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.
Response to Amendment/Argument
The examiner received amendments to the claims and drawings in addition to arguments presented dated 30 March 2026 in response to the non-final rejection office action dated 28 November 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding rejections”, “outstanding objections”, “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered.
Regarding the outstanding drawing objections, the examiner notes that the noted figures have been corrected. All outstanding drawing objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 3, and 15, the examiner notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the claim language of concern. Applicant has removed instances of previously-noted indefinite language; all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 101: Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, the examiner has reviewed the applicant's arguments but has not found them persuasive. First, applicant argues on page 8 of the remarks that the independent claims are not an abstract idea as they involve a "complex analysis". The examiner respectfully disagrees; the independent claims merely receive generic data, map just one surface ("at least one…"), and produce a generic map that is "output" for the purpose of navigation (an intended use, not a positive recitation of control). As the claims merely amount to the receiving of sensor data, processing of data, and output of a generic "map" of one surface, the analysis is anything but "complex". Applicant argues that because it is a complex analysis on page 8 of the remarks that a human cannot reasonably perform the steps. The examiner disagrees and provides the following example (analogous to the argument presented in the prior office action on page 6; this is not a new argument):
A child may be playing in a pool, using their hands/feet (sensory input 1) and eyes (sensory input 2) to identify where at least a floor, wall, or stairs are located within the pool (receiving sensory data by a plurality of sensors), generally remember where the objects are located, such as the exit from the pool via stairs (mapping at least one surface), and produce a memory of the location (generate a map of the one surface) so that they may swim around the pool and exit when called by a parent or tell another friend or sibling how to exit (outputting the map for the purpose of navigation).
Put plainly, the independent claims are recited in a generic nature of merely receiving environmental data, processing it, and creating a generic output that is not used in a meaningful or significant manner. The examiner, as seen from the above example and statement, considered each limitation alone and as a whole, and neither amounted to more than an abstract idea. Applicant further provides examples of "merging and jointly analyzing" data, "derive geometric attributes", etc. (such as on pages 9-10 of the remarks), but respectfully, these terms are not claimed. Applicant is improperly narrowing the intent of the claim language, whereas the examiner is interpreting under plain meaning and broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Therefore, the examiner ultimately respectfully disagrees that the receiving and processing of data is "complex".
With regards to the assertion on page 12 that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the examiner notes that applicant appears to, again, improperly import limitations that are not present from the specification, through the quotation provided. The examiner respectfully asserts that the specification is not the sole basis for claim interpretation; if applicant wishes to provide a limitation in the associated independent claims that further tie to the specification in order to integrate the claimed invention into a practical application, such as through explicit recitation of a control step, applicant may do so. However, the examiner will not improperly import additional limitations than those presented in the claim set in order to determine that a practical application is recited. Thus, this argument is not found persuasive.
With regards to the comments of "plurality of different sensing technologies" on page 13 of the remarks, the examiner notes that 1) the sensing technologies are generic in the independent claims, well-known, routine, and conventional in the dependent claims, and 2) the examiner notes that multiple senses of a human may also provide data, as shown in the example provided above and the prior office action. Further, applicant appears to argue on page 14 that sensor fusion overcomes a difficulty/known problem in the art, but the examiner notes that the use of sensor fusion in this field is well-understood, routine, and conventional, and merely claiming that two types of generic sensors may be used does not delineate the instant claims from the abstract idea of note, nor prior art of note. Thus, the argument is not fount persuasive.
Further, applicant argues on pages 14-15 that a "particular machine" is recited; again, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The "machine" claimed needs only a processor (per claim 1) and only a processor and generic sensors (per claim 15). Thus, a "particular machine" is not recited; as neither the physical components nor the control steps recited claim a particularly novel/inventive "machine". The examiner, as noted in the prior office action, considers the aforementioned components to merely generically link the abstract idea to a technological environment using generic computing components. Applicant claims on page 16 that components such as physical mobility, an integrated controller, and a generic "deployment context" contribute to the assertion of “a particular machine”. Put simply, none of the aforementioned elements are in the independent claims; the references to the specification are appreciated, but without recitation in the claims, the examiner would otherwise be improperly importing limitations from the specification. Thus, this argument is also not found to be persuasive.
Further, applicant claims that the particular elements are integrated in a meaningful manner on page 17, but applicant quotes exactly why the examiner disagrees "MPEP 2106.05(b) further requires that the machine be integral to the claimed method - that is, that the method is performed by or with the machine in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the claim"; the claims in their current presentation do not. Merely stating that a processor with generic sensors receives data, processes it, and outputs the data is not integrating the "machine" into a practical application, nor in a particularly inventive manner.
Further, applicant claims on page 19 that even if the claims are drawn to an abstract idea, they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Again, the examiner respectfully disagrees. First, sensor fusion is a well-understood, routine, and conventional act in the art; the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion stating otherwise. The examiner also pointed to where the primary art disclosed use of "any combination thereof" (meaning a multitude), and notes further that despite the instant claims not requiring sensor fusion, the primary prior art of note also discusses it (Paragraph [0155] states "The data may be further processed (for example filtering, combining data from two or more sensors, or…". Again, the examiner insists that not only is sensor fusion well-known, routine, and conventional, but the prior art reads upon the instant claims. Second, merely "outputting" data is not a meaningful limit to amount to significantly more; a line of code containing data may be sent to a generic server, never to be seen or used again. Is this practical? Merely outputting the data is not integrating the data into a practical application. Thus, this argument is also not found to be persuasive.
In summary of the above, the examiner reviewed applicant's arguments and found that they were not persuasive; the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections persist.
Prior Art (35 U.S.C. 102/103): Regarding arguments against outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 102/103) starting on page 22 of applicant arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. First, applicant sates that the claims require "mapping be performed based on analysis of the sensory data captured by those multiple different sensing technologies"; the examiner disagrees. Applicant merely claims receipt of data from a plurality of sensors, but then states "mapping, based on analysis of the sensory data, at least one…", merely using an "analysis of the sensory data", which the prior art does.
Further, applicant argues that the sensor data of the prior art is never merged (see page 23); again, this is not claimed in the instant claims and the examiner further disagrees and asserts that the prior art does teach combination of sensor data. Further, even if it were claimed, applicant provides exactly a "mapping" of the environment disclosed by the prior art on page 23; using gyroscopes to detect a sloping surface, using a proximity sensor to disclose surfaces, etc. The examiner is unsure if applicant wishes to claim a more narrow definition of "map", but quantifying an environment using a sensor constitutes a "map". See the examiner interpretation above. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Regarding applicant's assertion that merely presenting a plurality of sensors is insufficient to establish anticipation on page 24, the examiner respectfully disagrees and provided art with direct citation to each paragraph which anticipates the limitations of note. If applicant wishes to show where the examiner's interpretation or the teachings of the prior art fall short, they are invited to do so. However, a tangential argument stating that the prior art does not provide a limitation which is not present in the claims is not sufficient to prove that the prior art does not anticipate the instant claims. The arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant continues on a tangent on pages 25-27 with, again, further arguments regarding limitations which are not present in the claims. The arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 27 that, regarding claim 3, a predetermined or arbitrarily selected start point is not disclosed. The examiner first notes that direct citation that read upon the limitations of note was provided previously. Second, "a predetermined or arbitrarily selected start point" for robot mapping is inherent; every robot operation must have a start. Thus, the examiner is unsure what applicant is trying to argue, as the claim is still anticipated. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 28 that, regarding claim 4, exploration from each mapped surface is required. The examiner points applicant to the parent claim 1 where only one surface is required, so any form of exploration from a single surface anticipates the language, and provided direct citation. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 28 that, regarding claim 5, that motion parameters must be derived from the analysis of sensory data. The examiner notes that the exact verbiage of the claim states "mapping the at least one geometrically distinguishable surface is based on at least one motion parameter" and provides a list; the examiner provided citation where the mapping was based on a motion parameter listed. If applicant wishes to have a narrower interpretation of "based on" to be utilized, they must do so by way of claim amendment. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 28, regarding claim 6, that "walls and slopes themselves may reasonably be considered 'fixed elements' for purposes of Claim 6. This characterization is incorrect." The examiner disagrees; the specification paragraphs do not redefine the language "fixed element", but rather provide examples. If applicant wishes to have the "fixed elements" consist only from an exclusive group of objects, amendment of the claim language is necessary. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 29 that the prior art does not read upon the sensor types listed in dependent claims 7-11 and 14. The examiner disagrees; direct citation was provided to the particular sections. The argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the argument against the examiner's 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection starting on page 30, the examiner provided art which utilized the well-known, routine, and conventional sensor in an analogous art, with a reason to combine. The examiner stated that the primary prior art provided a plurality of sensor examples but did not particularly limit the type (thus opening interpretation). The examiner, again, located art which disclosed the sensor of note in an analogous manner, and provided a rationale for combination (the interest of accuracy, per page 14 of the prior office action). Per MPEP 2144.II., "THE EXPECTATION OF SOME ADVANTAGE IS THE STRONGEST RATIONALE FOR COMBINING REFERENCES"; the examiner located art which did exactly this. Applicant then continues on further tangents in pages 31-35 about cost concerns, further non-claimed subject matter, etc. and states that the motivation is unsupported (which the examiner disagrees with, as a direct advantage was disclosed and stated by the examiner both above and in the prior office action). Applicant states on page 32 that the secondary art teaches away, but the examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely providing disadvantages to certain sensors does not teach away, it makes a user understand why they may not wish to employ the technology; the secondary art also taught reasons for the benefit of the secondary teachings. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
In summary, the examiner has considered all arguments presented by the applicant. Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 102, and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, the arguments are not persuasive and the claims remain rejected under analogous rationale (only further modification is to highlight amended claim language). New grounds of rejection, necessitated by claim amendment, are found below.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 30 March 2026. Claims 1 and 15 are independent claims. Claims 1-15 are pending and rejected, as noted further 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 and 15 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".
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 14-15 recite a generic “dynamic pool equipment unit”. The examiner considered interpretation of this component under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), however, MPEP 2181 provides the requisite for understanding when to apply this interpretation, and the examiner was unable to locate where the term is modified by functional language in the claim set (one of the three prongs). Therefore, the examiner will not interpret the aforementioned term under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but will interpret it broadly as it is not currently otherwise limited.
Claim 1 recites “A computer implemented method…”. The examiner contemplated the effect of the preamble in this case, considering the preamble to claim just a method, or a method particularly carried out by a computer (thus, computer code or signals per se). The recitation of “using at least one processor for:” also does not explicitly claim a processor but describes how portions of the claimed method may be carried out, and is thus interpreted as a form of intended use. Ultimately, the examiner will interpret the claim as reciting a method rather than computer code or signals per se. Thus, a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection for signals per se is withheld at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
MENTAL PROCESS
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-14 are directed to a method. Claim 15 is directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1-15 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in MPEP 2106, the claims are to analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groupings of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 15 recites:
A system for navigating a dynamic pool equipment unit in a water pool, comprising:
a plurality of sensors employing a plurality of different sensing technologies; and
at least one processor adapted to execute a code, the code comprising:
code instructions to receive sensory data 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;
code instructions to map, based on analysis of the sensory data, 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;
code instructions to generate a map of the water pool based on the mapped at least one geometrically distinguishable surface; and
code instructions to output the water pool map for navigating at least one dynamic pool equipment unit in the water pool during execution of at least one dynamic activity.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. A human is generally able to use a multitude of senses including sight, hearing, touch, etc. (receiving sensory data from different types of sensors). A human swimming in a murky pool would be able to feel when a wall is touched and/or see when a wall is approaching as they swim (based on sensory data, determine a surface). As the human continues to swim, they would be able to recall general locations of walls (map the pool) and direct another human where to swim, for instance (output instructions to navigate). Further/alternatively, the steps of “receiving sensory data…” and “outputting…” are mere pre- and post-solutionary activity as necessary data gathering and outputting, and the steps of “mapping” and “generating a map” are mental processes as noted above. Therefore, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for navigating a dynamic pool equipment unit in a water pool, comprising:
a plurality of sensors employing a plurality of different sensing technologies; and
at least one processor adapted to execute a code, the code comprising:
code instructions to receive sensory data 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;
code instructions to map, based on analysis of the sensory data, 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;
code instructions to generate a map of the water pool based on the mapped at least one geometrically distinguishable surface; and
code instructions to output the water pool map for navigating at least one dynamic pool equipment unit in the water pool during execution of at least one dynamic activity.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
Regarding the additional limitations of a processor, generic sensor, and code instructions, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular the claim elements reference generic components, which amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity as necessary data gathering and outputting. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of a generic sensor, processor, and code instructions does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because they are merely an attempt at generic linking and are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible and as such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The examiner notes that merely outputting a map “for navigation” does not directly recite positive control of the device but rather claims the generic output of signals that may or may not be used (and thus, does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception).
Independent claim 1 recites analogous limitations as claim 15 without the additional linking elements. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under analogous reasons as those presented in claim 15 above.
Regarding claims 2-14, the claims specify and/or further limits similar to the previously addressed abstract idea above and does not recite additional limitations that present a practical application nor amount to “significantly more” for analogous reasons above.
Claims 2, 5, and 6: The claim merely clarifies how geometrically distinguishable surfaces may be determined (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Claims 3 and 4: The claim merely states that the pool equipment is operated to explore from a generic start point to another point (simply generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment without altering or affecting how the steps of the abstract idea are performed - see MPEP 2106.05(h) - using a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the above-noted abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 7-14: The claims merely describe exemplary sensors used for a generic purpose of mapping (simply generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment without altering or affecting how the steps of the abstract idea are performed - see MPEP 2106.05(h) - using a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the above-noted abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In accordance with the above, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schloss et al. (US 2018/0135325 A1; published 17 May 2018, hereinafter Schloss).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 15: Schloss discloses A computer implemented method of navigating a dynamic pool equipment unit in a water pool, comprising: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0034-0036, 0044, 0063, 0075], Schloss discloses computer implemented methods of mapping/navigation for a pool cleaner) / A system for navigating a dynamic pool equipment unit in a water pool, comprising: a plurality of sensors employing a plurality of different sensing technologies; and (per claim 15) (Paragraph [0034-0036, 0041, 0044, 0063, 0075], Schloss discloses a system of mapping/navigation for a pool cleaner. The device has sensors, such as proximity sensors, tilt sensors, pressure gauges, distance sensors, gyroscopes, accelerometers, etc.)
using at least one processor for: (per claim 1) / at least one processor adapted to execute a code, the code comprising: (per claim 15) (Paragraph [0072-0072, 0075, 0079] and Figure [1B], Schloss discloses that the system/method includes performance of the method in code/computer instructions via a processor)
receiving sensory data 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 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) (Paragraph [0041, 0044, 0092], Schloss discloses that the pool cleaner receives sensor data from the environment (of the pool), the sensors comprise a plurality of different types of sensors, as noted above)
mapping, based on analysis of the sensory data, 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 analysis of the sensory data, 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) (Paragraph [0038, 0047, 0060, 0097, 0109] and Figure [8], Schloss discloses determining characteristics of the pool via the sensors, the characteristics including slope of the pool, shape of the pool, obstacles, etc. Further, determination of the characteristics includes determination of shape/contour of the walls, including corners/boundaries as shown, for instance, in Figure [8])
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) (Paragraph [0044, 0049], Schloss discloses that the robot maps the environment, including from the detected 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…”)
outputting the water pool map for navigating 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 for navigating at least one dynamic pool equipment unit in the water pool during execution of at least one dynamic activity. (per claim 15) (Paragraph [0044, 0050-0053, 0059, 0081], Schloss discloses using the mapping information to navigate the environment)
Regarding claim 2: Schloss discloses parent claim 1. Schloss 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 [0044, 0049], Schloss discloses 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…”)
Regarding claim 3: Schloss discloses parent claim 1. Schloss further discloses 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 discloses 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 a “start” point, as it begins another operation (travel from square 1 to square 2, turning, etc.))
Regarding claim 4: Schloss discloses parent claim 1. Schloss 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 [0081, 0086-0088, 0106, 0115] and Figure [3A-3D, 4], Schloss discloses movement in a plurality of directions)
Regarding claim 5: Schloss discloses parent claim 1. Schloss 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 [0049], Schloss discloses orientation (as an example) as a parameter used for detection/mapping)
Regarding claim 6: Schloss discloses parent claim 1. Schloss further discloses wherein mapping the at least one geometrically distinguishable surface is based on positioning of at least one fixed element identified in the water pool based on the analysis of the sensory data. (Paragraph [0037-0038, 0047-0049, 0097], Schloss discloses relative positioning from fixed surfaces such as corners, walls, etc. Further, the walls and slopes themselves may reasonably be considered “fixed elements” as they generally do not move)
Regarding claim 7: Schloss discloses parent claim 1. Schloss further discloses 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 discloses use of a pressure sensor to measure depth)
Regarding claim 8: Schloss discloses parent claim 1. Schloss further discloses wherein the plurality of sensors comprise at least one gyroscope adapted to measure an orientation of the dynamic pool equipment unit. (Paragraph [0044, 0109, 0123], Schloss discloses use of a gyroscope for orientation)
Regarding claim 9: Schloss discloses parent claim 1. Schloss further discloses wherein the plurality of sensors comprise at least one accelerometer adapted to measure an acceleration of the dynamic pool equipment unit. (Paragraph [0044, 0124], Schloss discloses use of an accelerometer)
Regarding claim 10: Schloss discloses parent claim 1. Schloss 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 [0044, 0146], Schloss discloses use of a magnetic compass (magnetometer) for orientation)
Regarding claim 11: Schloss discloses parent claim 1. Schloss 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 [0156, 0159], Schloss discloses use of a camera to image the environment)
Regarding claim 14: Schloss discloses parent claim 1. Schloss 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 [0041, 0044], Schloss discloses use of a proximity sensor to measure distance to a nearby object/surface (wall, obstacle, etc.))
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schloss in view of Leonessa et al. (US 2014/0009748 A1; hereinafter Leonessa).
Regarding claim 12: Schloss discloses parent claim 1. Schloss gives many examples of sensors used and does not particularly limit the sensor type to those explicitly described, however Schloss does not explicitly disclose a SONAR sensor. However, SONAR sensors are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art to be used in underwater navigation applications.
Leonessa, in a similar field of endeavor of pool cleaner 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 [0004, 0057, 0072], Leonessa discloses use of SONAR sensing)
Schloss and Leonessa are in a similar field of endeavor of pool cleaner navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Schloss to include SONAR sensing, as the sensors disclosed in Schloss are not limited to the options presented, and use of SONAR in navigation applications is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by the teachings of Leonessa. One would have been motivated to make this change by merely replacing one type of well known sensor with another; Leonessa discloses that SONAR may be desirable in large, open water environments (perhaps a large pool, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 13: Schloss discloses parent claim 1. Schloss gives many examples of sensors used and does not particularly limit the sensor type to those explicitly described, however Schloss does not explicitly disclose a LIDAR sensor. However, LIDAR sensors are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art to be used in underwater navigation applications.
Leonessa, in a similar field of endeavor of pool cleaner navigation, teaches 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 [0004, 0057, 0072], Leonessa discloses use of LIDAR sensing)
Schloss and Leonessa are in a similar field of endeavor of pool cleaner navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Schloss to include LIDAR sensing, as the sensors disclosed in Schloss are not limited to the options presented, and use of LIDAR in navigation applications is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by the teachings of Leonessa. One would have been motivated to make this change by merely replacing one type of well known sensor with another; Leonessa discloses that LIDAR may be desirable in cases where high accuracy is desired (paragraph [0004]).
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 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
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights