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 .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. The previous amendments are withdrawn. New amendments are made herein and are made final.
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 1-3, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hovarth (US 2008/0235887) in view of Renken (US 2022/0220762)
Regarding claim 1 Horvath discloses a pool cleaning robot having cleaning capabilities, the pool cleaning robot comprises:
a housing (Item 1) that comprises a housing bottom, the housing bottom comprises a main fluid inlet (Item 36)in fluid communication with a filtering unit (Item 9) of the pool cleaning robot, and a housing bottom fluid jet outlet (any of the embodiments where the housing has an opening for Items 6 and 7 to be fed water; similar to what is shown in Figure 1, 12, 18 or 19, etc);
a bottom fluid jet unit that comprises a fluid pump (Item 3) that is located within the housing, and a fluid conduit that fluidly couples the fluid pump with the bottom fluid jet outlet (Item 4 or 5 and Items 6 or 7); and
a controller the controls an output of a bottom fluid jet from the bottom jet outlet (Paragraph 65 and 71).
Hovarth fails to explicitly disclose wherein a sensor for sensing that the pool cleaning robot goes downstairs; and wherein the controller is configured to control an outputting of the bottom fluid jet from the bottom jet outlet, for cleaning stairs of a pool by directing the bottom fluid jet towards an upper surface of the stairs, when the pool cleaning robot goes downstairs.
Renken teaches a cleaning robot wherein a sensor (Paragraph 84) for sensing that the pool cleaning robot goes downstairs and wherein the controller is configured to control an outputting of the fluid jet from the bottom jet outlet when the pool cleaning robot goes downstairs (Paragraph 91). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hovart with the nozzle pressure control as taught by Renken. Such a modification would allow the robot to return to the surface and avoid being stuck by an unrecognized obstacle.
As modified, the bottom outlets would be capable of cleaning stairs or a floor bottom since a nozzle pointed toward the floor surface would be capable of providing thrust as well as moving debris.
Regarding claim 2 Horvath in view of Renken disclose the pool cleaning robot according to claim 1, wherein the fluid conduit is connected between a seal adaptor and a bottom jet unit nozzle (Horvath Paragraph 75, Item 74).
Regarding claim 3 Horvath in view of Renken disclose the pool cleaning robot according to claim 2, wherein the bottom jet unit nozzle extends from the housing bottom fluid jet outlet (as shown in Figure 1 the housing has an opening then the bottom jet unit nozzle has some tubing that extends down before forming a nozzle. Figure 12 shows the nozzle being formed essentially into the sidewall, thus the nozzle extends upwards such that the nozzle and the housing can be used to direct the flow).
Regarding claim 8 Horvath in view of Renken disclose the pool cleaning robot according to claim 1, wherein the fluid conduit comprises a first segment, a second segment that is downstream to the first segment and a third segment that is downstream to the second segment, wherein the third segment is curved and has an outlet (Item 32) that is lower than the first segment and the second segment (Horvath Annotated Figure 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 12- Hovarth
Regarding claim 12 Horvath in view of Renken disclose the pool cleaning robot according to claim 1, wherein the fluid pump comprises a fluid inlet at a top of the fluid pump (Horvath Figure 12 by Item 72).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hovarth (US 2008/0235887) in view of Renken (US 2022/0220762) in view of Garti (US 2007/0028405).
Regarding claim 4 Horvath in view of Renken disclose the pool cleaning robot according to claim 1, comprising an inner housing for storing electrical components and one or more motors (Horvath Paragraph 67).
Hovarth fails to explicitly disclose wherein the bottom fluid jet unit comprises a mechanical adaptor for attaching the fluid pump to the inner housing.
Garti teaches a pool cleaning robot wherein the bottom fluid jet unit comprises a mechanical adaptor for attaching the fluid pump to the inner housing Item 90, Paragraph 41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hovarth such that the pump was connected by screws as taught by Garti. Such a modification would allow a user to easily detach the motor assembly in the event the motor fails.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hovarth (US 2008/0235887) in view of Renken (US 2022/0220762) in view of Ferrel (US 2018/0327013).
Regarding claim 5 Horvath in view of Renken disclose the pool cleaning robot according to claim 1.
Hovarth fails to explicitly disclose wherein the bottom fluid jet unit comprises a mechanical adaptor for attaching the fluid pump to the inner housing, wherein the mechanical adaptor is detachably coupled to the fluid pump.
Ferrel teaches a pool cleaning robot the bottom fluid jet unit comprises a mechanical adaptor for attaching the fluid pump (Item 152) to the inner housing (Item 121), wherein the mechanical adaptor is detachably coupled to the fluid pump (locking interface of Item 276 and 154). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hovarth such that the pump was connected by a clamp as taught by Ferrel. Such a modification would allow a user to easily access the motor (Ferrel Paragraph 12)
Regarding claim 7 Horvath in view of Renken in view of Ferrel disclose the pool cleaning robot according to claim 5, wherein the inner housing further comprises a bottom protrusion (Ferrel Item 190), wherein the fluid conduit follows a non-linear path within a space formed by the housing bottom, the bottom protrusion and the bottom surface (Item 146 is nonlinear as it moves vertically).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hovarth (US 2008/0235887) in view of Renken (US 2022/0220762) in view of Renaud (US 2014/0259466).
Regarding claim 6 Horvath in view of Renken disclose the pool cleaning robot according to claim 1.
Hovarth fails to explicitly disclose an inner housing that comprises a bottom surface and legs that extend from the bottom surface to the housing bottom, wherein at least a portion of the fluid conduit and the bottom fluid jet outlet are located between the bottom surface and the housing bottom.
Renaud teaches a pool cleaning robot wherein an inner housing that comprises a bottom surface and legs that extend from the bottom surface to the housing bottom (the connection oof Items 338 and 105 in Figure 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hovart to have the pump mounting means as taught by Renaud. Protrusions of plastic (or legs) are commonly used as items of support. Such a modification of how to adequately support or make parts separate for maintenance are known in the art. Hovarth relies on known techniques to adequately support the motor, while Renaud teaches an adequate support system may be extruded plastic protrusions/ legs. Further, to make things integral or separable is known in the art, and has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP2144.04)
As combined, Hovart in view of Renaud would meet the limitation “wherein at least a portion of the fluid conduit and the bottom fluid jet outlet are located between the bottom surface and the housing bottom.” Due to the fact that Hovart discloses a nozzle shown in figure 12, that has the nozzle integrated into the bottom of the housing.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hovarth (US 2008/0235887) in view of Renken (US 2022/0220762) in view of Altschul (US 4,429,429)
Regarding claim 9 Horvath in view of Renken disclose the pool cleaning robot according to claim 1.
Hovarth fails to explicitly disclose a fluid pump float located above the fluid pump.
Altschul teaches the hose having one or more floats (Item 45) located above the main body (Item 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hovart with the floats as taught by Altschul. Such a modification would allow unnecessary weight from the hose to be alleviated from the robot, thus allowing the robot to more easily clean the sidewalls (Altschul Column 4 Lines 20-24 and Column 5 Lines 30-42)
Regarding claim 10 Horvath in view of Renken in view of Altschul disclose the pool cleaning robot according to claim 9, comprising an additional float Altschul Column 4 Lines 20-24 discusses multiple floats).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hovarth (US 2008/0235887) in view of Renken (US 2022/0220762) in view of Henkins (US 6,365,039)
Regarding claim 13 Horvath in view of Renken disclose the pool cleaning robot according to claim 1, wherein the fluid pump comprises an additional fluid jet generation and distribution unit (Item 33) for generating one or more another fluid jets (Item 16 and 17)
Hovarth fails to explicitly disclosing outputting the one or more other fluid jets from locations that differ from the bottom of the housing.
Henkins teaches a pool cleaning robot wherein the one or more other fluid jets from locations that differ from the bottom of the housing (Figure 2 Items 110, 112, 106, 108, 102, and 104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hovarth with the multiple nozzles as taught by Henkins. Such a modification would allow the cleaner to be able to redirect the propulsion to assist the body in freeing itself from obstructions (Column 2 Lines 12-38).
Regarding claim 14 Horvath in view of Renken in view of Henkins disclose the pool cleaning robot according to claim 13, wherein additional fluid jet generation and distribution unit is independent from the bottom fluid jet unit (Hovarth Item 33 operates independently of the direction or which nozzle might be required by the controller).
Regarding claim 15 Horvath in view of Renken in view of Henkins disclose the pool cleaning robot according to claim 13, wherein the additional fluid jet generation and distribution unit is configured to selectively output the one or more other fluid jets from opening located at an upper portion of the pool cleaning robot (Henkins Item 110 Figure 2).
Regarding claim 16 Horvath in view of Renken in view of Henkins disclose the pool cleaning robot according to claim 13, wherein the additional fluid jet generation and distribution unit comprises a rotating nozzle (Henkins Item 1020 OR Renken Paragraph 13) configured to distribute the one or more other fluid jets through additional fluid outlets (Henkins Column 26 Line 25- column 27 Line 9).
Regarding claim 17 Horvath in view of Renken in view of Henkins disclose the pool cleaning robot according to claim 13, wherein the additional fluid jet generation and distribution unit is configured to propel the pool cleaning unit using the one or more other fluid jets (Henkins Column 8 Line53-65).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hovarth (US 2008/0235887) in view of Renken (US 2022/0220762) in view of Winkler (Us 2014/0298601).
Regarding claim 18 Horvath in view of Renken disclose the pool cleaning robot according to claim 1. Hovarth fails to explicitly disclose wherein the housing bottom fluid jet outlet is located between the main fluid inlet and a brush of the pool cleaning robot.
Winkler teaches a cleaning robot wherein the housing bottom fluid jet outlet (Item 27) is located between the main fluid inlet (Item 14/15) and a brush of the pool cleaning robot (Figure 4, Item 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hovarth with the brush (and orientation) of Winkler. Winkler further discusses how the additional of the brush and nozzles lead to a more efficient and lower operating cost for removing strongly adhered dirt (Paragraph 11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/31/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Hovarth- 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Horvath in view of Renken.
Applicant argues Renken does not teach a sensor capable of sensing that the pool cleaner goes down the stairs. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not limit what type of sensor is needed to know if the robot is going down a stair. For example, cameras (vision sensors) can record if a robot is going down a stair, further sonar can tell how walls surrounding the robot can change. These sensors are capable of determining location of the robot, thus are capable of determining if the robot is going down stairs.
Applicant argues Renken does not teach a nozzle capable of cleaning a stair surface. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The nozzle of Hovarth and of Renken are both facing below the robot’s bottom. Any water blasting done, does a level of cleaning, along with a level of propulsion. As such the combination meets the limitations of the claim.
The Applicant argues the modification of Redken would destroy Hovarth because of the flap design of Hovarth. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The removal of the flap wouldn’t make Hovarth inoperable. The flap is a directional valve, and there are lots of different directional valves and control means thereof in the art to control the opening and closing of a valve.
Applicant argues Altschul has hose floats, that are located on a hose, not above any fluid pump. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pump of Hovarth is typically onboard, but there is discussion of pumps and auxiliary pumps being external and connected by a hose. Regardless of the exact configuration, Altschul teaches the concept of how a float on the highest part of the robot cleaner can cause benefits to cleaning sidewalls. As shown in Figure 6 of Hovarth, the piping is located above the motor/pump and inside the housing. The float of Altschul would similarly be on the piping above the main robot housing. The Examiner notes this is not a bodily incorporation,
Applicant argues Horvath in view of Henkins does not disclose an additional fluid pump located within the housing. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not require the additional pump to be located in or on the housing. The claim only requires an additional pump and additional nozzles. If Applicant wants the additional pump to be located within the housing please clearly amend the claim appropriately.
Applicant argues Horvath in view of Henkins does not disclose “wherein additional fluid jet generation and distribution unit is independent from the bottom fluid jet unit.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. There are no limitations on how they are independent from each other. Since the additional pump is located external of the housing, it is viewed as independent.
Applicant argues Henkins does not disclose a rotatable nozzle. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Henkins teaches a nozzle that sprays at a rotating mechanism that helps control the manner the nozzles are sprayed. Thus meeting the limitations “a rotating nozzle configured to distribute the one or more other fluid jets through additional fluid outlets.” After reviewing applicant’s arguments, the examiner has added the interpretation of Renken’s rotating nozzle, since it too meets the limitations of the claim and has been relied upon due to amendments.
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 TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/TOM RODGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights