The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “pool cleaning device” in Claims 1-20, “fluid ejecting unit” in Claims 1, 16, and 17, “first driving unit” in Claims 1 and 18, “second driving unit” in Claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, and 15, “waterflow guiding unit” in Claims 2, 3, and 6, “direction determining unit” in Claims 7 and 8, “signal transmitting component” in Claims 8 and 9, “signal receiving component” in Claims 8 and 9, “magnetic component” in Claim 9, “transmission unit” in Claim 10, “control unit” in Claim 11, “sealing member” in Claim 12, “filtering unit” in Claim 18, and “traveling unit” in Claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the vector nozzles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since only a single vector nozzle has been previously claimed.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maggeni et al. EP 2848751 A1 (hereafter Maggeni et al.) in view of other embodiments and design choice.
Maggeni et al. discloses multiple embodiments of his device. The Examiner has focused on cleaning robot 10 for the rejection, however, to include all the claim limitations, features of cleaning robot 2800 must be combined to fill in features missing in the disclosure of cleaning robot 10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine multiple embodiments taught by Maggeni et al. since they are similar and the elements cited by the Examiner can be combined to produce a viable device as presented.
Regarding Claim 1, Maggeni et al. teaches:
1. A pool cleaning device (cleaning robot 10 or 2800), comprising:
a fluid ejecting unit (nozzle manipulator 2872 and assembly shown in Figure 16) comprising a fluid channel (into pump impeller 70, Figure 7) through which water flows and a vector nozzle (nozzle 410), wherein an inlet (inlet of nozzle 410 at pump impeller 70) of the vector nozzle is rotatably connected with the fluid channel (shown in Figures 7 and 12);
a first driving unit (pump 80) configured to drive water to be ejected from an outlet (outlet of nozzle 410) of the vector nozzle via the fluid channel;
a housing (housing 13), wherein at least two discharge openings (right opening 2802, left opening 2801, and rear opening 2803) are arranged on the housing (Figures 29 and 32), the two discharge openings configured (by connection to right fluid conduit 2812 and left fluid conduit 2811) to discharge the water ejected from the outlet of the vector nozzle to outside of the pool cleaning device; and
a second driving unit (motor (not shown) connected to horizontal bevel gear 504) configured to drive (through vertical bevel gear 502 and horizontal bevel gear 504) the vector nozzle to rotate so that the outlet of the vector nozzle is at least partially aligned with one of the at least two discharge openings (rotates to selectively connect to right fluid conduit 2812 and left fluid conduit 2811).
Regarding Claim 2, Maggeni et al. teaches:
2. The pool cleaning device according to claim 1, further comprising a waterflow guiding unit (assembly comprising right fluid conduit 2812 and left fluid conduit 2811) configured to guide the water ejected from the outlet (outlet of nozzle 410) of the vector nozzle (nozzle 410) to one of the at least two discharge openings (right opening 2802 and left opening 2801).
Regarding Claim 3, Maggeni et al. teaches:
3. The pool cleaning device according to claim 2, wherein the waterflow guiding unit (assembly comprising right fluid conduit 2812 and left fluid conduit 2811) comprises at least two water conduits (right fluid conduit 2812 and left fluid conduit 2811), and the outlet (outlet of nozzle 410) of the vector nozzle (nozzle 410) is configured to be at least partially aligned with an inlet of one of the at least two water conduits after the vector nozzle is rotated (“ A fluid interfacing unit 2874 that is arranged to direct fluid from the nozzle (a) towards the rear fluid conduit when the nozzle is at a first orientation, (b) towards the right fluid conduit when the nozzle is at a second orientation, and (c) towards the left fluid conduit when the nozzle is at a third orientation; wherein the first orientation differs from the second and third orientations.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Maggeni et al. teaches:
4. The pool cleaning device according to claim 3, wherein the outlets of the at least two water conduits (right fluid conduit 2812 and left fluid conduit 2811) are at least partially aligned with the at least two discharge openings (right opening 2802 and left opening 2801) respectively.
Regarding Claim 5, Maggeni et al. teaches:
5. The pool cleaning device according to claim 1, wherein the second driving unit (motor (not shown) connected to horizontal bevel gear 504 is configured to drive the vector nozzle (nozzle 410) to rotate based on an operation requirement or motion state of the pool cleaning device (“The control unit is arranged to control the jet generator for jetting fluids to thereby inducing the pool cleaning robot to move according to a waterline movement scheme when the pool cleaning robot is proximate to the waterline.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Maggeni et al. teaches:
6. The pool cleaning device according to claim 2, wherein the waterflow guiding unit (assembly comprising right fluid conduit 2812 and left fluid conduit 2811) is arranged inside the housing (housing 13).
Regarding Claim 7, Maggeni et al. teaches:
7. The pool cleaning device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a direction determining unit (control unit 2850) configured to determine a direction of the outlet of the vector nozzle (nozzle 410);
wherein, the second driving unit (motor (not shown) connected to horizontal bevel gear 504) is configured to drive the vector nozzle to rotate based on the determined direction of the outlet of the vector nozzle.
Maggeni et al. discloses that a “control unit is arranged to control the jet generator for jetting fluids to thereby inducing the pool cleaning robot to move according to a waterline movement scheme when the pool cleaning robot is proximate to the waterline.” Maggeni et al. does not disclose that the control unit has a sensor that provides feedback regarding the position of the nozzle 410. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sensor that transmits a signal to the controller to determine a direction of the outlet of the vector nozzle with the motivation to ensure that the control system can sense the starting position and verify that the movement to the desired position has been completed. Failure to include this sensor may result in the control system being unaware of the nozzle position which would make the control of the jetting fluids inconsistent with the intended response.
Regarding Claim 8, Maggeni et al. teaches:
8. The pool cleaning device according to claim 7, wherein the direction determining unit comprises:
at least one signal transmitting component (obvious sensor discussed in Claim 7 discussion) arranged on one of the vector nozzle (nozzle 410) and the fluid channel (into pump impeller 70, Figure 7); and
at least one signal receiving component arranged on the other of the vector nozzle and the fluid channel.
As presented in Claim 7, it would have been obvious to modify the Maggeni et al. device to employ a sensor that allows the control system to determine and verify the angular position of the nozzle. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the sensor on either the movable nozzle such that it detects its position relative to a stationary fluid channel or stationery on a stationary fluid channel such that it detects the movable position of the nozzle.
Regarding Claim 9, Maggeni et al. teaches:
9. The pool cleaning device according to claim 8, wherein,
the at least one signal transmitting component is a magnetic component; and
the at least one signal receiving component is a Hall sensor (see discussion below).
Maggeni et al. discloses the use of multiple compasses, making the use of a magnetic component undesirable. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ other sensor technologies, such as optical sensor 800 currently used on the device, that would provide an equivalent detection of the angular position of the nozzle.
Regarding Claim 10, Maggeni et al. teaches:
10. The pool cleaning device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a transmission unit (nozzle transmission 420) coupled between the vector nozzle (nozzle 410) and the second driving unit (motor (not shown) connected to horizontal bevel gear 504); wherein, the second driving unit is configured to drive the vector nozzle to rotate via the transmission unit (through horizontal bevel gear 504 and vertical bevel gear 502).
Regarding Claim 11, Maggeni et al. teaches:
11. The pool cleaning device according to claim 1, wherein the second driving unit (motor (not shown) connected to horizontal bevel gear 504) comprises a motor and a control unit (control unit 2850), and the control unit is configured to control the motor to drive the vector nozzle to rotate (through jet generator 2890).
Regarding Claim 12, Maggeni et al. teaches:
12. The pool cleaning device according to claim 3, wherein a sealing member (see discussion below) is arranged on the outlet of the vector nozzle or on at least one inlet of the at least two water conduits.
Maggeni et al. discloses a nozzle 410 that can be rotated to fluidically connect to one of three fluid conduits. Maggeni et al. does not disclose the inclusion of a sealing member therebetween. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a sealing member arranged on the outlet of the nozzle or on the inlet of each fluid conduit with the motivation to prevent fluid loss into the desired conduit. Fluid loss would result in a reduction in the flow rate of water discharged through the opening reducing the performance.
Regarding Claim 13, Maggeni et al. teaches:
13. The pool cleaning device according to claim 1, wherein the at least two discharge openings (right opening 2802, left opening 2801, and rear opening 2803) comprise a first discharge opening (right opening 2802) with discharging in a first direction (right), a second discharge opening (left opening 2801) with discharging in a second direction (left), and a third discharge opening (rear opening 2803) with discharging in a third direction (rearward).
Regarding Claim 14, Maggeni et al. teaches:
14. The pool cleaning device according to claim 13, wherein the first direction (right), the second direction (left) and the third direction (rearward) are located on a same plane (see discussion below).
Using a Broadest Reasonable interpretation, the directions are not tied to any structure that prevents them from being arbitrarily located on the same plane. Therefore, Maggeni et al. discloses the claim limitation.
Assuming that the direction is tied to the locations of their openings, Maggeni et al. discloses a right opening 2802, a left opening 2801, and a rear opening 2803. Maggeni et al. shows in Figures 28, 29, and 32 that the right opening and left opening appear to be symmetrical. Therefore, the left and right openings appear to be on the same plane. Maggeni et al. does not provide a figure that shows the location of the rear opening relative to the right and left openings. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the rear opening, if necessary, to at least partially overlap a plane coincident with both the right and left openings with the motivation to achieve a desired cosmetic appearance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 15, Maggeni et al. teaches:
15. The pool cleaning device according to claim 1, wherein a duration in which the second driving unit (motor (not shown) connected to horizontal bevel gear 504) drives the vector nozzle (nozzle 410) to rotate is set as a time threshold (based on predetermined rotation speed, see discussion below).
Maggeni et al. discloses a control unit 2850 that controls the rotation of the nozzle 410. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the controller to be programmed to rotate the motor that rotates the nozzle at a desired speed such that the rotation between conduits occurs in a desired period of time and not more with the motivation to achieve a desired time between operational states.
Regarding Claim 16, Maggeni et al. teaches:
16. The pool cleaning device according to claim 1, wherein,
at least one pair of the fluid ejecting units (assembly comprising right fluid conduit 2812 and left fluid conduit 2811) and the corresponding discharge openings (right opening 2802, left opening 2801) are symmetrically arranged on both sides of a longitudinal axis of a body of the pool cleaning device (shown in Figure 29).
Regarding Claim 17, Maggeni et al. teaches:
17. The pool cleaning device according to claim 16, wherein the vector nozzles (nozzle 410) of the at least one pair of fluid ejecting units (assembly comprising right fluid conduit 2812 and left fluid conduit 2811) are configured to be driven independently (by motor (not shown) connected to horizontal bevel gear 504) to rotate (rotates to selectively connect to right fluid conduit 2812 and left fluid conduit 2811).
Regarding Claim 18, Maggeni et al. teaches:
18. The pool cleaning device according to claim 1, further comprising a filtering unit (filtering unit 20) and a traveling unit (drive motor 610), wherein the filtering unit is configured to filter the water sucked from the outside (through opening 380) of the pool cleaning device by the first driving unit (pump 80), and the traveling unit is configured (with wheels and tracks as shown in Figure 28 with navigation unit) to drive the pool cleaning device to travel.
Regarding Claim 19, Maggeni et al. teaches:
19. The pool cleaning device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the at least two discharge openings (right opening 2802, left opening 2801) is provided with a detachable grid plate (grid shown on opening 2801 in Figure 28, see discussion below).
Maggeni et al. discloses in Figure 28, left opening 2801 with what appears to be a honeycomb grid plate. Maggeni et al. does not disclose that the grid plate is detachable as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the grid plate removable with the motivation to allow it to be removed for cleaning off debris or an obstruction, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding Claim 20, Maggeni et al. teaches:
20. A method for controlling a pool cleaning device, comprising:
driving water (with pump 80) to be ejected from a vector nozzle (nozzle 410) of the pool cleaning device (cleaning robot 10 or 2800); and
based on an operation requirement or motion state of the pool cleaning device, controlling the vector nozzle to rotate so as to guide the water ejected from the vector nozzle to one of a plurality of discharge openings in different directions (selecting right opening 2802, left opening 2801, or rear opening 2803) of the pool cleaning device and discharge the water from the pool cleaning device (Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of pool cleaners.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights