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 .
Specification
It is recommended to the application to amend their specification include the updated information, i.e. patent numbers for the priority claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a sensor in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-9, 12, 14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henkin (USPN 6294084) in view of Porat (PGPub 20130152970).
Henkin teaches a pool cleaning robot, comprising: a housing (6); a filtering mechanism (water permeable container; col. 3, lines 23-26) configured to filter fluid; at least one cleaning element (propeller operates to pull in water from the vacuum port, col 4, lines 40-42); a propulsion module (13) that is configured to propel the pool cleaning robot; and a skimmer that is positioned at an upper part of the submersible pool cleaner (cleaning subsystem operates to collect water therefrom by skimming, col. 4, lines 7-11).
Henkin teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach a sensor for detecting debris. Porat teaches a pool cleaner with image sensors (60) for scanning a surface of the pool for objects (paragraph 0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henkin so that it comprises an image sensor as taught by Porat to allow for the pool cleaner to scan for debris which will assist in collecting and retaining debris.
With regards to claim 3, the skimmer is configured to collect floating dirt (col. 4, lines 7-11).
With regards to claim 7, the skimmer comprises a skimmer door (128) for selectively opening or closing the skimmer opening.
With regards to claim 8, the skimmer comprises an enclosure (rectangular housing 100).
With regards to claim 9, a width of the enclosure exceeds a height of the enclosure (figure 4 and 5).
With regards to claim 12, there is a rechargeable battery (there are solar cells 11 and/or battery; the battery can be recharged by the solar cells, col. 3, lines 1-5).
With regards to claim 14, there are multiple propulsion drive motors (one or more electric motors are selectively controlled to generate pool water flows for level control, propulsion, and/or cleaning (col. 1, lines 62-65).
With regards to claim 18, the pool cleaning robot is a cableless pool cleaning robot (figure 1c and 1d show a pool cleaner without electrical power wire 9; col. 2, line 66-col. 3, line 1).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8, 11, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benoit (PGPub 20140262997) in view of Porat (PGPub 20130152970).
Benoit teaches a pool cleaning robot, comprising: a housing (114); a filtering mechanism (172, paragraph 0054) configured to filter fluid; at least one cleaning element (cylindrical roller; paragraph 0013); a propulsion module (144, 160, 170, 171; paragraph 0049) that is configured to propel the pool cleaning robot; and a skimmer that is positioned at an upper part of the submersible pool cleaner (162).
Benoit teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach a sensor for detecting debris. Porat teaches a pool cleaner with image sensors (60) for scanning a surface of the pool for objects (paragraph 0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Benoit so that it comprises an image sensor as taught by Porat to allow for the pool cleaner to scan for debris which will assist in collecting and retaining debris.
With regards to claim 3, the skimmer is configured to collect floating dirt (paragraph 0051).
With regards to claim 7, the skimmer comprises a skimmer door (122; a door (cap) could be pivotally mounted to the deck for closing the access openings; paragraph 0053) for selectively opening or closing the skimmer opening.
With regards to claim 8, the skimmer comprises an enclosure (filter bag or bucket; paragraph 0054).
With regards to claim 11, the at least one cleaning element is a brush (cylindrical roller formed of foam and/or provided with a brush; paragraph 0013).
With regards to claim 14, there are multiple propulsion drive motors (paragraph 0056 bottom mode pump 132, top mode pump 150, turn/backup pump 166).
With regards to claim 16, there are sensors for navigation (paragraph 0057).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-9, 12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henkin (PGPub 20030201218) in view of Porat (PGPub 20130152970).
Henkin teaches a pool cleaning robot, comprising: a housing (6); a filtering mechanism (water permeable container; paragraph 0038) configured to filter fluid; at least one cleaning element (lower inlet 140; paragraph 0038); a propulsion module (120) that is configured to propel the pool cleaning robot; and a skimmer that is positioned at an upper part of the submersible pool cleaner (cleaning subsystem operates to collect water therefrom by skimming, paragraph 0044).
Henkin teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach a sensor for detecting debris. Porat teaches a pool cleaner with image sensors (60) for scanning a surface of the pool for objects (paragraph 0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henkin so that it comprises an image sensor as taught by Porat to allow for the pool cleaner to scan for debris which will assist in collecting and retaining debris.
With regards to claim 3, the skimmer is configured to collect floating dirt (paragraph 0044).
With regards to claim 7, the skimmer comprises a skimmer door (128) for selectively opening or closing the skimmer opening.
With regards to claim 8, the skimmer comprises an enclosure (202).
With regards to claim 9, a width of the enclosure exceeds a height of the enclosure (figure 4 and 5).
With regards to claim 12, there is a rechargeable battery (onboard power source, i.e. rechargeable battery, paragraph 0032).
With regards to claim 14, there are multiple propulsion drive motors (46, 85, 400, 412).
With regards to claim 15, there are multiple impellers (226, 228).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henkin (USPN 6294084), Benoit (PGPub 20140262997) or Henkin (PGPub 20030201218) all in view of Porat (PGPub 20130152970) as shown above for claim 1, and further in view of Agajanian (USPN 8555989).
Henkin (‘084), Benoit and Henkin (‘218) all in view of Porat teach all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fail to teach a baffle at the front of the skimmer that operates in the claimed manner. All the reference teaches a baffle of some type (Both Henkin references teach 134 and Benoit teaches a door in paragraph 0067) but do not teach how or when it opens or closes. Agajanian teaches a skimmer with a baffle (DD) containing a float at its opening. The baffle is attached by means of a hinge (col. 8, line 10). When water is absent, the baffle drops down horizontally to open a skimmer entrance to allow debris to enter the skimmer (Figure 3a), and the baffle is configured to a vertical position when in water (figure 2a) (col. 8, lines 11-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baffles of Henkin and Benoit so that they operate in a manner similar to Agajanian to prevent the collected debris from escaping.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The applicant amended claim 1 to include limitations from previous claim 10. None of the previous dependent claims required the limitations of claim 10. Further, the applicant amended claim 10 to include structure that was never previously considered and thus a new rejection was made in view of newly found art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723