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 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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein 360° measuring about three axes while underwater” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is assumed that that claim 17 depends on claim 16 in order to provide sufficient antecedent basis.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 49 of copending Application No. 17720015 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the claimed invention of instant application ‘408 and the reference application ‘015 are directed to a pool cleaner with a TOF sensor system that performs measurements for angles greater than 0-degrees and controlling navigation based on the detection of an obstacle/occupant, and the claimed invention of the reference application ‘015 is narrower in scope in comparison to the claimed invention of the instant application ‘408.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-13, 15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Biber EP2960741.
Regarding independent claim 1, Biber discloses, in Figures 1-2,
An automatic pool cleaner (APC) system (Biber; Fig. 1-2; page 2/17 “autonomous swimming pool cleaning machine”) for a swimming pool or spa, the APC system comprising at least one of an APC (Biber; autonomous service robot 10) or a docking station (Biber; base station 28) for the APC, and the APC system further comprising a time of flight (ToF) sensor (Biber; TOF camera 20 of optical detection device 12) system on at least one of the APC or the docking station and configured to perform continuous measuring about an angle greater than 0° relative to at least one axis underwater (Biber; page 3/17 “wide-angle optical element” and “to detect a diagonal angle of view, which is in particular at least 60°”).
Regarding claim 7, Biber discloses The APC system of claim 1, wherein the ToF sensor system is configured to measure at least one of an intensity of a light or laser beam (Biber; page 6/17 sensor unit 36 comprises a photodiode), an amplitude of the light or laser beam, and/or control information coded by the light or laser beam.
Regarding claim 8, Biber discloses The APC system of claim 1, wherein, based on information from the ToF sensor system, the APC is configured to determine at least one of a distance from all surfaces of a pool or spa, a two-dimensional shape of the pool or spa, a three-dimensional shape of the pool or spa, and/or one or more operating characteristics of the APC (Biber; TOF camera 20 of optical detection device 12; page 6/17 “By means of the optical detection device 12, an environment of the autonomous service robot 10 is detected and then mapped, so that the autonomous service robot 10 can be guided in an operating state within the working area 32.”).
Regarding claim 9, Biber discloses The APC system of claim 8, wherein the one or more operating characteristics comprises a position of the APC, a speed of the APC, an acceleration of the APC, forces applied by the APC, or a direction of movement of the APC (Biber; TOF camera 20 of optical detection device 12; page 6/17 “By means of the optical detection device 12, an environment of the autonomous service robot 10 is detected and then mapped, so that the autonomous service robot 10 can be guided in an operating state within the working area 32.”; page 6/17 “advantageous navigation strategies can be achieved and the detected dynamic obstacles can be avoided by specially adapted turning maneuvers.”; the turning maneuvers is the direction of movement of the APC).
Regarding claim 10, Biber discloses The APC system of claim 1, wherein the APC is configured to generate an output based on information from the ToF sensor system (Biber; TOF camera 20 of optical detection device 12; page 6/17 “By means of the optical detection device 12, an environment of the autonomous service robot 10 is detected and then mapped, so that the autonomous service robot 10 can be guided in an operating state within the working area 32.”; page 6/17 “advantageous navigation strategies can be achieved and the detected dynamic obstacles can be avoided by specially adapted turning maneuvers.”; the TOF data output is used as an input for navigation determination).
Regarding claim 11, Biber discloses The APC system of claim 10, wherein the APC is configured to control the APC as the output by adjusting a cleaning pattern, causing the APC to move to a location, and/or causing the APC to avoid obstacles (Biber; TOF camera 20 of optical detection device 12; page 6/17 “By means of the optical detection device 12, an environment of the autonomous service robot 10 is detected and then mapped, so that the autonomous service robot 10 can be guided in an operating state within the working area 32.”; page 6/17 “advantageous navigation strategies can be achieved and the detected dynamic obstacles can be avoided by specially adapted turning maneuvers.”).
Regarding claim 12, Biber discloses The APC system of claim 1, wherein the APC is configured to determine a type of material of a surface of the pool or spa or detect debris based on the information from the ToF sensor system (Biber; TOF camera 20 of optical detection device 12; page 6/17 “advantageous navigation strategies can be achieved and the detected dynamic obstacles can be avoided by specially adapted turning maneuvers.”).
Regarding claim 13, Biber discloses The APC system of claim 1, wherein the APC is configured to detect a presence of an occupant in the pool or spa based on the information from the ToF sensor system (Biber; TOF camera 20 of optical detection device 12; page 6/17 “advantageous navigation strategies can be achieved and the detected dynamic obstacles can be avoided by specially adapted turning maneuvers.”).
Regarding independent claim 15, Biber discloses, in Figures 1-2,
An automatic pool cleaner (APC) system (Biber; Fig. 1-2; page 2/17 “autonomous swimming pool cleaning machine”) for a swimming pool or spa, the APC system comprising at least one of an APC (Biber; autonomous service robot 10) or a docking station (Biber; base station 28) for the APC, and the APC system further comprising a time of flight (ToF) sensor (Biber; TOF camera 20 of optical detection device 12) system on at least one of the APC or the docking station and configured to perform continuous measuring about an angle greater than 0° relative to at least one axis underwater (Biber; page 3/17 “wide-angle optical element” and “to detect a diagonal angle of view, which is in particular at least 60°”).
A method (Biber; Fig. 1-2) of mapping a pool or spa comprising moving an automatic pool cleaner (APC) within the pool or spa, the APC comprising a ToF sensor system configured to perform continuous measuring about an angle greater than 0° about three axes while underwater.
Regarding claim 18, Biber discloses The method of claim 15, further comprising determining a characteristic of the APC or a pool or spa based on a plurality of measurements (Biber; TOF camera 20 of optical detection device 12 determines the shape/boundaries/extent of the pool walls).
Regarding claim 19, Biber discloses The method of claim 15, further comprising determining a cleaner path for the APC using continuous 360° ToF measurement (Biber; TOF camera 20 of optical detection device 12; page 6/17 “advantageous navigation strategies can be achieved and the detected dynamic obstacles can be avoided by specially adapted turning maneuvers.”).
Regarding independent claim 20, Biber discloses, in Figures 1-2,
A method (Biber; Fig. 1-2;) comprising at least one of:
a. detecting a type of material used in a surface of a pool or spa using a ToF sensor on an automatic pool cleaner (APC), and controlling the APC based on the detected type of material; or
b. detecting an occupant in a pool or spa using the ToF sensor on the APC (Biber; Fig. 1-2; page 2/17 “autonomous swimming pool cleaning machine”), and controlling the APC based on the detected occupant (Biber; TOF camera 20 of optical detection device 12; page 6/17 “advantageous navigation strategies can be achieved and the detected dynamic obstacles can be avoided by specially adapted turning maneuvers.”).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber in view of Buehler US20140133152.
Regarding claim 2, Biber discloses The APC system of claim 1, wherein the ToF sensor system is configured to perform continuous measuring about axes (Biber; TOF camera 20 of optical detection device 12) while underwater (APC) system (Biber; Fig. 1-2; page 2/17 “autonomous swimming pool cleaning machine”).
Biber is silent regarding wherein the ToF sensor system is configured to perform continuous measuring about three axes while underwater.
Buehler teaches wherein the ToF sensor system is configured to perform continuous measuring about three axes (Buehler; Fig. 2-3; gimbal mount 14 with laser housing 20; [0016] “three axes of rotation” using DMD actuating/moveable mirror 38; [0011] “range-finding”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ToF sensor system as taught by Biber to comprise three axes measurement as taught by Buehler for the purpose of providing additional articulation means to provide a wider scan area.
Regarding claim 3, Biber discloses The APC system of claim 1, wherein the ToF sensor system comprises a light sensor (Biber; sensor unit 36).
Biber is silent regarding wherein the ToF sensor system comprises a static light sensor and a rotating mirror.
Buehler teaches wherein the ToF sensor system comprises a static light sensor and a rotating mirror (Buehler; Fig. 3; static laser source 36 and DMD actuating/moveable mirror 38 in which the source 36 is static relative to the rotating/actuating mirror 38; [0011] “range-finding”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ToF sensor system and the light sensor as taught by Biber to comprise a static light sensor and a rotating mirror as taught by Buehler for the purpose of providing additional articulation means to provide a wider scan area.
Regarding claim 4, Biber discloses The APC system of claim 1, wherein the ToF sensor system comprises a laser (Biber; lighting elements 24).
Biber is silent regarding wherein the ToF sensor system comprises a rotating laser.
Buehler teaches wherein the ToF sensor system comprises a rotating laser (Fig. 2-3; gimbal mount 14 with laser housing 20; [0011] “range-finding”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laser as taught by Biber to a rotating laser on a gimbal as taught by Buehler for the purpose of providing additional articulation means to provide a wider scan area.
Regarding claim 6, Biber discloses The APC system of claim 1, wherein the ToF sensor system is configured to perform measuring (Biber; TOF camera 20 of optical detection device 12).
Biber is silent regarding wherein the ToF sensor system is configured to perform 360° measuring.
Buehler teaches wherein the ToF sensor system is configured to perform 360° measuring (Buehler; Fig. 2-3; gimbal mount 14 with laser housing 20; [0016] “three axes of rotation” using DMD actuating/moveable mirror 38; [0011] “range-finding”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the measurement range of the ToF sensor system as taught by Biber to be 360° as taught by Buehler for the purpose of providing additional articulation means to provide a wider scan area.
Regarding claim 16, Modified Biber teaches the invention substantially the same as described above with respect to claims 2 and 6:
Biber is silent regarding wherein the ToF sensor system is configured to perform continuous measuring about three axes while underwater.
Buehler teaches wherein the ToF sensor system is configured to perform continuous measuring about three axes (Buehler; Fig. 2-3; gimbal mount 14 with laser housing 20; [0016] “three axes of rotation” using DMD actuating/moveable mirror 38; [0011] “range-finding”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ToF sensor system as taught by Biber to comprise three axes measurement as taught by Buehler for the purpose of providing additional articulation means to provide a wider scan area.
Biber is silent regarding wherein the ToF sensor system is configured to perform 360° measuring.
Buehler teaches wherein the ToF sensor system is configured to perform 360° measuring (Buehler; Fig. 2-3; gimbal mount 14 with laser housing 20; [0016] “three axes of rotation” using DMD actuating/moveable mirror 38; [0011] “range-finding”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the measurement range of the ToF sensor system as taught by Biber to be 360° as taught by Buehler for the purpose of providing additional articulation means to provide a wider scan area.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber in view of Leonessa US20140009748.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber in view of Buehler as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Leonessa US20140009748.
Regarding claim 5, Biber discloses The APC system of claim 1, wherein the ToF sensor system comprises a light sensor (Biber; sensor unit 36), each sensor positioned at a location on the APC (Biber; Fig. 1).
Biber is silent regarding wherein the ToF sensor system comprises a plurality of light sensors, each sensor positioned at a location on the APC.
Leonessa teaches wherein the ToF sensor system comprises a plurality of light sensors, each sensor positioned at a location on the APC (Leonessa; Fig. 5; first laser18 and second laser 20 with corresponding horizontal scans 110 and 114).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ToF sensor system as taught by Biber to comprise a plurality of light sensors ad different locations as taught by Leonessa for the purpose of providing a wider scan area.
Regarding claim 14, Biber discloses The APC system of claim 1, wherein the ToF sensor system is configured to transmit and receive light or light (Biber; lighting elements 24).
Biber is silent regarding wherein the ToF sensor system is configured to transmit and receive blue light or green light.
Leonessa teaches wherein the ToF sensor system is configured to transmit and receive blue light or green light (Leonessa; [0038] green light is preferable to red light because water absorbs green light less in comparison to red light).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light as taught by Biber to be green light as taught by Leonessa for the purpose of minimizing light absorption by water (Leonessa; [0038] green light is preferable to red light because water absorbs green light less in comparison to red light)
Regarding claim 17, Modified Biber teaches the invention substantially the same as described above with respect to claim 14:
Modified Biber is silent regarding wherein the ToF sensor system is configured to transmit and receive blue light or green light.
Leonessa teaches wherein the ToF sensor system is configured to transmit and receive blue light or green light (Leonessa; [0038] green light is preferable to red light because water absorbs green light less in comparison to red light).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light as taught by Modified Biber to be green light as taught by Leonessa for the purpose of minimizing light absorption by water (Leonessa; [0038] green light is preferable to red light because water absorbs green light less in comparison to red light)
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biber EP2960741 in view of Jamieson US20050189503.
Regarding independent claim 20, Biber discloses, in Figures 1-2,
A method (Biber; Fig. 1-2;) comprising at least one of:
a. detecting a type of material used in a surface of a pool or spa using a ToF sensor on an automatic pool cleaner (APC) (Biber; Fig. 1-2; page 2/17 “autonomous swimming pool cleaning machine”), and controlling the APC based on the detected (Biber; TOF camera 20 of optical detection device 12; page 6/17 “advantageous navigation strategies can be achieved and the detected dynamic obstacles can be avoided by specially adapted turning maneuvers.”); or
b. detecting an occupant in a pool or spa using the ToF sensor on the APC (Biber; Fig. 1-2; page 2/17 “autonomous swimming pool cleaning machine”), and controlling the APC based on the detected occupant (Biber; TOF camera 20 of optical detection device 12; page 6/17 “advantageous navigation strategies can be achieved and the detected dynamic obstacles can be avoided by specially adapted turning maneuvers.”).
Biber does is silent regarding a. detecting a type of material used in a surface of a pool or spa using a ToF sensor on an automatic pool cleaner (APC), and controlling the APC based on the detected type of material.
Jamieson teaches detecting a type of material (Jamieson; abstract “determining a material type for each return laser pulse of the illuminated scene based on the plurality of reflectance values of the corresponding return pulse; indexing each determined material type to a position in the illuminated scene; and identifying an object in the illuminated scene based on material types and indexed positions thereof in the scene”; [0011]; [0012] “identify an object in the illuminated scene based on material types”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the detecting step as taught by Biber to comprise detecting a type of material as taught by Jamieson for the purpose of “identify an object in the illuminated scene based on material types” (Jamieson; [0012] “identify an object in the illuminated scene based on material types”). Doing so would yield controlling the APC based on the detected type of material such as by determining the cleaning method appropriate for the pool surface material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chafik US20220333395 teaches an underwater TOF sensing system for swimming pools.
Duffaut US20240271446 teaches a debris monitoring pool cleaner.
Porat US6299699 teaches a pool cleaner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 6/18/26
Prosecution Insights