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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 13-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 17 and 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “With respect to claim 17, Applicant respectfully submits that Witelson and Walsh fail to teach or suggest at least a pool system with a pool cleaner and a control system where "the control system is configured to control a light source of a personal electronic device separate from the APC, and establish wireless communication between the APC and the personal electronic device using light-based communication" as recited in claim 17.
The Office Action asserts that Witelson teaches "control[ling] a personal electronic device separate from the APC" and "establish[ing] wireless communication between the APC and the personal electronic device" based on [0386] of Witelson. Office Action page 10. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the characterization of Witelson. The boilerplate [0386] of Witelson at best lists alternatives for devices that include a "computer system," but nowhere does [0386] teach or suggest (i) control[ling] a personal electronic device separate from the APC" or (ii) "establish[ing] wireless communication between the APC and the personal electronic device"
[0386] Also, the invention is not limited to physical devices or units implemented in non-programmable hardware but can also be applied in programmable devices or units able to perform the desired device functions by operating in accordance with suitable program code, such as mainframes, minicomputers, servers, workstations, personal computers, notepads, personal digital assistants, electronic games, automotive and other embedded systems, cell phones and various other wireless devices, commonly denoted in this application as 'computer systems'.
Paragraph [0386 of Witelson
Walsh fails to cure the aforementioned deficiencies of Witelson. For example, while the Office Action cites to column 3, lines 45-55 of Walsh as "control[ling] a light source of a personal electronic device separate from the APC," Applicant disagrees with such a characterization. At best, and as reproduced below, Walsh simply states that a wireless connection may be a visual light communication system - there is no teaching of "control[ling] a light source of a personal electronic device separate from the APC" as required by claim 17.
The communications system 30 may include a communication hub 40 and a plurality of communication assemblies 50a-50n. Each communication assembly 50a-50n is electronically connected to the communication hub 40. The communication hub 40 may be electronically connected to the computing device 20 (or multiple computing devices 20). The electronic connection may be a physical connection (e.g. a wire) or it may be a wireless connection (e.g. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, near field communication, optical, sound, ultra- sound, or another wireless connection), or via visual light communication system.
Column 3, lines 45-55 of Walsh
Applicant thus respectfully submits that Witelson and Walsh fail to teach or suggest a pool system with a pool cleaner and a control system where "the control system is configured to control a light source of a personal electronic device separate from the APC, and establish wireless communication between the APC and the personal electronic device using light-based communication" as recited in claim 17.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Witelson ‘169 teaches wireless communication between the pool cleaning robot and dock in e.g. paragraph [0169]. Thus, Witelson ‘169 teaches that a control system can communicate wirelessly with a cleaning robot, and merely lacks reciting that the communication can be visual light communication. Examiner further relied on Witelson ‘169 to teach the “boilerplate” observation that a control system could be implemented on a phone, since Applicant’s claim 17 does not require an intermediary communication hub between the APC and phone, such as a dock. However, Examiner otherwise conceded that Witelson ‘169 did not explicitly teach “the control system is configured to control a light source of a personal electronic device separate from the APC, and establish wireless communication between the APC and the personal electronic device using light-based communication.”
Walsh, however, does teach the claimed limitation. As Walsh column 3, lines 45-55 recites, the system may be coupled via visual light communication to a phone. Further, the system connects to basically any type of pool equipment in column 3, lines 9-23. Then in column 10, line 7, through column 11, line 6, Walsh describes communicating by VLC (visual light communication) between those pool components in the water (reading on an APC), the communication hub 30 (reading on a dock), and a user personal device 20 (reading on a personal electronic device), enabling the phone to control the pool components via VLC; see additionally Figures 12 and 13. And, as Walsh discloses in the background (column 1 lines 32-46), visual light communication involves controlling a light source of a device to communicate data.
Thus, Walsh teaches “the control system is configured to control a light source of a personal electronic device separate from the APC, and establish wireless communication between the APC and the personal electronic device using light-based communication.”
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 1-6, 8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190271169 by Witelson et al. (hereinafter “Witelson ‘169”), further in view of US20190284827 by Witelson et al. (hereinafter “Witelson ‘827”).
Regarding claim 1, Witelson ‘169 teaches A docking system for an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC) comprising a dock comprising: see for example the docking system shown in Figure 39, described in paragraphs [0232]-[0239]. The actual docking station 100 includes a sensor 806 [0234] used for sensing movements of the robot (e.g. [0235]). The system reads on the claim either by 1) interpreting the dock to include also the (docking) space 200, including sensor 808, with the docking station and sensor 806 (reading on a dock with a first sensor and a second sensor); or alternatively by 2) reading the claims as describing a system comprising a dock with a first sensor and [the system comprising] a second sensor, so that the docking station 100 and sensor 806 read on a dock with a first sensor, and any one of the other sensors in the system 801-805 or 807-808 can read on a second sensor. Finally, see also paragraph [0135] describing operation of an automatic pool cleaning robot. See also paragraph [0111] where the docking station will electrically charge the pool cleaning robot, reading on configured to charge or re-charge the APC. See also Figures 1 and 6, where in Figure1 the dock comprises a solid piece as the base (reading on a support surface), and in Figure 6 the robot is brought to rest on that surface (reading on the APC is positioned on a support surface). This same system is illustrated in Figure 36. Thus, the system will charge or re-charge the APC while the APC is positioned on a support surface of the dock. See also paragraphs [0128]-[0129], where the docking station is connected to an electrical outlet, reading on wherein the dock is connected to an external power source.
wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are different types of sensors see for example paragraph [0236], describing the various different types of sensors. See also Figure 39, where sensor 806 is on the dock.
wherein the second sensor is a proximity sensor, see paragraph [0235] where sensors 806 and 808 sense the movement of the pool cleaning robot.
Witelson ‘169 does not explicitly teach one or more charging elements. Neither does Witelson ‘169 explicitly teach that both sensors are on the dock. Finally, Witelson ‘169 does not explicitly teach wherein the docking system is configured to communicate information from the first sensor and the second sensor to the APC. Paragraphs [0169]-[0170] suggest, but do not explicitly teach, sending sensor readings from the dock-side controller 102, with its sensor 92, wirelessly to the pool cleaning robot.
However, Witelson ‘827 teaches one or more charging elements. See for example paragraphs [0026]-[0029], where the dock comprises coils for charging the robot.
Witelson ‘827 also teaches that both sensors are on the dock. See paragraphs [0036], [0047]-[0048], and [0107], where the dock comprises multiple sensors for sensing the position of the robot.
Finally, Witelson ‘827 also teaches that a docking system is configured to communicate information from the first sensor and the second sensor to the APC. See again paragraph [0036] where the dock may sense the spatial relationship between the robot and the dock using one or more sensors and informs the robot about its position.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pool cleaning robot system of Witelson ‘169 with the charging and sensor system of Witelson ‘827 with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to charge the rechargeable robot of Witelson ‘169 with the charging means of Witelson ‘827, allowing for contactless charging. This further allows the dock to sense the location of the robot and communicate that information to the robot to improve its navigation.
Regarding claim 2, Witelson ‘169 teaches wherein the first sensor is configured to obtain information about the APC. See again paragraph [0235] where sensors 806 and 808 sense the movement of the pool cleaning robot.
Regarding claim 3, Witelson ‘169 teaches wherein the information from the first sensor and the second sensor is configured for controlling the APC or other equipment for a swimming pool or spa. See again paragraph [0235] where sensors 806 and 808 sense the movement of the pool cleaning robot. See also paragraph [0231], where the sensor data is used to assist in navigating the robot, or paragraph [0234] where the sensors are able to detect the movement of the robot in the pool.
Claim 13 has similar limitations to claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Witelson ‘169 teaches wherein the first sensor comprises one or more of a water sensor, a weight sensor, a geolocation sensor, or an environmental sensor. See for example paragraph [0236], where the sensors described can all read at least on environmental sensor.
Regarding claim 5, Witelson ‘169 does not teach, but Witelson ‘827 teaches wherein the dock further comprises electrical contacts as the charging elements, and wherein the docking system is configured to communicate with the APC based on contact with the electrical contacts. See again paragraphs [0026]-[0029], where the dock comprises coils for charging the robot, where the coils establish electrical contact. Then in paragraph [0036] the dock communicates with the robot to guide it to the charging contact location, reading on the docking system is configured to communicate with the APC based on contact with the electrical contacts.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pool cleaning robot system of Witelson ‘169 with the charging and sensor system of Witelson ‘827 with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to charge the rechargeable robot of Witelson ‘169 with the charging means of Witelson ‘827, allowing for contactless charging. This further allows the dock to sense the location of the robot and communicate that information to the robot to improve its navigation.
Claim 14 has similar limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 6, Witelson ‘169 teaches wherein the dock further comprises a communication module for wireless communication, wherein the dock is configured to wirelessly communicate with the APC. See again paragraphs [0169]-[0170], where the system can communicate wirelessly with the APC.
Claim 15 has similar limitations to claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 8, Witelson ‘169 teaches wherein the dock comprises an interface device for communicating with a user, wherein the interface device comprises one or more of a light source, a button, a screen, a speaker, or a communication module for wirelessly communicating with a user device. See for example paragraph [0386] where Witelson ‘169 teaches using a phone in place of other computer systems described.
Regarding claim 15, Witelson ‘169 teaches further comprising communicating the information from the docking system to the APC via wireless communication. See again paragraphs [0169]-[0170], where the system can communicate wirelessly with the APC.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witelson ‘169 in view of Witelson ‘827 as applied to claims 6 and 15 above, and further in view of US20200249690 by Regev et al. (hereinafter “Regev”).
Regarding claim 7, neither Witelson ‘169 nor Witelson ‘827 explicitly teach wherein the dock is configured to wirelessly communicate with the APC via LiFi communication. Although Witelson ‘827 discloses Li-Fi communication in the system (e.g. [0080] and [0090]), Witelson ‘827 does not explicitly teach that the Li-Fi is for communication between the robot and dock.
However, Regev teaches wherein the dock is configured to wirelessly communicate with the APC via LiFi communication. See for example paragraphs [0143] and [0145], describing “well known” methods of LiFi communication underwater, and using LiFi to communicate between a pool cleaning robot and its power supply.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pool cleaning robot system of Witelson ‘169, modified by the charging and sensor system of Witelson ‘827, with the LiFi system of Regev with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to guide the robot to the charging base using light-based communication protocol suitable for underwater communication.
Claim 16 has similar limitations to claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witelson ‘169, and further in view of US11525274 by Walsh et al. (hereinafter “Walsh”).
Regarding claim 17, Witelson ‘169 teaches A pool system comprising an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC); and a control system, see for example the docking system shown in Figure 39, described in paragraphs [0232]-[0239]. See also the robot controller 29 in e.g. paragraph [0124], or docking controller 102 in paragraph [0282].
wherein the control system is configured to control . Witelson ‘169 teaches wireless communication between the pool cleaning robot and dock controller in e.g. paragraph [0169]. Further, see for example paragraph [0386] where Witelson ‘169 teaches using a phone in place of other computer systems described. Thus, Witelson ‘169 teaches that a control system (including one on a phone) can communicate wirelessly with an APC, and merely lacks reciting that the communication can be visual light communication.
Witelson ‘169 does not explicitly teach that the control system is configured to control a light source of a personal electronic device separate from the APC, and establish wireless communication between the APC and the personal electronic device using light-based communication.
However, Walsh suggests a system wherein the control system is configured to control a light source of a personal electronic device separate from the APC, and establish wireless communication between the APC and the personal electronic device using light-based communication. See Walsh column 3, lines 45-55, where the system may be coupled via visual light communication to a phone. Further, the system connects to basically any type of pool equipment in column 3, lines 9-23. Then in column 10, line 7, through column 11, line 6, Walsh describes communicating by VLC (visual light communication) between those pool components in the water (reading on an APC), the communication hub 30 (reading on a dock), and a user personal device 20 (reading on a personal electronic device), enabling the phone to control the pool components via VLC; see additionally Figures 12 and 13. And, as Walsh discloses in the background (column 1 lines 32-46), visual light communication involves controlling a light source of a device to communicate data.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pool cleaning robot system of Witelson ‘169 with the visual light based communication of Walsh with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to communicate with underwater components, which is more difficult with other communication methods.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witelson ‘169 in view of Walsh as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Regev.
Regarding claim 21, neither Witelson ‘169 nor Walsh explicitly teach wherein the light-based communication comprises LiFi communication.
However, Regev teaches wherein the light-based communication comprises LiFi communication. See for example paragraphs [0143] and [0145], describing “well known” methods of LiFi communication underwater, and using LiFi to communicate between a pool cleaning robot and its power supply.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pool cleaning robot system of Witelson ‘169, modified by the visual light-based communication of Walsh, with the LiFi system of Regev with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to guide the robot to the charging base using light-based communication protocol suitable for underwater communication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20140263087 by Renaud et al. teaching a tethered pool robot that nonetheless returns to its dock to recharge.
CN112147909A by Zhang teaching a home appliance control method using LiFi communication between a phone, the central system, and the appliance.
US20180091715 by Chen teaching a home security system that uses LiFi to communicate with user’s phones.
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 JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights