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 .
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
“a debris collection device used for collection and storing debris” in claim 1 and disclosed as a roller brush and a debris collection box in paragraph [0016].
“a waterline cleaning device for performing waterline cleaning” in claim 1 and disclosed as a roller brush in paragraph [0014],
“a positioning device for positioning the apparatus during cleaning”, in claim 1 and disclosed as an ultrasonic positioning device in paragraphs [0018] – [0019],
“an energy source charging device” in claim 7 and disclosed as a solar charging system in paragraph [0043].
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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 1-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei, et al (US 20250207422) and further in view of Tryber, et al (US 10704283).
Regarding claim 1, Wei discloses a swimming pool cleaning robot with a waterline cleaning function, comprising:
an apparatus main body (figure 1, item 1), serving as a structural foundation of a water surface cleaning robot, wherein a control mainboard (paragraph [0011]), a power supply (paragraph [0011]), and a driving system (paragraph [0054], figure 3, item 5) are built in the apparatus main body;
a debris collection device (figure 9, item 3), installed at a bottom position (figure 4 shows the bottom of the water cleaning device) of the apparatus main body for collecting and storing water surface debris (paragraph [0050]);
a positioning device (paragraph [0061] and item 12 in figure 1), used for positioning the apparatus main body during waterline cleaning, enabling the waterline cleaning device to contact the inner wall surface of the swimming pool to complete waterline cleaning (Wei is capable of enabling the waterline cleaning device to contact the inner wall surface of the swimming pool);
the control mainboard, the debris collection device, the waterline cleaning device, and the positioning device are powered by the power supply, and the debris collection device, the waterline cleaning device, and the positioning device are controlled (paragraph [0060]) by the control mainboard.
Wei fails to disclose: a waterline cleaning device, installed at a side of the apparatus main body for performing waterline cleaning on an inner wall surface of a swimming pool; and the waterline cleaning device being controlled by the control mainboard.
Tryber teaches a waterline cleaning device (figure 1, items 21 and 24), installed at a side of the apparatus main body for performing waterline cleaning on an inner wall surface of a swimming pool (column 10 line 66 – column 11 line 3); and the waterline cleaning device being controlled (column 6 lines 12-20) by the control mainboard.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wei with the teachings of Tryber to provide an autonomous robot that can effectively reach, brush, and clean difficult to reach areas in the pool.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wei and Tryber disclose the swimming pool cleaning robot with a waterline cleaning function according to claim 1, wherein the waterline cleaning device comprises a waterline roller brush (Tryber figure 1, items 21 and 24) and a waterline propeller, the waterline roller brush is arranged at the side of the apparatus main body, the waterline roller brush is used for making contact with a wall to clean the waterline (Tryber column 10 line 66 – column 11 line 3); and
the waterline propeller is installed on the other side of the apparatus main body and is used for applying a propelling force (Tryber Figure 2, item 43, column 1 lines 21-24) during waterline cleaning, enabling the waterline roller brush to press tightly against the wall, the propelling force serves as the back propelling force for the waterline roller brush and waterline propeller is controlled by the control mainboard (Tryber column 6 lines 12-20).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wei and Tryber disclose the swimming pool cleaning robot with a waterline cleaning function according to claim 1, wherein the debris collection device comprises a main roller brush (Wei figures 1 and 10 item 4, paragraph [0049]) and a debris collection box (Wei figures 4 and 9-10, item 3, paragraph [0049]), the debris collection box is installed at the bottom of the apparatus main body, with one side open to form a debris inlet, the main roller brush is installed on one side of the debris inlet, the main roller brush is controlled to rotate by a driving system, debris on the water surface is collected into the debris collection box by the main roller brush, and the debris collection box is provided with small holes for water inflow and outflow (Wei figure 9, paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wei and Tryber disclose the swimming pool cleaning robot with a waterline cleaning function according to claim 1, further comprising a thrust system, wherein the thrust system comprises a plurality of self-powered main motion propellers installed on a tail end of the apparatus main body (Wei figure 3, item 5 paragraph [0054]), the thrust system is controlled (Wei paragraph [0060]) by the control mainboard and powered by the power supply, and the apparatus main body is propelled forward by the thrust system.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wei and Tryber disclose the swimming pool cleaning robot with a waterline cleaning function according to claim 1, wherein the positioning device adopts an ultrasonic positioning device (Tryber column 7 lines 16-17).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wei and Tryber disclose the swimming pool cleaning robot with a waterline cleaning function according to claim 5, wherein the ultrasonic positioning device (Tryber column 7 lines 16-17) comprises a side ultrasonic positioning module and a front ultrasonic positioning module (Tryber column 3 lines 8-9), which transmit ultrasonic detection signals to the control mainboard and make an instruction (Tryber Figure 7, column 6 lines 21-29).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wei and Tryber disclose the swimming pool cleaning robot with a waterline cleaning function according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of guide rollers (Wei figure 1, item 15, paragraph [0058]) are provided on sides of the apparatus main body.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei, et al (US 20250207422) and further in view of Tryber, et al (US 10704283), and Cadotte (US 20060102532).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wei and Tryber disclose the swimming pool cleaning robot with a waterline cleaning function according to claim 1.
However the combination of Wei and Tryber fail to disclose a top of the apparatus main body is provided with an energy source charging device, and the power supply is charged by the energy source charging device.
Cadotte teaches that a top of the apparatus main body is provided with an energy source charging device (figure 1 item 75, paragraph [0051]), and the power supply is charged by the energy source charging device (paragraph [0038]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wei and Tryber with the teachings of Cadotte to provide a water surface cleaning machine that operates without intervention cleaning the pool and recharging its batteries.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5106492 describes a solar powered pool skimmer. US 20170356211 describes a robotic pool tile cleaner using roller brushes. US 7101475 describes a solar powered pool skimmer with guide rollers. US 4429429 describes a waterline cleaner using brushes. US 10858853 describes an automatic waterline scrubbing device. US 20200011079 describes a floating pool cleaner for scrubbing walls.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK A HINDMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 730-5.
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 at (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.
/FREDERICK A. HINDMAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights