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 35 U.S.C. 102/103 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 as amended overcomes the objection of record, and the objection is withdrawn.
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 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200001723 by Durvasula et al. (hereinafter “Durvasula”), further in view of US20190284827 by Witelson et al. (hereinafter “Witelson”).
Regarding claim 1, Durvasula teaches A docking system for an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC) comprising a dock with a sensor, wherein the docking system is configured to communicate information from the . See for instance Figure 2, showing dock (“power source”) 100 with sensors 144 for detecting pool cleaning robot 200. See also, e.g., paragraph [0043], where the dock includes sensors for sensing the presence of the cleaning robot. See also paragraph [0042], where the dock may send instructional updates to the cleaning robot.
Durvasula does not explicitly teach wherein the docking system is configured to communicate information from the sensor to the APC.
However, Witelson teaches wherein the docking system is configured to communicate information from the sensor to the APC. See for example paragraphs [0036]-[0037], where the dock or charging station can sense the relative location of the cleaning robot and may communicate that spatial alignment to the robot. See also paragraph [0047], where the dock may instruct the pool cleaning unit how to move based on the sensed spatial relationship.
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 robotic pool cleaning system of Durvasula with the dock having sensing and control means of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the dock to precisely align the robot with the charging station or avoid uncontrolled collisions.
Regarding claim 2, Durvasula teaches wherein the sensor is configured to obtain information about the APC. See again paragraph [0043], where the dock includes sensors for sensing the presence of the cleaning robot: “For example, in at least some embodiments, the sensors 144 may sense the presence of a pool cleaner 200 on, in, or adjacent the power source 100 and then, based on motor/linkage logic 153, the processor 150 may actuate the linkage 142 to engage the pool cleaner 200 (via connector 242).”
Regarding claim 3, Durvasula teaches wherein the sensor is configured to obtain information for controlling the APC or other equipment for a swimming pool or spa. See again paragraph [0043], where the dock includes sensors for sensing the presence of the cleaning robot: “For example, in at least some embodiments, the sensors 144 may sense the presence of a pool cleaner 200 on, in, or adjacent the power source 100 and then, based on motor/linkage logic 153, the processor 150 may actuate the linkage 142 to engage the pool cleaner 200 (via connector 242).”
Regarding claim 4, Durvasula teaches wherein the sensor comprises one or more of a water sensor, a weight sensor, a position sensor, or an environmental sensor. In addition to paragraph [0043] (“sensors may be any type of sensors”), see also paragraph [0030]: “In at least some embodiments, the power source 100 may include sensors 144, such as proximity sensors, that can detect the presence of the pool cleaner 200 in the well 138.”
Regarding claim 5, Durvasula teaches wherein the dock further comprises electrical contacts, and wherein the docking system is configured to communicate with the APC based on contact with the electrical contacts. See for example paragraph [0040], where the dock can transfer operational logic to the pool cleaner via “wires included in [mechanical] linkage 142.”
Regarding claim 6, Durvasula 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 paragraph [0040], where data can be transferred “via a wireless connection.” See also paragraph [0042] similarly conveying commands wirelessly.
Regarding claim 8, Durvasula 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 [0028]: “In at least some embodiments, the power source 100 may include a communication module or means for wireless communication with a user terminal, such as smartphone or tablet computer, so that a user can monitor power consumption and/or communicate with the power source 100 and/or the pool cleaner 300 (e.g., via the power source 100), as is described below in connection with FIG. 4.”
Regarding claim 10, Durvasula teaches further comprising a powering source for charging the APC. See for example paragraph [0026]: “Instead, the pool cleaner 200 can be periodically connected to the power source 100 (which may also be referred to as docking station 100, charging station 100, etc.) to charge the rechargeable battery. That is, the pool cleaner 200 can drive out of the pool 1000 on its own or be removed from the pool 1000 and then the pool cleaner 200 can move or be moved proximate the power source 100 for recharging.”
Regarding claim 11, Durvasula teaches further comprising a powering source sensor. See again paragraph [0043], where the sensors may sense the presence of a pool cleaner and then connect to the pool cleaner in order to recharge or power it.
Regarding claim 12, Durvasula does not explicitly teach, but Witelson does teach wherein the docking station is self-powered. See for example paragraph [0086], where the (floating) dock (which recharges the pool robot), and the floating unit has “a rechargeable battery.”
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 robotic pool cleaning system of Durvasula with the self-powered dock of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the dock to have its own internal power source, allowing it to perhaps be untethered from the poolside, if necessary.
Regarding claim 13, Durvasula teaches A method of controlling an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC), the method comprising using information from a . See for instance Figure 2, showing dock (“power source”) 100 with sensors 144 for detecting pool cleaning robot 200. See also, e.g., paragraph [0043], where the dock includes sensors for sensing the presence of the cleaning robot: “For example, in at least some embodiments, the sensors 144 may sense the presence of a pool cleaner 200 on, in, or adjacent the power source 100 and then, based on motor/linkage logic 153, the processor 150 may actuate the linkage 142 to engage the pool cleaner 200 (via connector 242).”
Durvasula does not explicitly teach using information from a sensor of a docking system to control the APC.
However, Witelson teaches using information from a sensor of a docking system to control the APC. See for example paragraphs [0036]-[0037], where the dock or charging station can sense the relative location of the cleaning robot and may communicate that spatial alignment to the robot. See also paragraph [0047], where the dock may instruct the pool cleaning unit how to move based on the sensed spatial relationship.
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 robotic pool cleaning system of Durvasula with the dock having sensing and control means of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the dock to precisely align the robot with the charging station or avoid uncontrolled collisions.
Regarding claim 14, Durvasula teaches further comprising communicating the information from the docking system to the APC based on contact between the APC and a dock of the docking system. See for example paragraph [0040], where the dock can transfer operational logic to the pool cleaner via “wires included in [mechanical] linkage 142.”
Regarding claim 15, Durvasula teaches further comprising communicating the information from the docking system to the APC via wireless communication. See again paragraph [0040], where data can be transferred “via a wireless connection.” See also paragraph [0042] similarly conveying commands wirelessly.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durvasula in view of Witelson as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US20200249690 by Regev et al. (hereinafter “Regev”).
Regarding claim 7, Durvasula does not explicitly teach, but Regev does teach 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 the pool cleaning robot and the 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 robotic pool cleaning system of Durvasula, modified by the dock having sensing and control means of Witelson, with the LiFi communication of Regev with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows wireless communication under water, “such as in a swimming pool where radio transmission waves such as Wi-Fi will not function” [0145].
Claim 16 has similar limitations to claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Claims 17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regev in view of Witelson.
Regarding claim 17, Regev teaches A pool system comprising a light source and an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC), wherein the light source is configured to communicate with the APC via light-based 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.
Regev does not explicitly teach wherein the light source is on a device separate from the APC; instead, Regev only explicitly teaches sending Li-Fi communications from the APC to the external device, and does not explicitly teach communication in reverse. See paragraph [0145] “[f]rom the pool cleaning robot further communications are possible to and with an external to the pool device such as a power supply—especially where there exists a line of sight—that is able to receive, convert and process data light signals into digital formats, The device may then upload the data while underwater without the necessity to delay upload until the cleaner was removed from the pool.”
However, Witelson does teach wherein the light source is on a device separate from the APC. See for example paragraphs [0075]-[0080], where the floating dock [0075] includes “wireless communication means to communicate with smart computer devices…or a Li-Fi device” [0080].
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 robotic pool cleaning system of Regev with the Li-Fi communication device of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the dock to communicate via Li-Fi with the APC.
Regarding claim 20, Regev does not explicitly teach, but Witelson teaches wherein the light source is a light on a user device. See for example paragraphs [0075]-[0080], where the floating dock [0075] includes “wireless communication means to communicate with smart computer devices…or a Li-Fi device” [0080].
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 robotic pool cleaning system of Regev with the Li-Fi smart device of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the user to control the robotic pool cleaning system via a smart device.
Regarding claim 21, 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.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regev in view of Witelson as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US20200232611 by Raring et al. (hereinafter “Raring”).
Regarding claim 18, Regev does not explicitly teach, but Raring does teach wherein the light source is a first light source, wherein the pool system further comprises a second light source configured to communicate with the APC, wherein the second light source is a pool light. See for example paragraphs [0424]-[0427], where Raring’s lighting methods can be used for LiFi communication in the visible spectrum. See also paragraphs [0489]-[0490], as well as Figures 60A and 60B, where the light source can be used in a swimming pool, either above or below the water.
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 LiFi pool cleaning robot of Regev with the swimming pool and LiFi lighting system of Raring with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the dock to communicate seamlessly with the pool cleaning robot without the need for a floating communication apparatus, for example.
Regarding claim 19, Regev does not explicitly teach, but Raring does teach wherein the pool light is an underwater pool light. See again paragraph [0489], where “As shown in FIG. 60A, the fiber delivered white light 6001 can be submerged under the water and provide a uniform light underneath the water.”
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 LiFi pool cleaning robot of Regev with the swimming pool and LiFi lighting system of Raring with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the dock to communicate seamlessly with the pool cleaning robot without the need for a floating communication apparatus, for example.
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 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