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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-22 are pending:
Claims 1-14 are rejected.
Claims 15-22 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-22 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/11/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang (USPN 3,859,214) in view of Buccheri (IT MO20100266).
Regarding claim 1, Lang teaches an integrated pool pad system (filter equipment house 12, see Figs. 1-2 and C5/L30-40), comprising:
a housing (i.e. house 12) having an inlet port (line 20 to pump 22), an outlet port (outlet 27), and…the inlet port (i.e. line 20 to pump 22) and the outlet port (i.e. outlet 27) in communication with a body of water (see Fig. 6);
a pump (pump 22) contained within the housing (see Fig. 2) and in fluid communication with the inlet port and the outlet port (see Fig. 6);
a filter (lint and hair strainer 24) contained within the housing (see Fig. 2) and in fluid communication with the inlet port and the outlet port (see Fig. 6); and
a control unit (an electronic control device, see C4/L35-40)…the control unit including a user interface (corresponds to the control panel within of housing 12 shown in Fig. 2).
Lang does not teach that the control unit is configured to control operation of the pump, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller (i.e. electronic controller) of Lang by configuring the control unit to control the operation of the pump because electronic controllers are conventionally known to automate operation of pool pumps, thereby reducing manual intervention and improving operational efficiency. To provide a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity, which accomplishes the same result, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192 (CCPA 1958) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Lang further teaches the filter apparatus house is completely wired with electrical leads terminating in a junction box outside the house (see C7/L20-30); however does not explicitly teach a power distributor.
In a related field of endeavor, Buccheri teaches equipment for water treatment (see ABS) comprising a power distributor (power distribution section 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pool pad system of Lang by incorporating a power distributor as disclosed by Buccheri because it is known that a power distribution system safely, reliably and efficiently delivers electricality to end-user. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding claim 5, Lang and Buccheri teach the integrated pool pad system of claim 1, wherein the inlet port (Lang, i.e. 20) receives water from one or more bodies of water (Lang, pool 6) and the outlet port (Lang, i.e. 27) distributes water to the one or more bodies of water (Lang, i.e. pool 6).
Regarding claim 8, Lang and Buccheri teach the integrated pool pad system of claim 1.
Lang does not teach that the user interface is provided on a remote-control device.
Buccheri further teaches the user interface is provided on a remote-control device (“control unit …is associated with a remote-control system…for remote control of the alarm signals and operating parameters.”, see pg. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the user interface of Lang by configuring on a remote-control device as disclosed by Buccheri because it allows for remote control of alarm signal and operating parameters (Buccheri, see pg. 9).
Regarding claim 9, Lang and Buccheri teach the integrated pool pad system of claim 1, wherein an external pool device is electrically coupled to the power distributor (Buccheri, “the ozone production means 11 are powered by the power distribution section 30”, see pg. 10). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the location of the ozone production means 11 reads on “external” because it is separate from the power distribution device 30 as shown in Fig. 1 of Buccheri.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang (USPN 3,859,214) in view of Buccheri (IT MO20100266) and further in view of Carignan (CA 2286469).
Regarding claim 2, Lang and Buccheri teach the integrated pool pad system of claim 1, furthe1r comprising: a strainer (Lang, i.e. lint and hair strainer 24) coupled to the inlet port (Lang, see Fig. 6)…Lang further discloses a filter tank 10 separate from the strainer 24 (see Fig. 2).
The combination does not teach a strainer compartment integrated with the housing, wherein the strainer is separately accessible from the pump and the filter.
In a related field of endeavor, Carignan teaches a swimming pool panel module with integral universal enclosure and skimmer (see ABS) comprising a strainer compartment (skimmer compartment/reservoir 20 houses strainer 21) integrated with the housing (“skimmer assembly is provided in the panel module 10 and comprises a specially wide water intake funnel 12 and a skimmer reservoir 20 both moulded integral with the front panel 11 and forming a skimmer compartment extending practically from one side to the other of said front panel”, see pg. 8), wherein the strainer is separately accessible from the pump and the filter (Fig. 2 shows strainer compartment/reservoir 20 separately accessible from pump 101 and filter 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lang by arranging the filter within the filter equipment housing and incorporating a strainer compartment integrated with the housing such that the strainer is separately accessible from the pump and the filter as disclosed by Carignan because it is an efficient safety feature (Carignan, see pg. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Lang and Buccheri teach the integrated pool pad system of claim 1.
The combination does not teach that the housing is at least partially recessed into a ground surface.
In a related field of endeavor, Carignan teaches a swimming pool panel module with integral universal enclosure and skimmer (see ABS) comprising housing (universal enclosure equipment compartment 24) is at least partially recessed into a ground surface (“in-ground swimming pool panel module with integral universal enclosure and skimmer”, see pg. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the housing of Lang by arranging said housing in the ground as disclosed by Carignan because it reduces costs by eliminating relative movement, protecting piping and reducing pressure drop in the piping network (Carignan, see pg. 2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang (USPN 3,859,214) in view of Buccheri (IT MO20100266) and further in view of Howard (USPN 3,581,895).
Regarding claim 3, Lang and Buccheri teach the integrated pool pad system of claim 1, further comprising at least one automated valve (Lang, valves shown in Fig. 6) in communication with the control unit (Lang, “the valve can be closed tight by manipulation of controls at ground level”, see C2/L15-25)…
The combination does not teach the control unit designed to open and close the at least one automated valve to backwash the filter.
In a related field of endeavor, Howard teaches an automatic filter system for swimming pools (see ABS) comprising a control unit (control means) designed to open and close the at least one automated valve to backwash the filter (“the reversal of valve means which reverses the flow in the filter and backwashes the debris into a separating tank where the debris is collected from the backwash flow which is then returned to the swimming pool”, see ABS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control unit and valve of Lang by configuring the control unit to open and close the valve to backwash the filter as disclosed by Howard because it provides a system which is relatively simple and uncomplicated to perform backwashing operation to restore the filter to maximum filtering condition (Howard, see C1/L35-50).
Claim 4 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang (USPN 3,859,214) in view of Buccheri (IT MO20100266) and further in view of Gimeno (US 2020/0052924).
Regarding claim 4, Lang and Buccheri teach the integrated pool pad system of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the housing includes an access panel, the power distributor is provided in the form of a load center, and the load center is accessible from outside of the housing via the access panel.
In a related field of endeavor, Gimeno teaches a wireless outdoor control panel (see ABS) comprising housing includes an access panel (local panel 201), the power distributor is provided in the form of a load center (load center, see ¶45), and the load center is accessible from outside of the housing via the access panel (“present invention allows for an Internet-of-Things outdoor control panel that provides control and connectivity to home-based systems”, see ¶42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the power distributor of Lang (as modified by Buccheri) by configuring in the form a load center as disclosed by Gimeno because it provides a single device for powering multiple analog and digital components (Gimeno, see ¶2).
Claims 6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang (USPN 3,859,214) in view of Buccheri (IT MO20100266) and further in view of Palmer (US 2012/0205302).
Regarding claim 6, Lang and Buccheri teach the integrated pool pad system of claim 1.
The combination does not teach sound-absorbing panels positioned within the housing.
In a related of endeavor, Palmer teaches filtration unit system (see ABS) comprising sound-absorbing panels (sound dampening material, see ¶58) positioned within the housing (“Walls of the support base may be solid or define a hollow between two spaced walls around the recess…hollow may be filled with a sound dampening material such as expanded foam”, see ¶58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pool pad system of Lang by incorporating the sound-absorbing panels (i.e. walls comprising sound dampening material) as disclosed by Palmer because it suppresses the noise of a motor of the pump (Palmer, see ¶4); which is desirable feature in Lang because Lang provides a pump motor in the filter housing.
Regarding claim 10, Lang and Buccheri teach the integrated pool pad system of claim 1, wherein the housing (Lang, i.e. house 12) is designed to …receive a pool device (Lang, feeders 63 and 65) such that the pool device is fluidly coupled to the inlet port and the outlet port (Lang, see Fig. 6), and the pool device is electrically coupled to the power distributor (Lang as modified by Buccheri teaches the claimed limitation).
The combination does not teach that the housing is designed to modularly receive the pool device.
In a related field of endeavor, Palmer teaches a filtration unit system (see ABS) a housing (cradle 22) designed to modularly (modular design, see ¶79) receive the pool device (“said cradle adapted to receive a filter”, see ¶42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the housing of Lang by configuring the housing to modularly receive the pool device as disclosed by Palmer because it allows for many permutations and combinations to be easily assembled (Palmer, see ¶79).
Regarding claim 11, Lang, Buccheri and Palmer teach the integrated pool pad system of claim 10, wherein the pool device is…a chemical dispenser (Lang, i.e. feeders 63 and 65)….
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang (USPN 3,859,214) in view of Buccheri (IT MO20100266) in view of Palmer (US 2012/0205302) and further in view of Miller (US 2023/0137224).
Regarding claim 12, Lang, Buccheri and Palmer teach the integrated pool pad system of claim 10.
The combination does not teach that the control unit provides a suggested operation schedule for the pump based on a category of the pool device.
In a related field of endeavor, Miller teaches a variable speed pumping system and method (see ABS) comprising a control unit (“a controller configured to provide user control of the variable speed drive, and an electrical communication assembly in communication with the controller”, see ¶17) providing a suggested operation schedule for the pump based on a category of the pool device (“the updated pump operation schedule is defined by one or more of a turnover rate, a speed of the pool pump, a flow rate of the pool pump, or an activation time period of the pool pump”, see ¶12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control unit of Lang by configuring said control to provides a suggested operation schedule for the pump based on a category of the pool device as disclosed by Miller because it reduces pump operating costs (Miller, see ¶108).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang (USPN 3,859,214) in view of Buccheri (IT MO20100266) in view of Palmer (US 2012/0205302) and further in view of Stiles (USPN 10,583,378).
Regarding claim 13, Lang, Buccheri and Palmer teach the integrated pool pad system of claim 10, wherein the pool device includes: …a chemical dispenser (Lang, i.e. feeders 63 and 65) for dispensing one or more chemicals into the fluid flowing through the housing (Lang, “chemicals are added by feeders 63 and 65”, C3/L50-60).
Lang does not teach a sensor for sensing one or more physical properties of fluid flowing through the housing.
In a related field of endeavor, Stiles teaches system and method for a filter system (see ABS) comprising a sensor (sensor(s) 107) for sensing one or more physical properties of fluid flowing through the housing (“sensors 107 may be used to generate a signal indicative of a process parameter, such as a pressure, a temperature, a flow rate, a fluid level, a fluid density, a count, or an operation time”, see C7/L50-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pool pad system of Lang by incorporating the sound-absorbing panels (i.e. walls comprising sound dampening material) as disclosed by Palmer because it suppresses the noise of a motor of the pump (Palmer, see ¶4); which is desirable feature in Lang because Lang provides a pump motor in the equipment housing.
Regarding claim 14, Lang, Buccheri and Stiles teach the integrated pool pad system of claim 13, wherein the sensor detects or measures one or more of an oxidation-reduction potential value, a pH value, a temperature value (Stiles, i.e. sensor(s) 107 generate a signal indicative of a temperature)…
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights