teaches that having sensor (14) that is LIDAR and depth sensor provides accurate mapping of the pool perimeter (See paragraphs [0012]-[0014] and FIG. 5 of Newman et al.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective fling date to modify Schloss et al. with Newman et al. to include a sensor that projects below a bottom surface of the body (12) in order to get a accurate mapping of the pool perimeter.
Schloss et al. as modified with Newman et al. teaches tracking a distance travelled by the APC (10) using the sensor (14) (See paragraph [0013] of Newman et al.).
Regarding claim 17, Schloss et al. as modified with Newman et al. teaches that the sensor (30) is directed at the surface over which the APC (10) is travelling (See FIG. 3B of of Schloss et al.).
Regarding claim 18, Schloss et al. as modified with Newman et al. an optical sensor (See paragraph [0074) including an optical sensor (See paragraph [0074] of Schloss et al.).
Regarding claim 19, Schloss et al. as modified with Newman et al. causing operation includes maintaining the sensor (30) a predetermined distance from the surface (an integrated unit within the robot (10); See paragraphs [0074] and [0096] of of Schloss et al.).
Regarding claim 20, Schloss et al. as modified with Newman et la. that tracking the distance includes detecting a distance or proximity in a direction other than a direction of movement of the APC (10) (See paragraph [0096] a distance from an opposing wall 41d of Schloss et al.).
Regarding claim 21, Schloss et al. as modified with Newman et al. teaches that the sensor (14) is oriented vertically downwards relative to the bottom surface of the APC (see angle h in FIG. 5 of Newman et al.). As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective fling date to modify Schloss et al. with Newman et al. to include a sensor that projects below a bottom surface of the body (12) in order to get a accurate mapping of the pool perimeter.
Regarding claim 22, Schloss et al. teaches that the sensor (14) is a predetermined height above a portion of the surface of the swimming pool that the motive elements are in contact with (See FIG. 5 of Newman et al.). As mentioned above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective fling date to modify Schloss et al. with Newman et al. to include a sensor that projects below a bottom surface of the body (12) in order to get a accurate mapping of the pool perimeter.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication (2018/0135325) to Schloss et al. in view of U.S. Patent Publication (2020/0056890) to Newman et al. and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication (2019/0360226) to Schloss (‘226).
Regarding claim 5, Schloss et al. (‘325) as modified with Newman et al. teaches that the body (12) is generally cylindrical and comprises an inlet (22) for receiving water of a swimming pool, wherein the motive elements (14) are at opposing ends of the body (12), but only teaches that the APC (10) includes one outlet (24). However, the combination of Schloss (‘226) and Newman et al. teach a pool cleaner having an inlet (16) an plurality of outlets (22) that exhausts water from the body (12) and that motive elements (24) are between the outlets (22) and the body (12) (See paragraph [0071] and FIG. 1). Schloss (‘226) teaches that outlets (22) are used to achieve a desired flow rate to achieve cleaning (See paragraph [0075] of Schloss (‘226). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schloss et al. (‘325) with the combination of Schloss (‘226) and Newman et al. to include a plurality of outlets (22) in order to achieve a desired flow rate to improve cleaning.
Allowable Subject Matter
2. Claims 7-8, 10-15 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-8 and 10-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection applied in the prior Office Action of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. EST.
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 S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
MICHAEL DEANGILO. JENNINGS
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MICHAEL D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723