DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 05/05/2026, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 2-3, 5, 9-11 and 15-20 are canceled. Claims 1, 4, 6-8 and 12-14 are pending.
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 Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The Applicant argues that reference Smith does not teach that the weir door is not purposefully actuated by a controller (pg. 7 of 8), and that Smith only teaches movement of the weir door in combination with the pump (pg. 7 of 8). This argument is unpersuasive because Smith teaches a processor 544 configured to move the weir 530 (Smith, [0119] and [0127]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant argues that reference Potucek fails to cure the deficiency of Smith regarding teaching controlling the weir door based on predicted environmental conditions (pg. 6-7 of 8). This argument is unpersuasive because Potucek teaches using historical data, such as environmental conditions (Potucek, [0347]), trends to predict future trends to offer preventative maintenance, predictive failure and/or potential downtime risks (Potucek, [0346]). Data trends can be used to minimize energy usage and/or facilitate energy consumption decisions (Potucek, [0346]), such as the energy consumption of a pump associated with a debris filter (Potucek, [0116]).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (pg. 7 of 8), 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).
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 reads “predict environmental conditions” whereas Claim 1 reads “a predicted environmental condition”. It is unclear whether the “environmental conditions” of Claim 4 are the same or distinct from the “environmental condition” of Claim 1, rendering the claim indefinite.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication US20170175410A1 (‘Smith’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus (Claim 1) and a method (Claims 6-8).
Regarding Claims 1, 6-8 and 13, Smith discloses a skimming system for a swimming pool or spa (abstract and [0075]), the skimming system comprising:
an actuated ([0127]) weir door (Fig. 8, [0077], weir 170); and
a controller (Fig. 21, [0119], processor 544) for actuating the weir door ([0119] and [0127]), wherein the controller is configured to actuate the weir door based at least one of:
a predicted environmental condition;
a status of a pump of the swimming pool or spa ([0127]); or
a predicted debris condition.
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 6: the weir door is actuated such that the weir door is closed when the pump is off and actuated open when the pump is turned on ([0127]).
Claim 7: the weir door is a first weir door, wherein the skimming system comprises a plurality of weir doors (Fig. 8, [0077-0078], additional weir 230), and wherein actuation of the weir doors is synchronized ([0138], in response to water levels).
Claim 8: A method of creating a cleaning effect in a swimming pool or spa ([0077]), the method comprising:
determining a trigger for actuating a weir door ([0119]), wherein the trigger comprises at least one of:
a predicted environmental condition;
a status of a pump of the swimming pool or spa ([0127]); or
a predicted debris condition; and
actuating the weir door responsive to the trigger ([0119] and [0127]).
Claim 13: the weir door is a first weir door of a plurality of weir doors (Fig. 8, [0077-0078], additional weir 230), and wherein the method comprises synchronizing actuation of the plurality of weir doors ([0138], in response to water levels).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20170175410A1 (‘Smith’) in view of U.S. Publication US20170209338A1 (‘Potucek’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 4, Smith discloses the skimming system of Claim 1, except that the controller actuates the weir door based on predicted environmental conditions for the swimming pool or spa, and that the controller is configured to predict environmental conditions for the swimming pool or spa based on information from the at least one environmental sensor.
Potucek also relates to a skimming system for a swimming pool or spa ([0010]), including that the controller actuates the weir door based on predicted environmental conditions (Fig. 33G, [0282], activate/deactivate skimmers based on weather) for the swimming pool or spa ([0346], use historical trends to predict future trends. [0347], web data can include environmental conditions), and that the controller is configured to predict environmental conditions for the swimming pool or spa based on information from the at least one environmental sensor ([0060], wind speed sensors. [0352], operational data from web data or from one or more pieces of pool equipment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the controller of Smith to actuate the weir door based on predicted environmental conditions and to be configured to predict environmental conditions based on information from at least one environmental sensor, as demonstrated by Potucek, to increase autonomy, reduce energy usage and facilitate energy consumption decisions (Potucek, [0346]).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20170175410A1 (‘Smith’) in view of U.S. Patent US3363767A (‘Ellis’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method.
Regarding Claims 12 and 14, Smith discloses the method of Claim 8, including that the weir door is a first weir door of a plurality of weir doors (Fig. 8, [0077-0078], additional weir 230), except for controlling an actuation characteristic of the weir door, and wherein the actuation characteristic comprises at least one of a frequency of opening and closing the weir door, a pattern of opening or closing the weir door, a duration for which the weir door is actuated, or a time at which the weir door is actuated and independently controlling actuation of each weir door of the plurality of weir doors.
Ellis also relates to a method of creating a cleaning effect in a swimming pool or spa comprises actuating a weir door (C2/L12-27), including controlling an actuation characteristic of the weir door, and wherein the actuation characteristic comprises at least one of a frequency of opening and closing the weir door, a pattern of opening or closing the weir door, a duration for which the weir door is actuated, or a time at which the weir door is actuated (C2/L12-27 and C6/L11-25), and independently controlling actuation of each weir door of the plurality of weir doors (Fig. 4-5, C5/L21-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control an actuation characteristic of the weir door and actuation of each weir door, as demonstrated by Ellis, in the method of Smith to maintain the pool level while preventing the flooding of gutters (Ellis, C2/L12-27).
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 BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights