The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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 5 and 10-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 10-14 recite the limitation "the piece of equipment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a “piece of equipment” has not been previously claimed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 11-14 are “the piece of equipment of Claim 10”, however, Claim 10 is “An automatic pool cleaner (APC) (swimming pool cleaning unit 10) for a swimming pool or spa or a docking station for the APC” without antecedent basis to “the piece of equipment”. Therefore, they are not clearly connected. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michelon et al. US 10,316,534 (hereafter Michelon et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Michelon et al. anticipates:
1. An automatic pool cleaner (APC) (swimming pool cleaning unit 10) for a swimming pool or spa or a docking station for the APC, the APC and/or the docking station comprising a sensor (pressure sensor 21) configured to detect water (detects immersion by sensing pressure) without contacting water (protected from water by being housed inside a sealed box or coated with resin).
Regarding Claim 2, Michelon et al. anticipates:
2. The APC or docking station of claim 1, wherein the sensor (pressure sensor 21) comprises a conductivity or resistivity sensor (piezoresistive type pressure sensor, Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Michelon et al. anticipates:
5. The APC or docking station of claim 1, wherein the piece of equipment (swimming pool cleaning unit 10) comprises a wall (flexible membrane 42) at least partially defining a dry area (surface inside sealed box 41, Figure 4b), wherein a surface of the wall opposite from the dry area (surface outside sealed box 41, Figure 4b) is configured to be exposed to water (Figure 4a), and wherein the sensor (pressure sensor 21) is within the dry area (Figure 4b).
Regarding Claim 6, Michelon et al. anticipates:
6. A method of operating an automatic pool cleaner (APC) (swimming pool cleaning unit 10) for a swimming pool or spa or a docking station for the APC, the method comprising detecting a presence or absence of water on at least one of the APC (detects immersion by sensing pressure) or the docking station with a contactless water sensor (pressure sensor 21 - protected from water by being housed inside a sealed box or coated with resin), and generating an output based on the detected presence or absence of water (transmits a signal proportional the ambient pressure at the location (immersion depth) at which the cleaning robot 10 is moving).
Regarding Claim 7, Michelon et al. anticipates:
7. The method of claim 6, wherein generating the output comprises causing the APC (swimming pool cleaning unit 10) to initiate a cleaning cycle based on the detected presence of water on the APC (“The automatic pressure control means compare the measured value of the pressure with a value usually called the set value that is established manually or preferably automatically by the control means. In particular, the set value can indicate an immersion depth to which the cleaning robot must move for a predetermined duration. Starting from the difference between the measured value and the set value, the automatic control means modify at least one of the parameters of the drive and guidance means so as to guide the robot to the required immersion depth.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Michelon et al. anticipates:
10. An automatic pool cleaner (APC) (swimming pool cleaning unit 10) for a swimming pool or spa or a docking station for the APC, the APC or the docking station comprising a wall (flexible membrane 42) and a contactless water sensor (pressure sensor 21), wherein the wall comprises a first side (surface inside sealed box 41, Figure 4b) at least partially defining a dry area (sealed box) of the piece of equipment and a second side (surface outside sealed box 41, Figure 4b) configured to be exposed to water (Figure 4a), wherein the contactless water sensor is within the dry area (Figure 4b).
Regarding Claim 12, Michelon et al. anticipates:
12. The piece of equipment of claim 10, wherein the APC (swimming pool cleaning unit 10) is configured to initiate a cleaning cycle based on the detected presence of water (“The automatic pressure control means compare the measured value of the pressure with a value usually called the set value that is established manually or preferably automatically by the control means. In particular, the set value can indicate an immersion depth to which the cleaning robot must move for a predetermined duration. Starting from the difference between the measured value and the set value, the automatic control means modify at least one of the parameters of the drive and guidance means so as to guide the robot to the required immersion depth.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Michelon et al. anticipates:
14. The piece of equipment of claim 10, wherein the sensor (pressure sensor 21) comprises at least one of a conductivity or resistivity sensor (piezoresistive type pressure sensor, Claim 5), a capacitive sensor, or a pair of resistive buttons.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teuscher et al. US 2016/0207204 (hereafter Teuscher et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Teuscher et al. anticipates:
1. An automatic pool cleaner (APC) (robotic pool cleaner control system 200) for a swimming pool or spa or a docking station for the APC, the APC and/or the docking station comprising a sensor (capacitive sensor circuitry 240) configured to detect water (determines when the robotic pool cleaner is approaching and/or breaching a waterline of a swimming pool) without contacting water (in a sealed, water-tight container).
Regarding Claim 3, Teuscher et al. anticipates:
3. The APC or docking station of claim 1, wherein the sensor (capacitive sensor circuitry 240) comprises a capacitive sensor (capacitive elements 105).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michelon et al. US 10,316,534 (hereafter Michelon et al.) in view of common knowledge.
Regarding Claim 4, Michelon et al. teaches:
4. The APC or docking station of claim 1, wherein the sensor (pressure sensor 21) comprises a pair of resistive buttons (piezoresistive type pressure sensor, see discussion below).
Michelon et al. discloses the use a piezoresistive type pressure sensor, although he does not show the sensor details in his figures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that prior art piezoresistive type pressure sensors are commonly disk-shaped resulting in them being considered to be a button due to their shape. It would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ multiple piezoresistive type pressure sensors with the motivation to improve accuracy, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 8, Michelon et al. teaches:
8. The method of claim 7, wherein generating the output comprises causing the APC to cease the cleaning cycle of the APC based on the detected absence of water.
Michelon et al. discloses a swimming pool cleaning unit 10 that is configured to perform a cleaning operation when it senses that the device is underwater. Michelon et al. does not disclose that the device is configured to stop the cleaning operation when it senses that the device is above water. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a cleaning operation designed to be start when immersed in water would turn off the cleaning operation when it senses that it has been removed from the water with the motivation to prevent unintended above ground operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but it would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of pool cleaners.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights