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 .
RCE
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 18, 2026 has been entered.
Objections to the Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the trolley must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112
3. 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 1-8 and 21-23 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. Since the drawings never show the trolley as required in independent claim 1, it is not clear how the reflective surface (24) is placed on the trolley or where it is placed on the trolley since the trolley is not depicted in the drawings. Further, the specification states that the trolley includes a reflective surface is configured to reflect visual information about the APC. However, since the trolley is not depicted one of ordinary skill in the art would not where the reflective surface is relative to the surface of the trolley.
Claims 2-8 and 21-23 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
4. 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 1-2, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Publication (2017/046808) to Witelson et al.
Regarding independent claim 1, Witelson et al. teaches most of the elements of claim 1 including a reflective surface (405) (See paragraphs [0016] and [00220]-[0221]) configured to reflect visual information. However, Witelson et al. is silent regarding that that the reflective surface (405) is on the APC (800), a trolley for the APC or a docking station for the APC. Witelson et al. teaches that the reflective surface (405) is including with a spectroscopic device (400) (See paragraphs [0228]). Wiltelson et al. teaches that the spectroscopic device may be included within, attached to or coupled to a pool maintenance system, which including a pool cleaning robot or a skimmer (See paragraph [0098] of Witelson et al.). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to modify Witelson et al. to include the spectroscopic device (400) including the reflective surface on the APC (800) since Wiltelson et al. suggests such modifications in order to provide proper analysis of the water.
Moreover, Witelson et al. as modified teaches that the reflective surface (405) is an external surface as arranged in the spectroscopic device (400), which is placed on the automatic swimming pool cleaner (800), a trolley for the APC, or a docking station for the APC (deck) (See paragraph [00220] and claim 4) to reflect the light as the visual information (See claim 4).
Regarding claim 2, Witelson et al. as modified above teaches that the reflective surface (405) is on the APC (800), and that the reflective surface (405) is configured to reflect visual information from a first location to a second location (See claim 3).
Regarding claim 6, Witelson et al. as modified above teaches that the reflective surface includes at least one of a scratch-resistant material (battery material) or a fog-resistant material.
Regarding claim 8, Witelson et al. teaches that the reflective surface (405) is backlit (seen from the bottom or back; See paragraph [0220]).
Response to the Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant at page 3 of the remarks, alleges that WIPO Publication (2017/046808) to Witelson et al. that since spectroscopic device (e.g., mirror (405) are completely within the housing (401) any reflective surfaces of the spectroscopic device are not and cannot be “external surface arranged on the APC”; therefore, even if the housing (401) may extend from the pool cleaner the reflective surface is not on an external surface of the cleaner. However, Witelson et al. as modified the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the spectroscopic device (400) includes the reflective surface (405) and is attached to or external to the pool cleaner (800), then the reflective surface (405) would be an external surface to the pool cleaner since it is part of the spectroscopic device (400).
Conclusion
6. 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
Prosecution Insights