DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/929,230 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
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 .
INFORMATION CONCERNING DRAWINGS
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
INFORMATION CONCERNING THE SPECIFICATION
Specification
The applicant’s specification submitted is acceptable for examination purposes.
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 1-20 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).
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].
As per claims 2 and 17, Potucek et al. discloses “The system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Gaiser and Potucek et al. 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 3 and 18, Potucek et al. discloses “The system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Gaiser and Potucek et al. above), wherein at least one of the first communication protocol or 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).”
As per claims 4, 12, and 19, Gaiser discloses “The system of claim 1 (as disclosed by Gaiser and Potucek et al. above), wherein the first communication protocol comprises an Internet Protocol-based communication protocol, and wherein determining that the first device is associated with a first communication protocol 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 and Potucek et al. 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 and Potucek et al. 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 and Potucek et al. 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 (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 and Potucek et al. 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 and Potucek et al. 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 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].
As per claim 11, Potucek et al. discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 10 (as disclosed by *** 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].
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 January 7, 2025; and March 17, 2025, 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 device controls with various protocols.
U.S. PATENT NUMBERS:2014/0259108 A1 – [Paragraphs 0015 and 0088]
2015/0120062 A1
2019/0386954 A1
8,812,684 B1 – [Column 12, lines 61-67 to Column 13, lines 1-17]
CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
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 February 6, 2026
/IDRISS N ALROBAYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2181