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 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, 3, 6-10, 16, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regev (US 2020/0249690) in view of Torem Ben Zion (EP 3282071)
Regarding claim 1, Regev discloses a swimming-pool water surface map creating method (sec, 0107), comprising:
generating an instruction of creating a water surface map of the swimming pool (fig. 14; sec, 0107, 0109, 0153, 0154, 0213, 0214, 0215);
based on the instruction, acquiring position information of a swimming pool robot (sec 0017, 0106, 0111, 0113) in the water (the robot in the water travels, cleans, and records a 3D region of the pool; sec 0208, 0215, 0259);
acquiring swimming pool boundary information (fig. 14-17; creating a map or 3D representation of the pool; sec, 0107, 0109, 0153, 0154, 0213, 0214, 0215) through a laser, Radar, or an image sensor (sec, 0104, 0106,0130, 0131) arranged on the swimming pool robot when the swimming pool robot is at an initial position (see positions of the robot on the movement trajectory in the water; figs. 14-17; abstract; sec 0006, 0007, 0213, 0231, 0232) in the water, wherein the swimming pool boundary information corresponds to a closed swimming pool boundary (fig. 14; the pool boundary is at 100 and may closed boundaries are formed by the closed cells; sec 0215); and
generating the water surface map based on the position information and the swimming pool boundary information (fig. 14-17; sec, 0107, 0109, 0153, 0154, 0213, 0214, 0215).
Regev may not particularly recite the limitation, “a swimming pool robot floating on a water surface”; however, Torem Ben Zion teaches of a swimming-pool water surface map (sec 0014, 0058) creating method, comprising:
generating an instruction of creating a water surface map of a swimming pool (sec 0058);
based on the instruction, acquiring position information of a swimming pool robot floating on a water surface (sec 0023, 0031, 0058);
acquiring swimming pool boundary information through a laser radar or an image sensor (sec 0023, 0031, 0036, 0058) arranged on the swimming pool robot when the swimming pool robot is at an initial position on the water surface (sec 0008, 0011, 0014, 0015, 0022), wherein the swimming pool boundary information corresponds to a closed swimming pool boundary (fig. 3; sec 0090); and
generating the water surface map based on the position information and the swimming pool boundary information (sec 0023, 0031, 0036, 0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Regev to include a floatation robot such the Regev robot will have an advantage or improvement enabling it to float on the surface of the pool and traverse the poll surface for cleaning the surface of the pool as taught by Torem Ben Zion.
Regarding claim 3, Regev discloses the swimming-pool water surface map creating method according to claim 1, wherein the position information or the swimming pool boundary information is calibrated [Regev; (fig 10 shows calibrated position information, e.g. coordinates, (8, 4), (k, j); (sec, 0107, 0109, 0153, 0154, 0213, 0214, 0215)] by an inertia measurement unit on the swimming pool robot (Regev; sec 0005, 019). Also Torem Ben Zion teaches that the position information or the swimming pool boundary information is calibrated by an inertial measurement unit on the swimming pool robot (sec 0023, 0031, 0057, 0058). Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Regev discloses the swimming-pool water surface map creating method according to claim 1, wherein the swimming pool boundary information comprises information of obstacles on the water surface (sec 0114,0129, 0160).
Regarding claim 7, Regev discloses the swimming-pool water surface map creating method according to claim 1, further comprising:
after the water surface map of the swimming pool is generated, in response to receiving a robot summoning instruction comprising target position information, controlling the swimming pool robot to move to a target position based on the target position information and the water surface map (sec, 0107, 0109, 0153, 0154, 0213, 0214, 0215).
Regarding claim 8, Regev discloses the swimming-pool water surface map creating method according to claim 1, further comprising, after the water surface map of the swimming pool is generated:
in response to receiving a swimming pool cleaning instruction, controlling the swimming pool robot to clean the swimming pool and recording a cleaned region in the water surface map (sec, 0107, 0109, 0153, 0154, 0213, 0214, 0215);
in response to receiving a cleaning pause instruction, recording a target position and a target posture of the swimming pool robot at a current moment in the water surface map (sec, 0107, 0109, 0153, 0154, 0213, 0214, 0215);
in response to receiving a cleaning continuing instruction, controlling the swimming pool robot to move to the target position and adjusting the swimming pool robot to the target posture (sec, 0107, 0109, 0153, 0154, 0213, 0214, 0215); and
planning a cleaning path in the water surface map, and controlling the swimming pool robot to clean the swimming pool along the cleaning path (sec, 0107, 0109, 0153, 0154, 0213, 0214, 0215).
Regarding claim 9, Regev discloses the swimming-pool water surface map creating method according to claim 1, wherein after the water surface map of the swimming pool is created, the swimming-pool water surface map creating method further comprises:
acquiring a water bottom map of the swimming pool, wherein the water bottom map has a water bottom coordinate system origin (sec, 0107, 0109, 0153, 0154, 0213, 0214, 0215; figs. 14-17; see paten incorporation, sec 0114);
acquiring a displacement between the water bottom coordinate system origin and a coordinate system origin of the water surface map (sec, 0107, 0109, 0153, 0154, 0213, 0214, 0215; figs. 14-17; see paten incorporation, sec 0114);
moving the water bottom coordinate system origin or the coordinate system origin of the water surface map based on the displacement, to align a moved water bottom coordinate system origin with the coordinate system origin of the water surface map (sec, 0107, 0109, 0153, 0154, 0213, 0214, 0215; figs. 14-17; see paten incorporation, sec 0114) and
in response to determining that a non-overlapped region exists at boundaries of the water bottom map and the water surface map after an alignment operation, determining the non-overlapped region as a swimming pool step region (sec, 0107, 0109, 0153, 0154, 0213, 0214, 0215; figs. 14-17; see paten incorporation, sec 0114).
Regarding claim 10, Regev in view of Torem Ben Zion disclose a swimming pool robot configured to float on a water surface and execute the swimming pool water surface map creating method according to claim 1 (see Torem Ben Zion sec 0014. 0023, 0031, 0036, 0058).
Regarding claim 16, Regev /Torem Ben Zion disclose the swimming-pool robot according to claim 10, wherein the position information or the swimming pool boundary information is calibrated [Regev; (fig 10 shows calibrated position information, e.g. coordinates, (8, 4), (k, j); (sec, 0107, 0109, 0153, 0154, 0213, 0214, 0215)] by an inertia measurement unit on the swimming pool robot (Regev; sec 0005, 019). Also Torem Ben Zion teaches that the position information or the swimming pool boundary information is calibrated by an inertial measurement unit on the swimming pool robot (sec 0023, 0031, 0057, 0058). Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Regev /Torem Ben Zion disclose the swimming-pool robot according to claim 10, wherein in the swimming pool water surface map creating method, the swimming pool boundary information comprises information of obstacles on the water surface (see Regev sec 0114,0129, 0160).
Regarding claim 20, Regev /Torem Ben Zion disclose the swimming-pool robot according to claim 10, wherein in the swimming pool water surface map creating method further comprises, after the water surface map of the swimming pool is generated:
in response to receiving a robot summoning instruction comprising a target position information, controlling the swimming pool robot to move to a target position based on the target position information and the water surface map (sec, 0107, 0109, 0153, 0154, 0213, 0214, 0215).
Regarding claim 21, Regev discloses the swimming-pool water surface map creating method according to claim 1, wherein the initial position is a position where the swimming pool robot is located when the laser radar or the image sensor is started to scan a surrounding environment (figs. 14-17; sec 0130, 0209, 0222-0224).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant admits that the prior art Regev creates a map of pool when the robot is under water. Torem Ben Zion teaches of a robot the creates a map of a pool when the robot is both submerged and also when the robot is not submerged. The Torem Ben Zion robot is disclosed to float on the surface of water while created in a map of the pool included a map of the surroundings of the pool, the extent of the walls of the pool. As such modifying Regev as taught by Torem Ben Zion will improve the versatility of the Regev robot such that the Regev robot as taught by Torem Ben Zion will be able to create maps of the pool while the robot is floating on the water surface of the pool.
As such the examiner submits that, Regev may not particularly recite the limitation, “a swimming pool robot floating on a water surface”; however, Torem Ben Zion teaches of a swimming-pool water surface map (sec 0014, 0058) creating method, comprising:
generating an instruction of creating a water surface map of a swimming pool (sec 0058);
based on the instruction, acquiring position information of a swimming pool robot floating on a water surface (sec 0023, 0031, 0058);
acquiring swimming pool boundary information through a laser radar or an image sensor (sec 0023, 0031, 0036, 0058) arranged on the swimming pool robot when the swimming pool robot is at an initial position on the water surface (sec 0008, 0011, 0014, 0015, 0022), wherein the swimming pool boundary information corresponds to a closed swimming pool boundary (fig. 3; sec 0090); and
generating the water surface map based on the position information and the swimming pool boundary information (sec 0023, 0031, 0036, 0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Regev to include a floatation robot such the Regev robot will have an advantage or improvement enabling it to float on the surface of the pool and traverse the poll surface for cleaning the surface of the pool as taught by Torem Ben Zion.
The examiner does not acquiesce to applicant’s argument that the claims calls for the limitation, “According to the non-limiting example of the embodiment of amended claim 1, the pool cleaning robot floats on the water surface of the pool and generates a water surface map with a closed map boundary by utilizing the laser radar or the image sensor to scan the surroundings of the robot when the pool cleaning robot is at an initial position on the water surface without moving underwater along a cleaning path.”. The limitation is not supported in the claims, emphasis added.
Arguments to the prior art Zhu are not convincing. Applicant’s arguments regarding to Zhu is an admission by applicant that Zhu teaches of a pool cleaning robot that floats on the water surface of the pool and generates a water surface map with a closed map boundary by utilizing a laser, radar, or the image sensor to scan the surroundings of the robot when the pool cleaning robot is at an initial position on the water surface. The prior art was not used anyway in the rejection, so based on this at least applicant’s arguments regarding Zhu are moot.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571 272 6919. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657