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. 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: the replacement drawings do not include reference leaders to the pool edge “103”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2014/0263087 by Renaud et al. (hereinafter “Renaud”), further in view of US2020/0056890 by Newman et al. (hereinafter “Newman”).
US2020/0056890 by Newman et al. (hereinafter “Newman”), further in view of US2019/0284827 by Witelson et al. (hereinafter “Witelson”).
Regarding claim 1, Renaud teaches teaches A docking system for an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC), the docking system comprising: a dock comprising (i) a support surface for the APC and (ii) a ground-engaging foot; . See for example paragraph [0026] where the docking station is positioned on the edge of a swimming pool, with a mating surface resting on the swimming pool edge, reading on a ground-engaging foot. See also paragraphs [0033]-[0034], where the pool cleaner docks with the docking station to recharge or otherwise be inactive, including through use of a locking mechanism for detachably securing the cleaner, reading on a support surface for the APC.
Renaud does not explicitly teach an underwater-facing camera, wherein the underwater-facing camera is configured to monitor the APC underwater. Although Renaud states that the processing for the pool cleaner’s vision can be located on the docking station, and might be implying that the vision system and optic sensors themselves might be on the docking station (see, e.g., paragraph [0029]), Renaud does not explicitly teach that the dock has a camera.
However, Newman teaches an underwater-facing camera, wherein the underwater-facing camera is configured to monitor the APC underwater. See for example paragraphs [0011] and [0014], where the dock includes an underwater camera for navigating the APC.
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 docking station of Renaud with the underwater camera system of Newman with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the dock to assist in navigation, improving the performance of the pool cleaner and reducing the need for supervision. Renaud already describes the benefits of a cleaning system in paragraphs [0031] and [0042], and Newman’s provision of a camera on the dock allows the pool cleaner to more efficiently navigate to dirty areas.
Claims 10 and 16 have similar limitations to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Renaud 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 vision system described in paragraph [0029] which appears to be located on the cleaning robot, reading on The docking system of claim 1, further comprising a sensor…. That system is used for navigating the pool robot.
Claim 12 has similar limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 3, Renaud 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 vision system described in paragraph [0029] which appears to be located on the cleaning robot and includes other sensors such as “pressure sensor(s), flow sensor(s), distance sensor(s), optical sensors, heat sensors, turbidity sensors, pH sensors.” That system is used for navigating the pool robot.
Claim 14 has similar limitations to claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Renaud teaches 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.
Claim 15 has similar limitations to claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, Renaud does not explicitly teach, but 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.
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 docking station of Renaud with the underwater camera system of Newman with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the dock to assist in navigation, improving the performance of the pool cleaner and reducing the need for supervision. Renaud already describes the benefits of a cleaning system in paragraphs [0031] and [0042], and Newman’s provision of a camera on the dock allows the pool cleaner to more efficiently navigate to dirty areas.
Regarding claim 6, Renaud does not explicitly teach, but 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.
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 docking station of Renaud with the underwater camera system of Newman with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the dock to assist in navigation, improving the performance of the pool cleaner and reducing the need for supervision. Renaud already describes the benefits of a cleaning system in paragraphs [0031] and [0042], and Newman’s provision of a camera on the dock allows the pool cleaner to more efficiently navigate to dirty areas.
Regarding claim 7, Renaud does not explicitly teach, but 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.
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 docking station of Renaud with the underwater camera system of Newman with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the dock to assist in navigation, improving the performance of the pool cleaner and reducing the need for supervision. Renaud already describes the benefits of a cleaning system in paragraphs [0031] and [0042], and Newman’s provision of a camera on the dock allows the pool cleaner to more efficiently navigate to dirty areas.
Claims 13 and 20 have similar limitations to claim 7 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 9, Renaud does not explicitly teach, but 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.
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 docking station of Renaud with the underwater camera system of Newman with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the dock to assist in navigation, improving the performance of the pool cleaner and reducing the need for supervision. Renaud already describes the benefits of a cleaning system in paragraphs [0031] and [0042], and Newman’s provision of a camera on the dock allows the pool cleaner to more efficiently navigate to dirty areas.
Claim 19 has similar limitations to claim 9 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, Renaud does not explicitly teach, but 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.
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 docking station of Renaud with the underwater camera system of Newman with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the dock to assist in navigation, improving the performance of the pool cleaner and reducing the need for supervision. Renaud already describes the benefits of a cleaning system in paragraphs [0031] and [0042], and Newman’s provision of a camera on the dock allows the pool cleaner to more efficiently navigate to dirty areas.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaud in view of as applied to claims 3 and 17 above, and further in view of US2020/0250337 by Armon et al. (hereinafter “Armon”).
Regarding claim 8, Renaud 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 docking station of Renaud, modified by the underwater camera system of Newman, with the light source of Armon with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the 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:
US2021/0276441 by Ben-David et al. teaching visually navigating robots (including pool robots) to a docking station.
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