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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/04/2024, 11/11/2024, 12/06/2024 and 02/09/2026 were filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 10 – 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Der Meijden et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0314617 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 10, Van Der Meijden teaches an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC, 34; Abstract) comprising: a body (body, 30; Fig. 2) configured to travel along a surface of a pool to be cleaned (Paragraph [0029]), wherein the body (30) comprises at least one wheel (track, 50) at an end of the body (30);the at least one wheel comprising a wheel perimeter (Fig. 12) and a turbine (10) on a bottom portion of the body (30; Fig. 12), wherein the turbine (10) comprises a non-uniform height (Fig. 1) such that the turbine (10) is within the wheel perimeter (Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 11, Van Der Meijden teaches the automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC, 34; Abstract) wherein the at least one wheel (track, 50) further comprising two wheels (Fig. 12), wherein each wheel (50; Fig. 12) is at an opposing end of the body (30) and defines the wheel perimeter (Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 12, Van Der Meijden teaches the automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC, 34; Abstract) wherein the turbine (10) comprises a plurality of blades (14) arranged around a center axis (Annotated Fig. 1) of the turbine (10), and wherein a maximum height of the plurality of blades (14) is at the center axis (Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Van Der Meijden teaches the automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC, 34; Abstract), wherein the turbine (10) comprises a domed profile (Fig. 1).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 6, 9 – 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Meijden et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0314617 A1) in view of Erlich et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0152317 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Van Der Meijden teaches a turbine (scrubbers, 10) positionable on a bottom portion of an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC; Fig. 12), the turbine (10) comprising a plurality of blades (blades, 14; Fig. 1) arranged around a center axis (Annotated Fig. 1) of the turbine (10), and wherein the turbine (10) comprises a non-uniform height (Fig. 1). and a maximum height (Fig. 1) of the plurality of blades (14) is at the center axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
370
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Van Der Meijden does not teach a maximum height (Fig. 1) of the plurality of blades (14) is at the center axis.
Erlich, however, teaches a turbine, wherein the turbine (propeller, 74) comprises a non-uniform height (Fig. 3). and a maximum height (Fig. 3) of the plurality of blades (blades of propeller, 74 as shown in Fig. 3) is at the center axis (axis of shaft, 76).
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Van Der Meijden to further include a brush extension extending outwards from one blade of the plurality of blades, as taught by Van Der Meijden 2, to provide a device that allows for increased tip speed and flow capacity.
Regarding Claim 2, Van Der Meijden, as modified, teaches the turbine (scrubbers, 10) wherein the turbine (10) further comprises a shaft (shaft, 18; Fig. 1), a body (Annotated Fig. 1) comprising the plurality of blades (14) at a first end of the shaft (14), and a gear (gear, 22) at a second end of the shaft (18).
Regarding Claim 3, Van Der Meijden, as modified, teaches the turbine (scrubbers, 10) wherein the gear (18) is a miter gear (Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding Claim 4, Van Der Meijden, as modified, teaches the turbine (scrubbers, 10) wherein the turbine (10) comprises a domed profile (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Van Der Meijden, as modified, teaches the turbine (scrubbers, 10) wherein each blade (14) extends outwards from the center axis (Annotated Fig. 1) and comprises a non-linear profile (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Van Der Meijden, as modified, teaches the turbine (scrubbers, 10) of the plurality of blades (14) comprises a convex curvature (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Van Der Meijden, as modified, teaches an APC (Abstract) comprising the one or more turbines (10) of claim 1 (Fig. 12).
Claims 7 – 8, 13, 15 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Meijden et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0314617 A1) in view of Erlich et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0152317 A1) and Van Der Meijden et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0333600 A1) herein referred to as Van Der Meijden 2.
Regarding Claim 7, Van Der Meijden teaches the turbine of claim 1, as discussed above.
Van Der Meijden does not teach a brush extension extending outwards from one blade of the plurality of blades.
Van Der Meijden 2, however, teaches a brush extension (brush, 42; Fig. 2A) extending outwards from one blade of the plurality of blades (blades, 14; Fig. 3; Paragraph [0029]).
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Van Der Meijden to further include a brush extension extending outwards from one blade of the plurality of blades, as taught by Van Der Meijden 2, To provide a device that allows for a user to customize the cleaning as needed, thus providing a superior cleaning device.
Regarding Claim 8, Van Der Meijden, as modified, teaches the turbine of claim 8, as discussed above.
Van Der Meijden does not teach the brush extension is removable from the one blade of the plurality of blades.
Van Der Meijden 2, however, teaches the brush extension (42) is removable from the one blade (14) of the plurality of blades (Figs. 2A and 3).
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Van Der Meijden to further include the brush extension is removable from the one blade of the plurality of blades, as taught by Van Der Meijden 2, To provide a device that allows for a user to customize the cleaning as needed, thus providing a superior cleaning device.
Regarding Claim 13, Van Der Meijden teaches the automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC, 34; Abstract) of claim 10, as discussed above.
Van Der Meijden does not teach a brush extension extending outwards from one blade of the plurality of blades.
Van Der Meijden 2, however, teaches a brush extension (brush, 42; Fig. 2A) extending outwards from one blade of the plurality of blades (blades, 14; Fig. 3; Paragraph [0029]).
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Van Der Meijden to further include a brush extension extending outwards from one blade of the plurality of blades, as taught by Van Der Meijden 2, To provide a device that allows for a user to customize the cleaning as needed, thus providing a superior cleaning device.
Claims 15 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Meijden et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0314617 A1) in view of Van Der Meijden et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0333600 A1) herein referred to as Van Der Meijden 2 and Erlich et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0152317 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 15, Van Der Meijden teaches an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC; 34; Abstract) comprising: a body (30) configured to travel along a surface of a pool to be cleaned (Paragraph [0029]); a turbine (10) on a bottom portion of the body (30; Fig. 12), wherein the turbine (10) comprises a plurality of blades (14) with a non-uniform height (Fig. 1).
Van Der Meijden does not teach at least one brush extension extending outwards from at least one blade of the plurality of blades.
Van Der Meijden 2, however, teaches a brush extension (brush, 42; Fig. 2A) extending outwards from one blade of the plurality of blades (blades, 14; Fig. 3; Paragraph [0029]).
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Van Der Meijden to further include a brush extension extending outwards from one blade of the plurality of blades, as taught by Van Der Meijden 2, To provide a device that allows for a user to customize the cleaning as needed, thus providing a superior cleaning device.
Van Der Meijden does not teach a maximum height (Fig. 1) of the plurality of blades (14) is at the center axis.
Erlich, however, teaches a turbine, wherein the turbine (propeller, 74) comprises a non-uniform height (Fig. 3). and a maximum height (Fig. 3) of the plurality of blades (blades of propeller, 74 as shown in Fig. 3) is at the center axis (axis of shaft, 76).
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Van Der Meijden to further include a brush extension extending outwards from one blade of the plurality of blades, as taught by Van Der Meijden 2, to provide a device that allows for increased tip speed and flow capacity.
Regarding Claim 18, Van Der Meijden, as modified, teaches the APC of claim 15, as discussed above.
Van Der Meijden does not teach the at least one brush extension is removable from the one blade of the plurality of blades.
Van Der Meijden 2, however, teaches the at least one brush extension (42) is removable from the one blade (14) of the plurality of blades (Figs. 2A and 3).
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Van Der Meijden to further include the brush extension is removable from the one blade of the plurality of blades, as taught by Van Der Meijden 2, To provide a device that allows for a user to customize the cleaning as needed, thus providing a superior cleaning device.
Regarding Claim 19, Van Der Meijden, as modified, teaches the APC of claim 15, as discussed above.
Van Der Meijden, as modified, does not teach the at least one brush extension is monolithic with the at least one blade of the plurality of blades.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Van Der Meijden to further include the at least one brush extension is monolithic with the at least one blade of the plurality of blades, as claimed, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 20, Van Der Meijden, as modified, teaches the APC (APC, 34; Abstract), wherein the turbine (10) comprises a domed profile (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although Van Der Meijden in view of Van Der Meijden 2 teach an automatic pool cleaner, the references alone or in combination fail to teach, suggest or make obvious a skirt attached to the body, wherein the skirt is movable between a closed position and an open position, wherein, in the open position, the skirt is configured to redirect water flow from the turbine.
Claim 17 is further objected as being dependent or objected claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated July 13, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 9 and 15 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Erlich.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated July 13, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 10 – 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claims to include at least one wheel. Track, 50 is interpreted as at least one wheel.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights