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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s traversal arguments with respect to the restriction requirement have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restriction requirement of record has been withdrawn, and claims 1-20 are examined below.
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, 5-7, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0056890 by Newman et al. (hereinafter “Newman”), further in view of US2019/0284827 by Witelson et al. (hereinafter “Witelson”).
Regarding claim 1, Newman teaches A docking system for an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC) includes a . See for example paragraphs [0011] and [0014], where the floating object 14 includes an underwater camera for navigating the APC.
Newman does not explicitly teach a dock.
However, Witelson teaches a dock for a pool cleaner. See for example paragraphs [0092]-[0104] describing the pool cleaning robot and its floating unit, to which the robot can attach in order to charge its batteries. See also Figures 1 and 2. See also paragraph [0090], where the floating unit can include a camera and other sensors.
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 floating guidance system of Newman with the floating charging unit of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the robot to be wireless and even recharge without leaving the pool, preventing wire tangles of the robot. See Witelson ¶¶ [0002]-[0003], [0109].
Regarding claim 16, Newman teaches A docking system for an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC), the docking system comprising a camera configured to monitor a target area within a swimming pool or spa, wherein the docking system is configured to (i) identify a location of the APC within the target area based on a detection of the APC within the target area using the camera and (ii) send location information to the APC based on the detection using the camera. See for example paragraphs [0011] and [0014], where the floating object 14 includes an underwater camera for navigating the APC. See paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0032], where the camera identifies the APC location in the pool. See also paragraphs [0019]-[0023] where the system conveys the location information to the APC.
Newman does not explicitly teach a dock.
However, Witelson teaches a dock for a pool cleaner. See for example paragraphs [0092]-[0104] describing the pool cleaning robot and its floating unit, to which the robot can attach in order to charge its batteries. See also Figures 1 and 2. See also paragraph [0090], where the floating unit can include a camera and other sensors.
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 floating guidance system of Newman with the floating charging unit of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the robot to be wireless and even recharge without leaving the pool, preventing wire tangles of the robot. See Witelson ¶¶ [0002]-[0003], [0109].
Regarding claim 2, Newman teaches The docking system of claim 1, further comprising a sensor in addition to the underwater-facing camera, wherein the sensor is configured to gather information about the APC. See for example the depth sensor of paragraph [0016], which is arranged on the APC (and not the floating object), reading on The docking system of claim 1, further comprising a sensor…. Alternatively, see the LIDAR on the floating object described in paragraphs [0012]-[0013], which is used to determine the location of the APC [0015]. See also the inertial measurement unit described in paragraphs [0017] and [0034].
Regarding claim 3, Newman teaches further comprising a sensor in addition to the underwater-facing camera, wherein the sensor is configured to gather non-visual information for controlling the APC or other equipment for a swimming pool or spa. See for example the depth sensor of paragraph [0016], which is arranged on the APC. Alternatively, see the LIDAR on the floating object described in paragraphs [0012]-[0013] (reading on non-visual sensor), which is used to determine the location of the APC [0015].
Claim 14 has similar limitations to claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, Newman teaches wherein the docking system is configured to identify a location of the APC within a swimming pool or spa based on data from the camera. See paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0032], where the camera identifies the APC location in the pool.
Regarding claim 6, Newman teaches wherein the camera is configured to detect the APC within a target area and send a location of the APC within the target area based on the detection of the APC by the camera. In addition to paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0032] above, see also paragraphs [0019]-[0023] where the system conveys the location information to the APC.
Regarding claim 7, Newman teaches wherein the APC comprises a location communicator and wherein the camera is configured to monitor the APC by detecting at least the location communicator. See for example paragraphs [0015]-[0017] where the APC has a suitable marker (location communicator) so the camera can track its position.
Claims 13 and 20 have similar limitations to claim 7 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 9, Newman teaches wherein the location communicator is configured to provide location information based on a characteristic of the location communicator. See for example paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0032], where the APC has a suitable marker (location communicator) so the camera can track its position in the pool based on identifying the marker.
Claim 19 has similar limitations to claim 9 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, Newman teaches wherein the docking station comprises a location communicator on the dock, and wherein the location communicator is configured to provide location information to the APC within a swimming pool or spa. See for example paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0032], where the APC has a suitable marker (location communicator) so the camera can track its position in the pool based on identifying the marker. See also paragraphs [0019]-[0023] where the system conveys the location information to the APC.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman in view of Witelson as applied to claims 3 and 14 above, and further in view of US2014/0263087 by Renaud et al. (hereinafter “Renaud”).
Regarding claim 4, Newman does not explicitly teach, but Renaud does teach wherein the non-visual information comprises oxidation-reduction potential information, pH information, temperature information, conductivity information, and/or salinity information. See for example paragraph [0029], where the docking station can including pH sensors.
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 floating guidance system of Newman, modified by the floating charging unit of Witelson, with the additional sensors of Renaud with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to measure important pool information, such as the pH levels, to report the to the user or otherwise regulate them.
Claim 15 has similar limitations to claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman in view of Witelson as applied to claims 3 and 17 above, and further in view of US2020/0250337 by Armon et al. (hereinafter “Armon”).
Regarding claim 8, Newman does not explicitly teach, but Armon teaches wherein the location communicator comprises a light source. See for example paragraph [0072] where the pool cleaning robot can include a light source.
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 floating guidance system of Newman, modified by the floating charging unit of Witelson, with the light source of Armon with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the Newman’s camera system to more easily detect the pool cleaning robot when the water is murky or at night.
Claim 18 has similar limitations to claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US2020/0333797 by Durvasula et al. teaching a pool cleaning robot system that navigates using external cameras.
CN217326669U by Yu et al. teaching an underwater docking station.
US2020/0311227 by Bennett et al. teaching a control system that remotely controls devices including navigating the pool robots, as well as an underwater charging unit.
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