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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1,5,7 and 15 are amended.
Claims 4,12,13,14,17 and 18 are cancelled.
Claims 21,22,23 and 24 are new claims added.
Claims 1-3,5-11,15-16,19-24 are pending.
Response to arguments
Amendment does not overcome 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, so Examiner maintained 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant’s amendments are entered. Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record. A new search was made necessitated by the applicant’s amendments and remarks. A new reference was found. A new rejection is made herein. Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new rejection of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3,5-11,15-16, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “normal relationship” in claims 1, 7,15,23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal relationship” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “abnormal behavior” in claims 1, 5,7,15, 21 and 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “abnormal behavior” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 1-3,5-11,15-16, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim 5, recites “The method of claim [[4]], wherein…” The limitation is unclear which claim is depended on. To the best of Examiner’s knowledge, the office has interpreted the limitation as “the method of claim 1”. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3,5-11,15-16,19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “responsive to the determined abnormal behavior, triggering a maintenance routine by the APC”. However, the above limitation is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art. The relevant portion of the specification states that “The pool system 100 may include one or more pieces of equipment 102 for performing various actions related to performance and maintenance of the pool”, “The pool system 100 may include one or more pieces of equipment 102 for performing various actions related to performance and maintenance of the pool.”
Claim 23, recites “wherein triggering the maintenance routine by the APC comprises” and claim 24 recites “wherein triggering the maintenance routine comprises”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3,5-11,15-16,19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 1:
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories?
Yes. The claim is directed toward identifying and comparison characteristics of device and mental process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1
A method of controlling an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC), the method comprising
Receiving by a control system characteristics of at least two similar electromechanical devices onboard the APC
Determining a normal relationship between a characteristic of a first of the at least two similar electromechanical devices and a characteristic of a second of the at least two similar electromechanical devices,
Determining an abnormal behavior of the APC based on a divergence from the normal relationship, and
Response to the determined abnormal behavior, triggering a maintenance routine by the APC
The method in claim 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of claim 1 highlighted above merely consist of comparing characteristics of at least two similar electromechanical devices and identifying abnormal behavior based on a divergence from the normal relationship. These steps are merely identifying and compare the relationship of the electronics devices. More specifically, a person can mentally identify and compare the behavior of device. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The behavior of electromechanical devices (pump, motors, sensors etc) are claimed to identify and compare where the electro mechanical devices operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-6 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, the limitations of claims 2 and 3 are further limitations that electromechanical devices are motors and sensors, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using a similar analysis to claim 1 above.
Analysis of Claim 7: A pool system comprising: a controller; and a plurality of devices, the plurality of devices comprising a plurality of pieces of pool equipment of the pool system, wherein the controller is communicatively coupled to each of the plurality of pieces of pool equipment, and wherein the controller is configured to receive an operating characteristic of a first device of the plurality of devices and an operating characteristic of a second device of the plurality devices,
determine a normal relationship for the first device by comparing (a) the operating characteristic of the first device with the operating characteristics of the second device, or
(b) comparing the operating characteristics of the first device an average value of an operating characteristic of the plurality of devices; monitor the normal relationship for the first device and detect a divergence from the normal relationship;
(ii) determine an abnormal behavior in the first device based on the divergence from the normal relationship.
Generate a control response correcting the abnormal behavior or reducing an effect of the abnormal behavior on the pool or spa system.
Analysis of Claim 15: A method of controlling equipment of a pool or spa system,
receiving by a control system, an operating characteristic of a first device and an operating characteristic of a second device, wherein the first and second devices are pool equipment of the pool or spa system;
determine a normal relationship between the first device and the second device by comparing an operating characteristic of the first device with an operating characteristic of the second device,
monitoring the normal relationship and detecting a divergence from the normal relationship,
determining an abnormal behavior for the first device or the second device based on the divergence from the normal relationship, and
generating a control response correcting the abnormal behavior or reducing an effect of the abnormal behavior on the pool or spa system.
With respect to claims 7 and 15, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 1 which is commensurate in scope to claims 7 and 15, with claim 1 being drawn to a method of controlling an APC, claim 7 being drawn to a pool system, and claim 15 being drawn to a method of controlling equipment of a pool or spa system.
Dependent claims 2-3,5-6,8-11,16,19-24 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, the limitations of claims 16 and 17 are further limitations that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using a similar analysis to claim 15 above.
As such, claims 1-3,5-11,15-16,19-24 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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 1-3,5-11,15-16,19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over WO 2019152665 A2 to Potucek et al. (herein after “Potucek”) in view of US6309468B1 to Sommer (herein after “Sommer”).
Regarding claim 1, Potucek teaches Currently Amended) A method of controlling an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC), the method comprising (see Potucek [page 1] systems and methods for providing network connectivity and remote monitoring, optimization and control of pool/spa equipment)
(i) receiving, by a control system, characteristics of at least two similar electromechanical devices onboard the APC (see Potucek [page 10]The sensor interface subsystem allows the network communication and local control subsystem to obtain information from a wide variety of sensors associated with pool/spa equipment, as well as other types of sensors. )
(ii) determining a normal relationship between a characteristic of a first of the at least two similar electromechanical devices and a characteristic of a second of the at least two similar electromechanical devices;
(see Potucek Sensors dedicated to specific pool equipment (e.g., pressure sensors, flow sensors or temp sensors in the heater used to manage pump speed, control valve positions, etc.) could share data with the controller to manage other pool equipment (e.g., to optimize performance), rather than requiring dedicated sensors for each device.)
However, Potucek expressly disclose or otherwise teach (iii) determining an abnormal behavior of the APC based on a divergence from the normal relationship, and (iv) responsive to the determined abnormal behavior, triggering a maintenance routine by the APC. Nevertheless, Sommer same field of endeavor teaches (iii) determining an abnormal behavior of the APC based on a divergence from the normal relationship (See Sommer [column 6 lines 13-18] wherein the control apparatus possesses, for each part of the drive mechanism, a speed regulating apparatus and means); and
(iv) responsive to the determined abnormal behavior, triggering a maintenance routine by the APC. (sommer claim 4. The method according to claim 3, where in the method further comprises triggering an operation of change of direction after contact is made with a swimming pool wall by one of the contact means for generating control signals arranged at the front and rear)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Potucek’s system and method for monitoring and control of pool equipment with Sommer’s drive mechanism for differentially controlling of the two motors in order to allow to regulate the speed of the two motors and to avoid actual collision with the swimming pool wall or the obstacle (see Sommer column 3).
Regarding claim 2, Potucek and Sommer remain applied as claim 1. However, Potucek expressly disclose or otherwise teach wherein the two similar electromechanical devices comprise two traction motors of the APC. Nevertheless, Sommer same field of endeavor teaches wherein the two similar electromechanical devices comprise two traction motors of the APC. (see Sommer abstract The control apparatus has a speed regulation apparatus for each part of the drive mechanism and has means for differentially controlling the speed of the two motors.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Potucek’s system and method for monitoring and control of pool equipment with Sommer’s drive mechanism for differentially controlling of the two motors in order to allow to regulate the speed of the two motors and to avoid actual collision with the swimming pool wall or the obstacle (see Sommer column 3).
Regarding claim 3, Potucek and Sommer remain applied as claim 1. Potucek teaches wherein the two similar electromechanical devices comprise two sensors of the APC. (see Potucek Sensors dedicated to specific pool equipment (e.g., pressure sensors, flow sensors or temp sensors in the heater used to manage pump speed, control valve positions, etc.) could share data with the controller to manage other pool equipment (e.g., to optimize performance), rather than requiring dedicated sensors for each device.)
Regarding claim 5, Potucek and Sommer remain applied as claim 1. Potucek teaches further comprising predicting a future failure by the APC responsive to the determined abnormal behavior. (See Potucek Health monitoring data 916 could include line-to-line balance, grounding, bonding, leak current, runtime, operating temperature, power consumption, predictive failure, operating noise, power cycles, airflow sensor, temperature of cooling, efficiency, settings, troubleshooting data, etc. [page 187] The system could store the operating profile and/or environment of the devices captured by the hub or in the devices and relayed to the hub (which could support the predictive failure ability as well as supports warranty analysis claims). )
Regarding claim 6, Potucek and Sommer remain applied as claim 1. Potucek teaches wherein the characteristics of the at least two similar electromechanical devices comprise one or more of an electrical current, power draw, a voltage, a state, or operational data. (see Potucek [page 13] Additionally, the pool hub 230 can control a valve actuator 214e and can receive various sensor inputs 226 and 228, such as temperature sensors, wind speed sensors, runtime sensors, current/voltage usage sensors, flow sensors, heater pressure sensors, water temperature sensors, chlorine sensors, pH/ORP sensors, etc. ).
Regarding claim 7, Potucek teaches A pool system comprising:
a controller (See Potucek electronic pool controller at an equipment pad.); and
a plurality of devices, the plurality of devices comprising a plurality of pieces of pool equipment of the pool system, (See Potucek The subsystems l2a-l2h could communicate with each other over a network 16, which could include, but is not limited to, the Internet. Importantly, the subsystems 12a- l2h provide“Internet-of- Things” functionality for the plurality of pool and spa equipment l4a-l4h)
wherein the controller is communicatively coupled to each of the plurality of pieces of pool equipment (See Potucek figure 5, FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating another embodiment of the present disclosure, indicated generally at 110. In this embodiment, network connectivity and remote monitoring/control of pool and spa components is provided by way of a central pool/spa system controller H4f. The pool/spa system controller H4f could be the OMNILOGIC pool/spa system controller manufactured and sold by Hayward Industries Inc. The pool/spa system controller 114f could communicate with one or more valve actuators H4e, a single speed pump 113, a variable speed pump H4a, pool/spa lighting systems H4h, a pool/spa heating or cooling system 114b, and/or a pool/spa chlorination system H4c, such as a salt chlorinator. ), and wherein the controller is configured to:
receive an operating characteristic of a first device of the plurality of devices and an operating characteristic of a second device of the plurality of devices; (see Potucek the system could store the operating profile and/or environment of the devices captured by the hub or in the devices and relayed to the hub (which could support the predictive failure ability as well as supports warranty analysis claims))
determine a normal relationship for the first device by comparing (a) the operating characteristic of the first device with the operating characteristic of the second device or(see Potucek Sensors dedicated to specific pool equipment (e.g., pressure sensors, flow sensors or temp sensors in the heater used to manage pump speed, control valve positions, etc.) could share data with the controller to manage other pool equipment (e.g., to optimize performance), rather than requiring dedicated sensors for each device.)
(b) comparing the operating characteristic of the first device to an average value of an operating characteristic of the plurality of devices;
monitor the normal relationship for the first device and detect a divergence from the normal relationship (see Potucek In step 3706, the pump control logic 84 compares whether the operational data is within the specified operating parameters of the pump.)
generate a control response correcting the abnormal behavior or reducing an effect of the abnormal behavior on the pool or spa system. (see Potucek If a negative determination is made at step 4148, pump control logic 84 proceeds to step 4158, where pump control logic 84 determines if the operation of the pumping system has been altered (e.g., the output of the pump was previously reduced from normal operating levels))
However, Potucek expressly disclose or otherwise teach determine an abnormal behavior in the first device based on the divergence from the normal relationship. Nevertheless, Sommer same field of endeavor teaches determine an abnormal behavior in the first device based on the divergence from the normal relationship(See Sommer [column 6 lines 13-18] wherein the control apparatus possesses, for each part of the drive mechanism, a speed regulating apparatus and means).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Potucek’s system and method for monitoring and control of pool equipment with Sommer’s drive mechanism for differentially controlling of the two motors in order to allow to regulate the speed of the two motors and to avoid actual collision with the swimming pool wall or the obstacle (see Sommer column 3).
Regarding claim 8, Potucek and Sommer remain applied as claim 7. However, Potucek expressly disclose or otherwise teach wherein the two similar electromechanical devices comprise two traction motors of the APC. Nevertheless, Sommer same field of endeavor teaches wherein the plurality of devices are of the same type. (See Sommer two motors, see Sommer [column 1] The device has two motors, so that the two sides of the drive mechanism can run forwards or backwards or remain stationary independently of each other. )
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Potucek’s system and method for monitoring and control of pool equipment with Sommer’s drive mechanism for differentially controlling of the two motors in order to allow to regulate the speed of the two motors and to avoid actual collision with the swimming pool wall or the obstacle (see Sommer column 3).
Regarding claim 9, Potucek and Sommer remain applied as claim 7. However, Potucek expressly disclose or otherwise teach wherein the plurality of devices comprise two traction motors of an automatic swimming pool cleaner or two sensors of the automatic swimming pool cleaner. Nevertheless, Sommer same field of endeavor teaches wherein the plurality of devices comprise two traction motors of an automatic swimming pool cleaner (See Sommer two motors) or two sensors of the automatic swimming pool cleaner (see Potucek In step 3888, the pump control logic 84 receives operational data from the sensors in the filter and energy consumption in the pump).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Potucek’s system and method for monitoring and control of pool equipment with Sommer’s drive mechanism for differentially controlling of the two motors in order to allow to regulate the speed of the two motors and to avoid actual collision with the swimming pool wall or the obstacle (see Sommer column 3).
Regarding claim 10, Potucek and Sommer remain applied as claim 7. However, Potucek expressly disclose or otherwise teach wherein the plurality of devices are components of a same piece of equipment. Nevertheless, Sommer same field of endeavor teaches wherein the plurality of devices are components of a same piece of equipment. (See Sommer two motors)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Potucek’s system and method for monitoring and control of pool equipment with Sommer’s drive mechanism for differentially controlling of the two motors in order to allow to regulate the speed of the two motors and to avoid actual collision with the swimming pool wall or the obstacle (see Sommer column 3).
Regarding claim 11, Potucek and Sommer remain applied as claim 7. Potucek teaches wherein the piece of equipment comprises at least one of a pump, and automatic swimming pool cleaner, a heater (See Potucek FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating another embodiment of the system of the present disclosure, wherein remote connectivity is provided by way of a pool“hub” component 230. The pool hub component 230 includes a subset of the functional features of the pool/spa system controller H4f of FIG. 5, such as basic on/off control relays, the ability to select a pump speed, the ability to select heater temperature, ), a skimmer (See Potucek skimmer operation), or a pool light (See Potucek the ability to control pool light colors and shows,).
Regarding claim 15, Potucek teaches A method of controlling equipment of a pool or spa system, the method comprising
receiving, by a control system, an operating characteristic of a first device and an operating characteristic of a second device, wherein the first and second devices are pool equipment of the pool or spa system; (see Potucek [page 10]The sensor interface subsystem allows the network communication and local control subsystem to obtain information from a wide variety of sensors associated with pool/spa equipment, as well as other types of sensors. )
determining a normal relationship between the first device and the second device by comparing an operating characteristic of the first device with an operating characteristic of the second device; (see Potucek Sensors dedicated to specific pool equipment (e.g., pressure sensors, flow sensors or temp sensors in the heater used to manage pump speed, control valve positions, etc.) could share data with the controller to manage other pool equipment (e.g., to optimize performance), rather than requiring dedicated sensors for each device.)
monitoring the normal relationship and detecting a divergence from the normal relationship; (see Potucek In step 3706, the pump control logic 84 compares whether the operational data is within the specified operating parameters of the pump.)
generating a control response correcting the abnormal behavior or reducing an effect of the abnormal behavior on the pool or spa system. (see Potucek If a negative determination is made at step 4148, pump control logic 84 proceeds to step 4158, where pump control logic 84 determines if the operation of the pumping system has been altered (e.g., the output of the pump was previously reduced from normal operating levels))
However, Potucek expressly disclose or otherwise teach determining an abnormal behavior for the first device or the second device based on the divergence from the normal relationship. Nevertheless, Sommer same field of endeavor teaches determining an abnormal behavior for the first device or the second device based on the divergence from the normal relationship(See Sommer [column 6 lines 13-18] wherein the control apparatus possesses, for each part of the drive mechanism, a speed regulating apparatus and means).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Potucek’s system and method for monitoring and control of pool equipment with Sommer’s drive mechanism for differentially controlling of the two motors in order to allow to regulate the speed of the two motors and to avoid actual collision with the swimming pool wall or the obstacle (see Sommer column 3).
Regarding claim 16, Potucek and Sommer remain applied as claim 15. Potucek teaches wherein the signals comprise electrical signals, sound signals, or optical signals. (See Potucek [page 98] The lighting control logic 78 can also manage and/or control the brightness of a plurality of lights in response to noise or sound. An ambient noise or sound sensor can be used to detect a plurality of bathers ingress and egress from the swimming pool and even the bathers voices)
Regarding claim 19, Potucek and Sommer remain applied as claim 15. However, Potucek expressly disclose or otherwise teach wherein the operating characteristics of the first device and the second device are a same type of operating characteristic. Nevertheless, Sommer same field of endeavor teaches wherein the operating characteristics of the first device and the second device are a same type of operating characteristic. (See Sommer, two motors)
Regarding claim 20, Potucek and Sommer remain applied as claim 15. Potucek teaches wherein the operating characteristic of a first device of the at least two devices is a first type of operating characteristic,
and wherein the operating characteristic of a second device of the at least two devices is a second type of operating characteristic different from the first type of operating characteristic. (see Potucek Additionally, the pool hub 230 can control a valve actuator 214e and can receive various sensor inputs 226 and 228, such as temperature sensors, wind speed sensors, runtime sensors, current/voltage usage sensors, flow sensors, heater pressure sensors, water temperature sensors, chlorine sensors, pH/ORP sensors, etc.)
Regarding claim 21, Potucek and Sommer remain applied as claim 15. Potucek teaches wherein determining the abnormal behavior comprises determining whether the divergence corresponds to a temporary problem or a lasting problem. (See potucek The status page could also provide a solution to a particular connection problem associated with a color. Further, the system could prompt the user to contact the manufacturer in the event that a problem is not known or that the problem is known to not be resolvable through a troubleshooting manual.)
Regarding claim 22, Potucek and Sommer remain applied as claim 15. Potucek teaches wherein the operating characteristics comprises an electrical current, a power draw, a voltage, or an operational state. (see Potucek [page 13] Additionally, the pool hub 230 can control a valve actuator 214e and can receive various sensor inputs 226 and 228, such as temperature sensors, wind speed sensors, runtime sensors, current/voltage usage sensors, flow sensors, heater pressure sensors, water temperature sensors, chlorine sensors, pH/ORP sensors, etc. ).
Regarding claim 23, Potucek and Sommer remain applied as claim 1. Potucek teaches wherein triggering the maintenance routine by the APC comprises one or more of controlling operation of the APC, controlling a light on the APC (See Potucek FIG. 24 is a diagram illustrating the lighting control logic of FIG. 3;) , diagnosing a type of problem and providing diagnostic information to a user (See Potucek [page 166] preemptively address problems before they occur, and/or provide alerts if a problem does occur. The system 7100 can further provide documentation of problems, provide suggested solutions to problems, identification of problems prior to a pool/spa service technician (“servicer”)), initiating shipping or sending of a replacement piece of equipment (See Potucek [page 53] For example, a skimmer could communicate (using and of the data communication protocols disclosed herein) to pump control logic 84 that the filter has been cleaned or replaced, or the user could utilize an input device to indicate to pump control logic 84 that the filter has been cleaned or replaced), communicating to an end user, or changing a frequency of monitoring of the normal relationship.
Regarding claim 24, Potucek and Sommer remain applied as claim 1. Potucek teaches wherein triggering the maintenance routine comprises controlling the APC to correct the abnormal behavior or to reduce an effect of the abnormal behavior on operation of the APC. (See Potucek Installers often add completely isolated plumbing systems only for water features to avoid this undesired behavior. ; see [page 133] pool control logic 70 could transmit an instruction to a device to reduce operation until the device is only consuming power at low, predefined setpoint. In addition to the examples discussed hereinabove, in connection with FIGS. 33T - 33Y, web data (e.g., 3rd party Web advised conditions, energy cost, weather, environmental, etc.) could be used to prompt/trigger pool control logic 70 (e.g., pump control, valve control, lighting control, cleaner control, etc.) to adjust speed, flow, position, mode, performance, behavior, etc. of any piece of pool equipment or feature, or any other device in communication with the system 10, to reduce energy costs, or to return to a previous state.)
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 NAZIA AFRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-6.
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, Scott A Browne can be reached at 5712700151. 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.
/NAZIA AFRIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3666