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
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Teuscher (US 2016/0207204) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Teuscher (US 2016/0207204) in view of Shlomi-Shlomi (US 2014/0076789).
As to claim 1, Teuscher includes an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC) for a swimming pool or spa (robotic pool cleaner 100), the APC comprising a cavity (The “internal cavity spaces” within 110 and 120; para 30) configured to maintain water within the cavity when the APC is removed from the swimming pool or spa (Since said internal cavity spaces contain a filter assembly 150, which filters water, some water is maintained within it after the APC is removed from the swimming pool; para 30 and 34).
In the alternative, Teuscher may be combined with Shlomi-Shlomi to provide a clearer teaching of water being maintained inside of the cavity.
Shlomi-Shlomi includes an automatic swimming pool cleaner with movable flaps 21 that seal an inlet 22 to shut off water flow into the cleaner (para 64-65 discusses the inlet being for fluid intake and para 97 says that the flaps shut off flow by sealing the inlet). The flaps close while a backwash operation is performed involving impellers (71, 72) rotating in the opposite direction, thereby removing particles attached to a filter 30 (para 105).
It would have been obvious to modify the inlet 153 of Teuscher to have movable flaps that seal it to shut off water flow into the cleaner and modify the impeller 162 of Teuscher to have the ability to perform a backwash operation, as taught by Shlomi-Shlomi, in order to remove particles attached to a filter while preventing dirt from leaving the cleaner and dirtying the pool (para 100). Said combination provides the water being maintained inside of the cavity.
As to claim 2, further comprising a water sensing probe (capacitive sensor circuitry 240; para 42) within the cavity (The cavity provided by 110 and 120, which contain control systems [para 30], and the control system is control system 200 and that includes 240, as explained in para 40. Therefore, 240 is inside of 110/120).
As to claim 3, further comprising a water treatment feature (filter assembly 150) within the cavity (110 and 120 contain a filter assembly [para 30], and the filter assembly is filter assembly 150 [para 34]).
As to claim 5, wherein the cavity is within a body cavity defined by a body of the APC or outside of the body cavity (The cavity is outside of a body cavity that is the space inside of a body 156; Fig. 3).
As to claim 15, Teuscher includes pool equipment (100) for a swimming pool or spa, the pool equipment configured to maintain a probe (240) in water such that the probe is a wet probe (240 senses water and is in water; para 42) when a flow of water through the pool equipment is disrupted or halted (240 is maintained in its position at all times).
As to claim 16, wherein the pool equipment is configured to maintain the wet probe while immersed in the swimming pool or spa and while removed from the swimming pool or spa (240 is maintained in its position at all times).
As to claim 17, wherein the pool equipment comprises an APC (100) with a body (156), at least one motive element (130), and a pump (162).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teuscher (US 2016/0207204) in view of Tanks (WO 2006/125247).
As to claim 4, Teuscher does not include wherein the water treatment feature comprises a chemical tablet.
Tanks includes a swimming pool cleaner using a water treatment feature comprising both a chemical tablet (The “chlorine tablets”; para 15, lines 4-8) and a filter (140) [page 9, lines 13-16].
It would have been obvious to modify the water treatment feature of Teuscher, which includes a filter, to have both a filter and a chemical tablet, as taught by Tanks, the chemical tablet chemically treating the pool water, thereby enhancing the ability of the cleaner to clean the pool’s water (page 10, lines 5-9).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teuscher (US 2016/0207204) in view of Conrad (US 2017/0303754).
As to claim 7, Teuscher does not include wherein the cavity is detachable from a body of the APC.
Conrad includes a cleaner having many detachable fluid tubes (Fig. 6-10).
It would have been obvious to modify the cavity of Teuscher, which is a tube for transporting fluid, to be detachable, as taught by Conrad, in order to allow the cavity to be repaired/replaced.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teuscher (US 2016/0207204) in view of Hayes (US 2018/0328059).
As to claim 13, wherein the sealable cavity comprises an inlet (153) and an outlet (152) [para 35 and Fig. 3]. Teuscher does not include wherein the pool equipment further comprises a check valve for at least one of the inlet or the outlet.
Hayes includes a pool cleaner having a check valve (The “check valve”) for an inlet (446) [para 440].
It would have been obvious to modify the pool equipment to include a check valve for the inlet, as taught by Hayes, in order to regulate the amount of fluid passing through the pump so that the pump does not wear out as fast.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-8, Applicant argues that Teuscher or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Teuscher in view of Shlomi-Shlomi does not include a cavity configured to maintain water within the cavity when the APC is removed from the swimming pool or spa.
Some water is maintained within the cavity after the pool cleaner is removed from the pool, as evidenced by Fig. 3 of Teuscher. There is no way that all of the water inside the cavity would exit the cleaner immediately after the cleaner is removed from the pool.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 18-20 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.
Claims 8-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 6, the best reference combination, Teuscher (US 2016/0207204) in view of Shlomi-Shlomi (US 2014/0076789), does not have the cavity being self-sealing. There is no seal at the outlet of the pool cleaner because water flows out through it.
As to claims 8, 18 and 20, the reference combination does not have a sealable cavity. There is no seal at the outlet of the pool cleaner because water flows out through it.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW A. HORTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/ANDREW A HORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723