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 .
Election/Restrictions
Based solely on the Petition Decision dated January 27, 2026, the restriction requirement dated June 17, 2025 is withdrawn. Applicant’s response filed November 26, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-16 are pending, claims 3 and 17-21 having been cancelled.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments to the claim.
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 14-16 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 14 depends on claim 12; however, claim 14 is directed to “The method” while claim 12 is directed to “The APC.” For purposes of examination, claim 14 will be interpreted “The method of claim 13 …” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 depends on claim 12; however, claim 15 is directed to “The method” while claim 12 is directed to “The APC.” For purposes of examination, claim 15 will be interpreted “The method of claim 13 …” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 depends on claim 12; however, claim 16 is directed to “The method” while claim 12 is directed to “The APC.” For purposes of examination, claim 16 will be interpreted “The method of claim 13 …” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2022/189981A1 to Witelson et al.
As to claim 1, Witelson discloses an automatic pool cleaner comprising a housing, motive elements configured to enable movement of the APC along a surface (see Witelson Figs. 16 and 17; paragraph [0065] disclosing pool cleaning robot with a housing and wheels/track 155, 156 and 167), and two or more battery packs supported on and/or within the housing (see Witelson paragraph [0065], [0081]-[0086], [0150]-[0151], [0155]).
Regarding the recitation that the “two or more battery packs are supported on and/or within the housing at the same time,” Witelson discloses that two or more batteries can be supported on the housing at the same time (see Witelson Fig. 14). Witelson further discloses that the “batteries” (plural, so read as two or more) may be attached onto any of the housing or body or its attached sub-assemblies (see Witelson paragraph [0156]).
As to claim 2, Witelson discloses that the two or more battery packs can be mechanically connected together (see Witelson Fig. 14). Furthermore, if the battery packs are attached onto any of the housing or body or its attached sub-assemblies as disclosed by Witelson (paragraph [0156]), then the battery packs will be mechanically connected together by the housing or body or its attached sub-assemblies.
As to claim 7, Witelson discloses that the number of the two or more battery packs is capable of being based on a size of the pool or spa to be cleaned, a type of cleaning operation to be performed by the APC or a desired time until recharge of the battery pack (see Witelson paragraphs [0088]-[0089]).
As to claim 8, Witelson discloses that the two or more battery packs can be rechargeable battery packs (see Witelson paragraph [0085]).
As to claim 13, Witelson discloses a method of operating an automatic pool cleaner comprising supporting two or more battery packs on and/or within a housing of the APC based on a size of a swimming pool or spa to be cleaned (see Witelson paragraph [0065], [0081]-[0089], [0150]-[0151], [0155]), wherein the APC further comprises the housing and motive elements configured to enable movement of the APC along a surface (see Witelson Figs. 16 and 17; paragraph [0065] disclosing pool cleaning robot with a housing and wheels/track 155, 156 and 167).
Regarding the recitation “supporting two or more battery packs on and/or within a housing,” Witelson discloses that two or more batteries can be supported on the housing at the same time (see Witelson Fig. 14). Witelson further discloses that the “batteries” (plural, so read as two or more) may be attached onto any of the housing or body or its attached sub-assemblies (see Witelson paragraph [0156]).
As to claim 16, Witelson discloses that the two or more battery packs can be mechanically connected together (see Witelson Fig. 14). Furthermore, if the battery packs are attached onto any of the housing or body or its attached sub-assemblies as disclosed by Witelson (paragraph [0156]), then the battery packs will be mechanically connected together by the housing or body or its attached sub-assemblies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022/189981A1 to Witelson et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 3703218A1 to Jiao et al.
Witelson is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 4 and 5, Witelson does not explicitly disclose a first operation mode, the APC is operable with a single battery pack of the two or more battery packs and wherein in a second operation mode, the APC is operable with all of the battery packs of the two or more battery packs and wherein the APC is configured to operate in the first operation mode or the second operation mode based on a size of the pool or spa to be cleaned, a type of cleaning operation to be performed by the APC or a desired time until recharge of the battery packs. Jiao discloses that it is known in the art to adapt a plurality of battery packs to produce a required voltage where the batteries can be used in series or parallel (read as one battery pack at a time or altogether) (see Jiao paragraphs [0074]-[0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Witelson to adapt the plurality of battery packs to produce the required voltage to perform different tasks (read as different modes, such as a first mode and a second mode) in order to optimize the performance of the cleaning robot.
Claim(s) 6, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022/189981A1 to Witelson et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Witelson is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 6, Witelson discloses that an unused battery pack is capable of being charged externally/separately while other battery packs are being used (see Witelson paragraph [0085]). With regard to the recitation of three battery packs, Witelson discloses that the plurality of battery packs can comprises at least three battery packs (see Witelson Fig. 14). Furthermore, the selection of the number of battery packs is considered mere design choice.
As to claims 9 and 10, Witelson discloses that the batteries may be differentiated into different types (see Witelson paragraphs [0088]-[0089]), and the selection of batteries, whether the same or different, is considered mere design choice of the user.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022/189981A1 to Witelson et al. as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of CN106025403A to Yang et al. (see machine translation).
Witelson is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 13.
As to claims 11 and 14, Witelson discloses that the batteries can be placed in a series (see Witelson Fig. 14), and thus could be considered as being configured to draw power from the plurality of battery packs sequentially. To the extent that it could be argued that Witelson does not disclose being configured to draw power from the plurality of battery packs sequentially, Yang discloses that it is known in the art of cleaning robots to configure the robot to draw power from a plurality of battery packs sequentially (see Yang Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the APC draw power from the battery packs sequentially in order to ensure that the robot has a long endurance time (see Yang Abstract).
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2022/189981A1 to Witelson et al. as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2011/0247970 to Evingham.
Witelson is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 13.
As to claims 12 and 15, Witelson discloses that the APC can be configured to draw power from all of the batteries (read as concurrently) (see Witelson Fig. 14). To the extent that it could be argued that Witelson does not explicitly disclose that the APC is configured to draw power from the batteries concurrently, Evingham discloses that it is known in the art of pool cleaning equipment to have a plurality of batteries concurrently attached to the drive (see Evingham Fig. 8B and paragraph [0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the APC configured to draw power from the batteries concurrently in order to provide sufficient charge to allow for a complete cleaning (see Evingham paragraph [0068]).
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art discloses that automatic pool cleaners and other pool cleaning devices having a plurality of batteries supported on and/or within the housing at the same time is known in the art:
U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0247970 to Evingham discloses a pool cleaning device with two or more battery packs located within the housing (see Evingham Fig. 8B, ref.#110; paragraph [0068]).
U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0129593 to Wolowelsky et al. discloses a domestic robot, such as a pool cleaning robot, with two or more battery packs located within the housing (see Wolowelsky Fig. 1, ref.#50; paragraphs [0004], [0048]-[0051]).
U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0166045 to Herring (see Herring paragraph [0022] and [0066] and claim 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As discussed in the rejection above, regarding the recitation that the “two or more battery packs are supported on and/or within the housing at the same time,” Witelson discloses that two or more batteries can be supported on the housing at the same time (see Witelson Fig. 14). Witelson further discloses that the “batteries” (plural, so read as two or more) may be attached onto any of the housing or body or its attached sub-assemblies (see Witelson paragraph [0156]). Additionally, as indicated in the relevant prior art section above, it is well known in the art for automatic pool cleaners and other pool cleaning devices to have two or more battery packs supported on and/or within the housing at the same time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights