DETAILED ACTION
INFORMATION CONCERNING RESPONSES
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on June 18, 2026, in response to PTO Office Action mailed on February 18, 2026. The Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or the specification were considered with the results that follow.
In response to the last Office Action, claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, and 15-16 have been amended. Claims 3 and 18 have been cancelled. Claims 21-22 are new claims. As a result, claims 1-2, 4-17, and 19-22 are now pending in this application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 18, 2026, in response to PTO Office Action mailed on February 18, 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Hence, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further review a new ground of rejection has been made in view of Stewart (Patent Number US 6,111,885).
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gaiser (Publication Number US 2002/0103946 A1) in view of Potucek et al. (Publication Number US 2018/0240322 A1) and Stewart (Patent Number US 6,111,885).
As per claim 1, Gaiser discloses “A [pool or spa] system configured for dual protocol communication with [pool or spa] equipment, the system comprising: a plurality of devices of equipment, the plurality of devices of the equipment including a first device and a second device (a master device 2 with a plurality of slave devices 1; FIG. 1).” Gaiser discloses “a bus configured to communicate with a [pool automation] controller, the first device, and the second device (through a shared bus 3; FIG. 1; Paragraph 0018).” Gaiser discloses “and the [pool automation] controller comprising: a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions (see master device 2 that is able to address with messages a slave device; Page 2, Claim 1).” Gaiser discloses “and one or more processors configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to at least: determine that the first device is associated with a first communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029).” Gaiser discloses “communicate, using the bus, with the first device via the first communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029).” Gaiser discloses “determine that the second device is associated with a second communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029).” Gaiser discloses “and communicate, using the bus, with the second device via the second communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029).”
However, Gaiser does not disclose “pool or spa” or “pool automation controller.”
Potucek et al. discloses “pool or spa (Abstract, lines 1-5)” and “pool automation controller (systems for remote monitoring and control of pool/spa equipment; Abstract, lines 1-5 and 9-12).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Gaiser and Potucek et al. to allow for enhanced control and connectivity of pool equipment devices with reduced hardware and/or installation costs [Paragraph 0006].
However, Gaiser and Potucek et al. do not disclose “by at least retrieving information from the memory that is indicative of the first device associated with the first communication protocol.”
Stewart discloses “by at least retrieving information from the memory that is indicative of the first device associated with the first communication protocol (the communication protocols can be pre-defined and stored in an active list for each node at net initialization….In these embodiments, it is only necessary for the destination device to read an identification code of the source device and then retrieve the information from a memory storing the protocol information; Column 2, lines 17-29).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Gaiser and Potucek et al. with elements of Stewart to provide for nodes that can negotiate an acceptable communication protocol [Column 2, lines 43-44].
As per claims 2 and 17, Potucek et al. discloses “The system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Gaiser, Potucek et al., and Stewart above), wherein at least one of the first communication protocol or the second communication protocol comprises an Internet Protocol-based communication protocol (communication with a TCP/IP stack; Paragraph 0069).”
As per claims 4, 12, and 19, Gaiser discloses “The system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Gaiser, Potucek et al., and Stewart above), wherein the first communication protocol comprises an Internet Protocol-based communication protocol, and wherein determining that the first device is associated with the first communication protocol further comprises: receiving, from the first device, a broadcast message indicating an Internet Protocol address of the first device (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029).” Potucek et al. discloses “and determining, based on the broadcast message, that the first device is associated with the Internet Protocol-based communication protocol (communication with a TCP/IP stack; Paragraph 0069).”
As per claims 5, 13, and 20, Potucek et al. discloses “The system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Gaiser, Potucek et al., and Stewart above), wherein the second communication protocol comprises a non-Internet Protocol-based communication protocol (the serial transceiver could support one or more suitable serial communication protocols, such as RS-485, RS-232, USB, etc.; Paragraph 0069).”
Gaiser discloses “and wherein determining that the second device is associated with a second communication protocol comprises: receiving, from the second device, a message indicating an address of the second device (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0019-0022, 0024, and 0029).” Potucek et al. discloses “and determining, based on the message, that the second device is associated with the non-Internet Protocol-based communication protocol (the serial transceiver could support one or more suitable serial communication protocols, such as RS-485, RS-232, USB, etc.; Paragraph 0069).”
As per claims 6 and 14, Potucek et al. discloses “The system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Gaiser, Potucek et al., and Stewart above), wherein the first communication protocol comprises an Internet Protocol-based communication protocol (communication with a TCP/IP stack; Paragraph 0069) and the second communication protocol comprises a non-Internet Protocol-based communication protocol (the serial transceiver could support one or more suitable serial communication protocols, such as RS-485, RS-232, USB, etc.; Paragraph 0069).”
Gaiser discloses “and wherein communicating, using the bus, with the first device via the first communication protocol and with the second device via the second communication protocol comprises: sending, using the bus, a first message to the first device using the Internet Protocol-based communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol [Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029]. Potucek et al. discloses the Internet Protocol-based communication protocol in [Paragraph 0069]).”
Gaiser discloses “receiving, using the bus and from the first device, a first response to the first message using the Internet Protocol-based communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol [Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029]. Potucek et al. discloses the Internet Protocol-based communication protocol in [Paragraph 0069]).” Gaiser discloses “sending, using the bus, a second message to the second device using the non-Internet Protocol-based communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol [Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029]. Potucek et al. discloses the non-Internet Protocol-based communication protocol in [Paragraph 0069]).” Gaiser discloses “and receiving, using the bus and from the second device, a second response to the second message using the non-Internet Protocol-based communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol [Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029]. Potucek et al. discloses the non-Internet Protocol-based communication protocol in [Paragraph 0069]).”
As per claims 7 and 15, Gaiser discloses “The system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Gaiser, Potucek et al., and Stewart above), wherein the one or more processors are configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to further at least: store a first association between the first device and the first communication protocol, wherein the information comprises the first association (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029).” Gaiser discloses “and store a second association between the second device and the second communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029).”
As per claim 8, Gaiser discloses “The system of claim 7 (as disclosed by Gaiser, Potucek et al., and Stewart above), wherein the first association indicates an Internet Protocol address of the first device and the second association indicates an address of the second device (Paragraphs 0019-0022).”
As per claim 9, Potucek et al. discloses “The system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Gaiser, Potucek et al., and Stewart above), wherein the first communication protocol comprises a serial line Internet Protocol and the second communication protocol comprises a Recommended Standard-485 protocol (Paragraph 0069).”
As per claim 10, Gaiser discloses “A computer-implemented method for dual protocol communication with [pool or spa] equipment of a [pool or spa] system, the method performed by a computer system and comprising: determining that a first device of equipment of the [pool or spa] system is associated with a first communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029).” Gaiser discloses “communicating with the first device via the first communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029).” Gaiser discloses “determining that a second device of the equipment of the [pool or spa] system is associated with a second communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029).” Gaiser discloses “and communicating with the second device via the second communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029).”
However, Gaiser does not disclose “pool or spa.”
Potucek et al. discloses “pool or spa (Abstract, lines 1-5).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Gaiser and Potucek et al. to allow for enhanced control and connectivity of pool equipment devices with reduced hardware and/or installation costs [Paragraph 0006].
However, Gaiser and Potucek et al. do not disclose “by at least retrieving, from a memory of the computing system, information that is indicative of the first device associated with the first communication protocol.”
Stewart discloses “by at least retrieving, from a memory of the computing system, information that is indicative of the first device associated with the first communication protocol (the communication protocols can be pre-defined and stored in an active list for each node at net initialization….In these embodiments, it is only necessary for the destination device to read an identification code of the source device and then retrieve the information from a memory storing the protocol information; Column 2, lines 17-29).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Gaiser and Potucek et al. with elements of Stewart to provide for nodes that can negotiate an acceptable communication protocol [Column 2, lines 43-44].
As per claim 11, Potucek et al. discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 10 (as disclosed by Gaiser, Potucek et al., and Stewart above), wherein the first communication protocol comprises an Internet Protocol-based communication protocol (communication with a TCP/IP stack; Paragraph 0069) and the second communication protocol comprises a non-Internet Protocol-based communication protocol (the serial transceiver could support one or more suitable serial communication protocols, such as RS-485, RS-232, USB, etc.; Paragraph 0069).”
Gaiser discloses “and wherein the method further comprises: coordinating communication with the first device using the Internet Protocol-based communication protocol and the second device using the non-Internet Protocol-based communication protocol to prevent receiving simultaneous messages from the first device and the second device (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029).”
As per claim 16, Gaiser discloses “A [pool automation controller] for a [pool or spa] system configured for dual protocol communication with [pool or spa] equipment, the [pool automation controller] comprising: a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions (see master device 2 that is able to address with messages a slave device; Page 2, Claim 1).” Gaiser discloses “and one or more processors configured to access the memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to at least: determine that a first device of a plurality devices is associated with a first communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029).” Gaiser discloses “communicate, using a bus configured to communicate with the plurality of devices of the [pool or spa] equipment, with the first device via the first communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029).” Gaiser discloses “determine that the second device of the plurality of devices is associated with a second communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029).” Gaiser discloses “and communicate, using the bus, with the second device via the second communication protocol (slave device capable of handling different protocols with the master device communicating in appropriate protocol; Paragraphs 0021, 0024, and 0029).”
However, Gaiser does not disclose “pool or spa” or “pool automation controller.”
Potucek et al. discloses “pool or spa (Abstract, lines 1-5)” and “pool automation controller (systems for remote monitoring and control of pool/spa equipment; Abstract, lines 1-5 and 9-12).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Gaiser and Potucek et al. to allow for enhanced control and connectivity of pool equipment devices with reduced hardware and/or installation costs [Paragraph 0006].
However, Gaiser and Potucek et al. do not disclose “by at least retrieving information from the memory that is indicative of the first device associated with the first communication protocol.”
Stewart discloses “by at least retrieving information from the memory that is indicative of the first device associated with the first communication protocol (the communication protocols can be pre-defined and stored in an active list for each node at net initialization….In these embodiments, it is only necessary for the destination device to read an identification code of the source device and then retrieve the information from a memory storing the protocol information; Column 2, lines 17-29).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Gaiser and Potucek et al. with elements of Stewart to provide for nodes that can negotiate an acceptable communication protocol [Column 2, lines 43-44].
As per claim 21, Stewart discloses “the system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Gaiser, Potucek et al., and Stewart above), wherein retrieving the information from the memory indicative of the first device being associated with the first communication protocol comprises retrieving information from a network configuration list stored in the memory, the network configuration list identifying a self-selected Internet Protocol address (Potucek et al. discloses the Internet Protocol as a ‘TCP/IP stack’ in [Paragraph 0069]) dynamically reported by the first device (see the storage within an active list for each node at net initialization; Column 2, lines 17-19).”
As per claim 22, Stewart discloses “the system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Gaiser, Potucek et al., and Stewart above), wherein retrieving the information from the memory indicative of the first device being associated with the first communication protocol comprises scanning an internal database look-up table stored in the memory that maps unique device identification codes to discrete communication protocols (see the storage within an active list for each node at net initialization; Column 2, lines 17-19).”
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REFERENCES CITED BY APPLICANT
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(c), the applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated June 18, 2026, is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
RELEVENT ART CITED BY THE EXAMINER
The following prior art made of record and relied upon is citied to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
The following references teach data transfer as they pertain to ascertaining protocol:
U.S. PATENT NUMBERS:
2002/0184410 A1 – “the memory 324 includes a resource block 326, where the resource block 326 includes device-specific data pertaining to some of the characteristics of the field device 316 including, for example, a device type, indications of where other device-specific information may be obtained within the memory, and the various versions of the communication protocol present within the memory 324” [Paragraph 0061]
2008/0313255 A1 – memory 208 storing digital data indicative of protocol [Paragraph 0023]
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Conclusions
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Henry Yu whose telephone number is (571)272-9779. 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, IDRISS ALROBAYE can be reached at (571) 270-1023. 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.
/H.W.Y/Examiner, Art Unit 2181 August 11, 2026
/Farley Abad/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights