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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species I, Fig. 2 in the reply filed on 06/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5, 10-12 and 15-18 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to the nonelected species II, III and IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 5 is readable on Fig. 3, species II. Claims 10-12 and 15-18 are readable Fig. 4, species III. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/09/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-4, 6-9, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2023/187596.
WO 2023/187596 discloses a charging system for an automatic pool cleaner, the charging system 20 comprising a corrosion-mitigating device 28/29 for an electrical contact 22, wherein the corrosion-mitigating device 28/29 is configured to dry and/or remove water from the electrical contact 22 prior to charging (for drying, cleaning, or treating electrical contacts), (see paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, the corrosion-mitigating device 28/29 comprises a drying device 28A/28B comprising a drying material (sponge, cleaning pad, paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 3, the drying device 28A/28B comprises a fabrics buffer.
Regarding claim 4, the electrical contact 22 is selectively retractable and extendable through the drying device 28A/28B.
Regarding claim 6, the drying device 28A/28B is movable (indicate by arrow 30 in Fig. 2) relative to the electrical contact 22 between a stowed position and a deployed position.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the charging system further comprises a biasing mechanism (spring or elastic member, see paragraph [0028]) biasing the drying device 28A/28B toward the stowed position or the deployed position.
Regarding claim 9, the charging system further comprises a biasing mechanism (see paragraph [0028]) biasing the drying device 28A/28B toward the stowed position.
Regarding claim 13, the automatic pool cleaner 10 comprising the charging system 20 , wherein at least the corrosion-mitigating device 28/29 is on the automatic pool cleaner 10 (paragraph [0022]), wherein the corrosion-mitigating device 28/29 is configured to dry and/or remove water from the electrical contact 22 prior to charging.
Regarding claim 14, at least the corrosion-mitigating device 28/29 is on the charging station 20.
Claims 1-2,4, 6-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Dyke et al. (2012/0266914).
Regarding claim 1, all the intended use of the device for an automatic swimming cleaner the preamble has been considered but deems not to have any structure limitations on the claim, Van Dyke et al. teach a charging system 115 comprising a corrosion-mitigating device 215 for an electrical contact 210, wherein the corrosion-mitigating device 215 is configured to dry and/or remove water from the electrical contact 210 prior to charging (for removing moisture/water, dirt, dust on an inner surface of member 210), (see paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 2, the corrosion-mitigating device 215 comprises a drying device 225 comprising a drying material (a soft bristle format, paragraph [0034], foam, paragraphs [0046, 0047, 0048]).
Regarding claim 6, the drying device 225 is movable relative to the electrical contact 210 between a stowed position and a deployed position.
Regarding claim 14, the corrosion-mitigating device 220 is on the charging station 100.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dyke et al. (2012/0266914).
Regarding claim 3, Van Dyke et al. disclose the drying device 225 made of a drying material but does not specifically teach a fabric buffer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a fabric buffer as a drying material for the drying device, since selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a mere matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (5,646,494) in view of Van Dyke et al. (2012/0266914)
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses a charging system for an automatic pool cleaner 1, the charging system 20 comprising an electric contact 113 and a protection system 115. However, Han does not teach a corrosion-mitigating device is configured to dry and/or remove water from the electrical contact 113 prior to charging.
Attention is directed to Dyke et al. which teach a charging system 115 comprising a corrosion-mitigating device 215 for an electrical contact 210, wherein the corrosion-mitigating device 215 is configured to dry and/or remove water from the electrical contact 210 prior to charging (for removing moisture/water, dirt, dust on an inner surface of member 210), (see paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Han system to include a corrosion-mitigating device in view of the teaching Van Dyke et al. to dry the electrical contact before charging.
Regarding claim 2, Dyke et al. teach the corrosion-mitigating device 215 comprises a drying device 225 comprising a drying material (a soft bristle format, paragraph [0034], foam, paragraphs [0046, 0047, 0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Van Dyke et al. disclose the drying device 225 made of a drying material but does not specifically teach a fabric buffer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a fabric buffer as a drying material for the drying device, since selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a mere matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lancry et al. teach a charging station for an automatic pool clenaner comprising an electrical contact .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN D LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Angwin can be reached at 517-270-3735. 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.
HUYEN D. LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3754
/HUYEN D LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights