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 (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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 September 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
The examiner received a request for continued examination (RCE) with corresponding claim amendments and remarks/arguments in response to the final rejection office action dated 23 April 2026 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding objections”, “outstanding rejections”, “prior office action”, or the like). No new matter was entered.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, the examiner notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the claim language. By way of claim amendment and corresponding argument, applicant has remedied the noted issue. At the very least, each independent claim now recites a positive control element. Thus, all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 102/103) rejections, the examiner notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the claim language. For instance, the examiner's prior interpretation of "fixed elements" was proper to include the pool walls themselves under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Applicant has now explicitly amended the claim language to recite that the "fixed element is a stationary discrete object within the water pool that is distinct from surfaces of the water pool" (such as in instant claim 1). While the examiner notes that a negative limitation (as the claim recites "distinct from", or not including, thus a negative limitation) is guided by MPEP 2173.05(i), the examiner reviewed the instant specification and found paragraphs [0113-0115] which reasonably convey that the fixed elements are not the same as the geometrically distinguishable surfaces in the explanation given. Thus, the examiner notes that while verbatim clarification that the elements are "distinct" from the geometrically distinguishable surfaces is not present in the disclosure, a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection under the guidance of MPEP 2173.05(i) would be improper as a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have understood that the inventive entity possessed an invention that relied upon a fixed element that was indeed distinct from a geometrically distinguishable surface. The examiner will utilize this limiting language for the current office action and corresponding claim interpretation. All outstanding prior art rejections are withdrawn in favor of the new grounds of rejection below.
New grounds of rejection are presented due to filing of claim amendments with RCE.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 17 September 2026. Claims 1-5 and 7-17 are pending. Claim 6 is cancelled. Claims 16-17 are new. Claims 1, 15, and 17 are independent claims. All pending claims (claims 1-5 and 7-17) are rejected, as further discussed below.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claims 1, 15, and 17 recite “geometrically distinguishable surface of the water pool which is geometrically distinguishable from any adjacent surface of the water pool”. The examiner notes that “geometrically distinguishable” is being interpreted to mean a surface that is capable of being distinguished from any other surface based on any variation between the surfaces, even as little as a single degree of slope variation, may constitute being “geometrically distinguishable”.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 is objected to for containing an erroneous "; and" prior to the penultimate claim limitation. The examiner recommends removal of the instance of "and" following the "wherein the identifying and mapping comprise…" limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 and 13 are 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 12: Claim 12 recites "…at least one low-end sound navigation and ranging (SONAR) sensor…". The examiner previously interpreted this language in an alternative manner and upon reading instant application specification paragraphs [0039, 0074] in light of the claims, notes that the term "low-end" renders the claim language indefinite. The aforementioned paragraphs convey that "low-end" corresponds to a purported quality and/or cost of the particular sensor. However, what makes a sensor low-end versus high-end? A threshold dollar amount/monetary value? A resolution? A particular reliability standard? Further, the examiner notes that the aforementioned "low-end" meaning is not explicitly defined in the specification. It could also pertain to a rated depth (low-end of a pool), a frequency operation band, or another meaning altogether. As the term "low-end" is unclear, it renders the claim indefinite. The examiner recommends mere removal of the term "low-end" to remedy this.
Claim 13: Claim 13 recites "…at least one low-end light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor…". The examiner previously interpreted this language in an alternative manner and upon reading instant application specification paragraphs [0039, 0074] in light of the claims, notes that the term "low-end" renders the claim language indefinite. The aforementioned paragraphs convey that "low-end" corresponds to a purported quality and/or cost of the particular sensor. However, what makes a sensor low-end versus high-end? A threshold dollar amount/monetary value? A resolution? A particular reliability standard? Further, the examiner notes that the aforementioned "low-end" meaning is not explicitly defined in the specification. It could also pertain to a rated depth (low-end of a pool), a frequency operation band, or another meaning altogether. As the term "low-end" is unclear, it renders the claim indefinite. The examiner recommends mere removal of the term "low-end" to remedy this.
Therefore, the examiner notes that the above-noted phrase is indefinite and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers et al. (US 2021/0018396 A1; published 21 Jan 2021, hereinafter Meyers) in view of Schloss et al. (US 2018/0135325 A1; published 17 May 2018, hereinafter Schloss).
Regarding independent claims 1, 15, and 17: Meyers discloses A computer implemented method of navigating a dynamic pool equipment unit in a water pool, comprising: (per claim 1) / A system for navigating a dynamic pool equipment unit in a water pool, comprising: (per claim 15) / A computer implemented method of navigating a dynamic pool equipment unit in a water pool, comprising: (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0032, 0034, 0039], Meyers discloses a system, apparatus, and method for navigating a robot that is submerged within a fluid tank (thus, a “pool”))
using at least one processor for: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0048-0049], Meyers discloses a processor to carry out tasks)
a plurality of sensors employing a plurality of different sensing technologies; and at least one processor adapted to execute a code, the code comprising: (per claim 15) (Paragraph [0048-0049, 0082], Meyers discloses a processor to carry out algorithms and/or tasks, the apparatus/system/method comprising a plurality of sensors incorporating different “sensing technologies”)
receiving a water pool map generated by at least one processor performing: (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0048-0049, 0060], Meyers discloses accessing, creating, and/or updating of a map by the control unit comprising a processor)
receiving sensory data comprising quantitative, digitally recorded measurement values captured by a plurality of sensors of a dynamic pool equipment unit moving in a water pool, the plurality of sensors employ a plurality of different sensing technologies; (per claim 1) / code instructions to receive sensory data comprising quantitative, digitally recorded measurement values captured by a plurality of sensors of a dynamic pool equipment unit moving in a water pool, the plurality of sensors employ a plurality of different sensing technologies; (per claim 15) / receiving sensory data comprising quantitative, digitally recorded measurement values captured by a plurality of sensors of a dynamic pool equipment unit moving in a water pool, the plurality of sensors employ a plurality of different sensing technologies; (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0056, 0082], Meyers discloses receiving sensor data from a plurality of different sensors such as a sensor for detecting discontinuities and a sensor for measuring an additional navigation parameter, including various examples for the sensors)
identifying, based on analysis of the sensory data, at least one fixed element within the water pool, wherein the fixed element is a stationary discrete object within the water pool that is distinct from surfaces of the water pool; (per claim 1) / code instructions to identify, based on analysis of the sensory data, at least one fixed element within the water pool, wherein the fixed element is a stationary discrete object within the water pool that is distinct from surfaces of the water pool; (per claim 15) / identifying, based on analysis of the sensory data, at least one fixed element within the water pool, wherein the fixed element is a stationary discrete object within the water pool that is distinct from surfaces of the water pool; (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0051-0056, 0060, 0083-0084], Meyers discloses detecting discontinuities which may be weld seams, pillars, sump equipment, etc. (any of the aforementioned may read on the language as they are “distinct” from mere planes/walls))
mapping, based on the analysis of the sensory data and based on positioning of the at least one identified fixed element, at least one geometrically distinguishable surface of the water pool which is geometrically distinguishable from each adjacent surface of the water pool sharing at least one common line boundary therewith; (per claim 1) / code instructions to map, based on the analysis of the sensory data and based on positioning of the at least one identified fixed element, at least one geometrically distinguishable surface of the water pool which is geometrically distinguishable from each adjacent surface of the water pool sharing at least one common line boundary therewith; (per claim 15) / mapping, based on the analysis of the sensory data and based on positioning of the at least one identified fixed element, at least one geometrically distinguishable surface of the water pool which is geometrically distinguishable from each adjacent surface of the water pool sharing at least one common line boundary therewith; (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0050, 0058, 0060-0061, 0069] and Figure [5A-5D, 17], Meyers discloses scanning the tank for discontinuities (welds, pumps, pillars, etc. as discussed), detecting the discontinuity, and creating/updating a map to record the position of the discontinuity relative to another tank feature, the feature including wall corners/joints (adjacent surfaces sharing a common line boundary))
wherein the identifying and mapping comprise applying a plurality of different digital processing algorithms corresponding to the plurality of different sensing technologies; (per claim 1) / wherein the code instructions to identify and map comprise code instructions to apply a plurality of different digital processing algorithms corresponding to the plurality of different sensing technologies; (per claim 15) / wherein the identifying and mapping comprise applying a plurality of different digital processing algorithms corresponding to the plurality of different sensing technologies; and (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0051-0056, 0082] and Figure [4, 13], Meyers discloses receiving sensor data from a plurality of different sensors such as a sensor for detecting discontinuities and a sensor for measuring an additional navigation parameter, including various examples for the sensors. For example, an optical detector is discussed for detecting objects/discontinuities (a first processing algorithm to receive and process this data) and navigation sensors detect relative positioning via, for example, detection of inclination and/or acceleration (thus, a second processing algorithm to receive and process this distinct data))
generating a map of the water pool based on the mapped at least one geometrically distinguishable surface; and (per claim 1) / code instructions to generate a map of the water pool based on the mapped at least one geometrically distinguishable surface; and (per claim 15) / generating the map of the water pool based on the mapped at least one geometrically distinguishable surface; and (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0060, 0108-0111] and Figure [15], Meyers discloses generating a map with the surfaces and discontinuities)
outputting the water pool map to at least one storage used by at least one controller of at least one dynamic pool equipment unit, thereby causing the at least one controller to generate, based on the water pool map, movement instructions executable by at least one motor of the at least one dynamic pool equipment unit, for-and thereby controlling navigation of the at least one dynamic pool equipment unit in the water pool during execution of at least one dynamic activity. (per claim 1) / code instructions to output the water pool map to at least one storage used by at least one controller of at least one dynamic pool equipment unit, thereby causing the at least one controller to generate, based on the water pool map, movement instructions executable by at least one motor of the at least one dynamic pool equipment unit, for and thereby controlling navigation of the at least one dynamic pool equipment unit in the water pool during execution of at least one dynamic activity. (per claim 15) / generating, based on the water pool map, movement instructions executable by at least one motor of at least one dynamic pool equipment unit, thereby controlling navigation of the at least one dynamic pool equipment unit during execution of at least one dynamic activity. (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0034, 0058-0061, 0091, 0103, 0108-0109] and Figure [6A, 18A-18B], Meyers discloses use of the map to control the navigation/course of the robotic device)
Meyers merely differs from the instant claims in that a pool particularly containing water is not explicitly disclosed. However, this is an obvious modification of Meyers.
Schloss, in a similar field of endeavor of robot navigation, teaches navigation of a robot within a water pool (Paragraph [0036], Schloss teaches a pool or tank filled with a liquid such as water)
Meyers and Schloss are in a similar field of endeavor of robot navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing (POSITA), with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Meyers to specify that the liquid that the robot is submerged in of Meyers (Meyers, Paragraph [0039]) is particularly water, as taught by Schloss (Schloss, Paragraph [0036]), as this is an obvious modification of Meyers. It was well-known by a POSITA that a tank is analogous to a pool, as asserted by Schloss stating “a pool may refer to a swimming pool, or another type of pool or tank that is configured to be filled with a liquid such as water” (Schloss, Paragraph [0036]). Meyers does not particularly limit what the tank is filled with, but explicitly discloses that the robot may be operated in a submerged state within the tank. Merely specifying that the tank is filled with water, a well-known, routine, and conventional liquid, is an obvious modification of Meyers that would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement depending upon the end use of the tank/pool (what fluid it is designed to contain).
Regarding claim 2: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Meyers in view of Schloss. Meyers further discloses wherein each geometrically distinguishable surface is geometrically distinguishable from its adjacent surfaces by at least one geometric attribute of a group comprising: a different depth, and a different slope. (Paragraph [0050-0053, 0069] and Figure [5A-5D], Meyers discloses distinguishable attributes between surfaces based on inclination (slope))
Regarding claim 3: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Meyers in view of Schloss. Meyers further discloses wherein the dynamic pool equipment unit is operated to explore the water pool starting from a predetermined or arbitrarily selected start point […] (The examiner notes that the direction of the initial path of travel may be arbitrary, and any point along the trajectory disclosed may reasonably be the “start” point, as it begins another operation. Paragraph [0083] and Figure [14], Meyers discloses travel along a path comprising legs, the start and end of each leg including “start” points, further “The mobile platform 100 may have started on the leg 384 upon the marker detector 306 detecting a discontinuity 320”, which may reasonably be “predetermined” prior to the next leg being traversed)
Meyers does not explicitly disclose that […] to search for at least one local highest point of the water pool which is mapped as a highest surface.
However, Schloss, in a similar field of endeavor of robot navigation, teaches wherein the dynamic pool equipment unit is operated to explore the water pool starting from a predetermined or arbitrarily selected start point to search for at least one local highest point of the water pool which is mapped as a highest surface. (The examiner notes that “to search for at least one local highest point of the water pool” opens interpretation as “local” could mean any range of distance. Therefore, any elevation measured is the highest “local” point. Paragraph [0044, 0049, 0074, 0086], Schloss teaches that the robot maps the environment, including from the detected slope of the surface of the pool using the sensor, “When traveling in the pool, the robotic pool cleaner may map a slope of the floor of the pool. For example, when traveling within the pool, one or more tilt sensors may be operated to detect a local slope of the floor…”. Further, a depth is detected. Finally, the direction of the initial path of travel may be arbitrary, and any point along the trajectory disclosed may reasonably be the “start” point, as it begins another operation (travel from square 1 to square 2, turning, etc.))
Meyers and Schloss are in a similar field of endeavor of robot navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing (POSITA), with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Meyers to locate a highest surface as taught by Schloss, as Meyers discloses inspection of the tank including height variations in plates, as seen in Figure [5A-5D]. Merely searching for a “highest” plate is implicit, as inspection of the tank of Meyers reasonably conveys that height variations within the tank should be observed. Schloss is relied upon as a reference that more clearly discloses depth detection for this determination. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it an obvious modification of Meyers to merely specify that a “highest” surface is located, as this is implicit in the tank inspection method of Meyers; put simply, if an entire tank is inspected and the tank has elements of varying height (as disclosed explicitly in Meyers), a highest point would then be obtained.
Regarding claim 4: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Meyers in view of Schloss. Meyers further discloses wherein the dynamic pool equipment unit is operated to explore the water pool by moving in a plurality of directions from each mapped distinguishable surface. (Paragraph [0083] and Figure [14], Meyers discloses exploration in a “plurality of directions”, as seen in the paths taken in the reference figures)
Regarding claim 5: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Meyers in view of Schloss. Meyers further discloses wherein mapping the at least one geometrically distinguishable surface is based on at least one motion parameter of the dynamic pool equipment unit derived from the analysis of the sensory data, the at least one motion parameter is selected from a group comprising: orientation, angular velocity, acceleration, speed, depth, and distance. (Paragraph [0050, 0058, 0060-0061, 0069, 0082] and Figure [5A-5D, 17], Meyers discloses scanning the tank for discontinuities (welds, pumps, pillars, etc. as discussed), detecting the discontinuity, and creating/updating a map to record the position of the discontinuity relative to another tank feature and the position and orientation of the robot)
Regarding claim 7: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Meyers in view of Schloss. Meyers does not explicitly disclose pressure sensing to determine depth.
However, Schloss, in a similar field of endeavor of robot navigation, teaches wherein the plurality of sensors comprise at least one pressure sensor adapted to measure a depth of the dynamic pool equipment unit. (Paragraph [0044, 0074, 0092], Schloss teaches use of a pressure sensor to measure depth)
Meyers and Schloss are in a similar field of endeavor of robot navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing (POSITA), with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Meyers to include a pressure sensor to measure depth as taught by Schloss, as this merely utilizes a well-known, routine, and conventional sensor in an analogous manner. Meyers discloses that the robot may be submerged (Meyers, Paragraph [0039]), meaning that a depth of liquid that the robot is submerged in may be desired to be measured. Schloss teaches the use of a pressure sensor to measure depth in an analogous manner for the benefit of measuring depth (rationale). Merely utilizing a well-known, routine, and conventional sensor of Schloss with the robot of Meyers is an obvious modification considered a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Meyers in view of Schloss. Meyers further discloses wherein the plurality of sensors comprise at least one gyroscope adapted to measure an orientation of the dynamic pool equipment unit. (Paragraph [0051, 0056], Meyers discloses gyroscopes for orientation measurement)
Regarding claim 9: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Meyers in view of Schloss. Meyers further discloses wherein the plurality of sensors comprise at least one accelerometer adapted to measure an acceleration of the dynamic pool equipment unit. (Paragraph [0051, 0056, 0072, 0082], Meyers discloses accelerometers for acceleration measurement)
Regarding claim 10: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Meyers in view of Schloss. Meyers further discloses wherein the plurality of sensors comprise at least one magnetometer adapted to measure an absolute direction of the dynamic pool equipment unit. (Paragraph [0056, 0068, 0104], Meyers discloses magnetic measurement for direction/orientation/navigation)
Regarding claim 11: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Meyers in view of Schloss. Meyers further discloses wherein the plurality of sensors comprise at least one image sensor adapted to capture images of an environment surrounding the dynamic pool equipment unit. (Paragraph [0054-0056, 0101], Meyers discloses optical detection for the environment)
Regarding claim 13: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Meyers in view of Schloss. Meyers further discloses wherein the plurality of sensors comprise at least one low-end light detection and ranging (LiDAR) sensor adapted to map objects in the water pool. (Paragraph [0056], Meyers discloses LiDAR sensing for object sensing)
Regarding claim 14: Parent 1 is unpatentable over Meyers in view of Schloss. Meyers further discloses wherein the plurality of sensors comprise at least one proximity sensor adapted to measure a distance of the dynamic pool equipment unit from at least one nearby object. (Paragraph [0051-0056, 0060, 0082], Meyers discloses sensors that determine distance/relative proximity)
Regarding claim 16: Parent 1 is unpatentable over Meyers in view of Schloss. Meyers further discloses wherein the mapping comprises: computing, for each mapped surface, at least one geometric attribute selected from a group comprising a depth and a slope; and comparing the computed at least one geometric attribute to a corresponding geometric attribute of each adjacent surface sharing at least one common line boundary therewith. (Paragraph [0051, 0053], Meyers discloses determining relative inclination (slope) and changes (a comparison) associated therewith between adjacent surfaces)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers in view of Schloss in further view of Biber et al. (US 2018/0004217 A1; published 04 Jan 2018, hereinafter Biber).
Regarding claim 12: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Meyers in view of Schloss. Meyers does not explicitly disclose that SONAR is used for object mapping.
However, Biber, in a similar field of endeavor of robot navigation, teaches wherein the plurality of sensors comprise at least one low-end sound navigation and ranging (SONAR) sensor adapted to map objects in the water pool. (Paragraph [0072-0074], Biber teaches use of a SONAR sensor)
Meyers and Biber are in a similar field of endeavor of robot navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing (POSITA), with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Meyers to include a sonar sensor to measure object positional information as taught by Biber, as this merely utilizes a well-known, routine, and conventional sensor in an analogous manner. Meyers discloses a variety of well-known routine, and conventional sensors to perform environment sensing (Meyers, Paragraph [0056]) but does not particularly limit which are used via “Illustrative, but not exhaustive, sensing devices include”. Merely utilizing a well-known, routine, and conventional sensor of Biber with the robot of Meyers is an obvious modification considered a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2026/0153879 A1
CONTROL METHOD FOR CLEANING
DEVICE, AND CLEANING DEVICE
Zhang et al.
Filed: 13 Mar 2025
Pub: 04 Jun 2026
Priority: As early as 27 Apr 2023
Discusses a pool cleaning robot that builds a map of its environment including objects identified in the environment (such as a ladder).
2
US 2024/0411321 A1
WALL COLLISION U-TURNING METHOD
FOR SWIMMING POOL CLEANING ROBOT,
SWIMMING POOL EDGE CLEANING
METHOD, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
Ding
Filed: 16 Aug 2024
Pub: 12 Dec 2024
Priority: 18 Feb 2022
Discusses a pool cleaning robot navigation system/method.
3
US 2024/0271449 A1
UNDERWATER LIDAR PRINCIPALLY FOR
USE IN CONNECTION WITH SWIMMING
POOLS OR SPAS
Duffaut et al.
Filed: 13 Feb 2024
Pub: 15 Aug 2024
Priority: 13 Feb 2023
Discusses a robot pool cleaner that performs mapping of a pool environment using sensing surfaces.
4
US 2020/0249690 A1
POOL CLEANING ROBOT AND A METHOD
FOR IMAGING A POOL
Regev et al.
Filed: 03 Feb 2019
Pub: 06 Aug 2020
Discusses a pool robot that performs mapping based off of perceived pool surfaces.
5
US 2026/0050261 A1
ROBOT CONTROL METHOD AND
APPARATUS
Zhang
Filed: 23 Oct 2025
Pub: 19 Feb 2026
Priority: 27 Apr 2023
Discusses mapping an environment of a pool cleaning robot.
6
US 2017/0277177 A1
END OF CYCLE POINT NAVIGATION OF A
POOL CLEANER
Witelson et al.
Filed: 20 Mar 2017
Pub: 28 Sep 2017
Discusses a pool cleaning robot and the creation of a pool map by the robot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
