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 .
Amendments were received from Applicant on 9 June 2026. Claims 1 and 10 are amended. Claim 6 is canceled.
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.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Fu (CN 101481957 A).
Regarding Claim 15, Fu discloses a flow outlet for a pool cleaner, the flow outlet comprising a plurality of flow guides, wherein a height of each flow guide of the flow guides is less than a height of the flow outlet. (See Fig 8.)
Regarding Claim 16, Fu discloses a flow outlet of claim 15, wherein the height of each flow guide of the flow guides is less than half the height of the flow outlet. (Element 144 to Element 141 in Fig. 8 can reasonably be considered to determine the height of the outlet.)
Regarding Claim 17, Fu discloses a flow outlet of claim 15, wherein the plurality of flow guides extend radially outwards from a hub of the flow outlet. (See Fig 8.)
Regarding Claim 18, Fu discloses a flow outlet of claim 15, wherein the flow outlet is a monolithic component. (To the degree a large block of stone has meaning in this context, the flow outlet forms a single unit.)
Regarding Claim 19, Fu discloses a flow outlet of claim 15, wherein the plurality of guides define non-linear flow paths through the flow outlet. (See Fu Fig. 8)
Regarding Claim 20, Fu discloses a pool cleaner for a swimming pool or spa, the pool cleaner comprising a pump, the pump comprising the flow outlet of claim 15, wherein the flow outlet is configured to direct a flow of water from the pump. (See rejection Claim 9 above.)
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, 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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (CN 101481957 A) in view of Norman (US 20050245146 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Fu discloses a flow outlet for a pool cleaner, the flow outlet comprising a plurality of flow guides (Element 142, best seen Fig. 8), wherein at least one flow guide of the plurality of flow guides having a first side and a second side, wherein a height of each flow guide of the plurality of flow guides is less than a height of the flow outlet. (Best seen Fu. Fig. 8.) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first side comprises a non-linear curvature.
Norman discloses a flow outlet wherein at least one flow guide of the plurality of flow guides having a first side and a second side wherein the first side comprises a non-linear curvature (Best Seen 4a). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to substitute the first side comprises a non-linear curvature guide shape of Norman for the flat guide of Fu which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Fu as in paragraph 10 of Norman is increase hydro-flow, decrease drag, would improve performance by increasing the volume and velocity of hydro-flow thrust in a vortex exiting the shroud.
Regarding Claim 2, Fu in view of Norman discloses flow outlet of claim 1, wherein at least one flow guide of the plurality of flow guides comprises a first end and a second end, and wherein at least a portion of the second end is circumferentially offset from the first end. (Best seen Norman fig 4a.)
Regarding Claim 3, Fu in view of Norman discloses the flow outlet of claim 1, wherein a profile of at least one flow guide of the plurality of flow guides is tapered in a radial direction. (Best seen Norman fig 4a.)
Regarding Claim 4, Fu in view of Norman discloses the flow outlet of claim 1, wherein a thickness of at least one flow guide of the plurality of flow guides is tapered in a height direction of the flow guide. (Best seen Norman fig 5a.)
Regarding Claim 5, Fu in view of Norman discloses the flow outlet of claim 1, wherein a height of each flow guide of the plurality of flow guides is less than a height of the flow outlet. (Best seen Norman fig 2.)
Regarding Claim 8, Fu in view of Norman discloses the flow outlet of claim 1, wherein the plurality of guides define non-linear flow paths through the flow outlet. (Best seen Norman Fig. 4a)
Regarding Claim 9, Fu in view of Norman discloses the pool cleaner for a swimming pool or spa, the pool cleaner comprising a pump (Fu, Element 13), the pump comprising the flow outlet of claim 1, wherein the flow outlet is configured to direct a flow of water from the pump. (See Fu Fig. 8.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Fu fails to disclose the feature of "a height of each flow guide of the flow guides is less than a height of the flow outlet." As evidence, Applicant argues that the drawing does not clearly show the height of the flow guide is less than the height of the flow outlet citing MPEP 2145 for the proposition that “patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue." This is true, but it lacks a nexus to the cited evidence. The drawing isn’t being cited for precise proportion or scale. It’s being cited for relative size. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826. See MPEP 2144.01. In this case, the thick black line radially inside of the leaderline for “143” is illustrated above the flow guide. A person of ordinary skill in the art understands isometric views; it would be clear to them. The Examiner is not persuaded a height of each flow guide of the plurality of flow guides is less than a height of the flow outlet is not disclosed to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
[AltContent: textbox (Outlet)][AltContent: textbox (Blade)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
279
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 of Fu.
Applicant argues that Norman possesses the feature of non-linear curvature “due to” the interior, free end of the vanes, 402 in Fig 4a, and therefore cannot be combined with a hubbed vanes. Examiner’s position is that Norman also has curvature when the vanes are not free and connected in a hub, as in Fig 10b. Norman teaches the benefits of curvature of vanes are not limited to being free or hubless, but can be combined with a hub. The Examiner is not persuaded that benefits of guiding the flow in a vortex existing the shroud as taught by Norman to be limited to hubless vanes. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
PNG
media_image2.png
388
393
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 are allowed.
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 1 Sept 2026
Prosecution Insights