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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/29/26.
Specification
Applicants are reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. For example, in line 1, “A system and a method are provided for controlling one or more pool devices. An example system for controlling the pool device may include a receiver designed” should read --A system and a method for controlling one or more pool devices. The system may include a receiver designed--.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the phrase, “schedule of a user” is unclear. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as the controller determining a schedule for the pool devices based on information inputted by the user or other control systems.
In claim 6, the phrase, “at least one of one or more” is unclear. For clarity, the Examiner suggests alternate wording such as, --at least one or more--.
Since claims 2-6, 7-9 are in the chain of dependency to claim 1, they too are subjected to the same objection. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170215261 A1 to Potucek in view of WO 2014172559 A1 to Loebs.
Regarding claim 1, As best understood by the Examiner, Potucek discloses a system 10 ( para 0050) for controlling a pool device 14a-h (para 0050, lines 2-3), comprising a device 42,44,50,52,54,56 designed to receive information from a mobile device 20, wherein the information is associated with a swimming pool from one or more mobile devices; and a controller 114f in communication with the device and a pool device associated with the swimming pool, wherein the controller is designed to determine a schedule (steps 92-102; fig. 4 and 19AK;para 0055-0059,0096) at least in part on the information; receive a signal indicating a status of the pool device; and determine an action associated with the pool device based at least in part on the status of the pool device (para 0050-0059).
Potucek is silent as to specifically a receiver, the info coming from a mobile application and taking action based on a schedule of a user.
Instead, Potucek indicates Potucek discloses a system 10 ( para 0050) for controlling a pool device 14a-h,114a-h (para 0050, lines 2-3 and para 0057), comprising a transceiver 42,44,50,52,54,56 (para 053) designed to receive information from at least one mobile device 20, wherein the information is associated with a swimming pool from one or more mobile devices; and a controller 114f (para 0057) in communication with the transceiver and a pool device associated with the swimming pool, wherein the controller is designed to communicate with one of the pool devices 14a-h,114a-h (fig. 4-6;para 0055-0059), sensors 126, remote systems 120, router 122, external web data 131, pool control logic 170, home management system 125, third party smart devices 124 or server 118 for information pertaining to pool (para 0057-0059); receive a signal via transceiver 42,44,50,52,54,56 (para 053) indicating a status of the pool device (para 0057); and determine an action associated with the pool device based at least in part on the status of the pool device (para 0055-0059). In various embodiments, the controller determines the schedule of the pool devices and acts based on user input (para 0098, 0121) data 902,1202,1502, 1802,2402,2702,2902,3002 (para 0096-0275 and claim 7) or computer logic 170. Loebs teaches information that comes from a mobile application (abstract) and mobile device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a user to input data for the operation of the devices, include information from mobile applications for ease of use and include a transceiver such that it is an electronic device which combines both a receiver and a transmitter into a single unit which would eliminate the space requirements for separate units, increase efficiency and the user input provides accuracy to the operation.
PNG
media_image1.png
654
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Potucek further discloses the controller 114f (0057-0059; fig. 5) is further designed to perform the determined action associated with the pool device 14a-h, 114a-h, wherein the action includes changing an operational parameter of the pool device (para 0055-0066; figs. 4-9).
Regarding claim 3, Potucek further discloses a device 42,44,50,52,54,56 in communication with the controller, wherein the device is designed to output an indication of the determined action to the mobile device. Potucek does not disclose a single unit transmitter. Instead, Potucek indicates a transceiver 42,44,50,52,54,56 in communication with the controller, wherein the transceiver is designed to output an indication of the determined action to the mobile device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a transceiver such that it is an electronic device which combines both a receiver and a transmitter into a single unit which would eliminate the space requirements for separate units and increase efficiency.
Regarding claim 4, Potucek further discloses a signal indicating the status of the pool and the determined action from the mobile device. Potucek is silent as to a first signal, and wherein the receiver is further designed to receive a second signal. Instead, Potucek indicates the controller 114f is further designed to receive incoming operational data (fig. 4, step 92) based on user input or computer logic 170, make a decision as to whether the incoming operation data has actually been received (fig. 4, step 94) and if a negative determination has been made that data has not been received, the controller returns to previous step 92 (para 0055). If the controller does receive incoming operational data, from one of the pool device (step 96; fig. 4), the controller proceeds to initiate the system to process instructions, operational data and/or external data (fig. 4, step 98), then the system optimizes operational set points (fig. 4; step 100) and transmits the setpoints (fig. 4; step 1022) to one or more of the pool devices 14a-h. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a transceiver such that it is an electronic device which combines both a receiver and a transmitter into a single unit which would eliminate the space requirements for separate units, increase efficiency to the operation; thus the transceiver sends and receives signals.
Regarding claim 5, Potucek is silent as to applying a weightage. Instead, Potucek indicates the controller 114f is further designed to receive incoming operational data (fig. 4, step 92) based on user input or computer logic 170, make a decision as to whether the incoming operation data has actually been received (fig. 4, step 94) and if a negative determination has been made that data has not been received, the controller returns to previous step 92 (para 0055). If the controller does receive incoming operational data, from one of the pool device (step 96; fig. 4), the controller proceeds to initiate the system to process instructions, operational data and/or external data (fig. 4, step 98), then the system optimizes operational set points (fig. 4; step 100) and transmits the setpoints (fig. 4; step 1022) to one or more of the pool devices 14a-h. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a parameter for filtering data, such as from computer logic 170 or user input, that is used to control pool devices to operate the pool devices at optimal efficiency
Regarding claim 6, Potucek further discloses information (para 0050-0059). Potucek does not disclose information associated with at least one or more calendar appointments, one or more meeting invites, travel booking information, location information, or social network information. Instead, Potucek indicates the information is associated with pool devices (para 0050-0059). Loebs teaches information associated with a calendar or device location. The initial statement of intended use “is associated with at least one or more calendar appointments, one or more meeting invites, travel booking information, location information, or social network information”, and all other functional implications related thereto have been fully considered but do not appear to impose any patentably distinguishing structure over that disclosed by Loebs. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Where the prior art reference can perform the function described in a functional limitation, such functional limitation does not define the claimed apparatus over such prior art reference, regardless of whether the prior art reference explicitly discusses such capacity for performing the recited function. In addition, where there is reason to believe that such functional limitation may be a characteristic of the prior art reference, Applicant is required to prove that the subject matter shown in the prior art reference does not possess the characteristic relied upon. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Potucek in view of the teaching of Loebs such that the origin of information merely relies on user preference and the required data for proper operation of the devices.
Regarding claim 7, Potucek modified by Loebs teaches at least one mobile application is provided in the form of at least one of one or more calendar mobile applications, and one or more location mobile applications (abstract). The initial statement of intended use “is associated with at least one or more calendar appointments, one or more meeting invites, travel booking information, location information, or social network information”, and all other functional implications related thereto have been fully considered but do not appear to impose any patentably distinguishing structure over that disclosed by Loebs. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Where the prior art reference can perform the function described in a functional limitation, such functional limitation does not define the claimed apparatus over such prior art reference, regardless of whether the prior art reference explicitly discusses such capacity for performing the recited function. In addition, where there is reason to believe that such functional limitation may be a characteristic of the prior art reference, Applicant is required to prove that the subject matter shown in the prior art reference does not possess the characteristic relied upon. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Potucek in view of the teaching of Loebs such that the origin of information merely relies on user preference and the required data for proper operation of the devices.
Regarding claim 8, Potucek further discloses the pool device 14a-h (para 0051, lines 2-4) is provided in the form of at least one of a heater 14b, a salt chlorine generator 114c, a blower 14d, a chemical feeder 14d, one or more pool lights 14h, one or more filters 14c, one or more pool cleaners 14g, one or more pumps 14a, or one or more automatic valves 14e (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Potucek further discloses a schedule corresponds to a home management system 425. Potucek is silent as to the schedule of a user corresponding to an in home/out of home schedule. Instead, Potucek indicates scheduling associated with a home management system 425 capable of including routines, maintenance and/or software, routers 422 or computer logic 470, server 415 or web data 431 via the internet that includes time/date or sunrise/sunset, weather forecasts (para 0071). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a user to input data for the operation of the devices, include information from a home management system or other controls that provides relevant data whether remote or in-person, which is used for ease of use, increased efficiency and data accuracy to the operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see USPTO Form 892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. More specifically, US 20250207420 A1 to Nirankari et al.is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a system for a pool which includes a digital map 100 for selected specific areas of the pool to perform an operation.
PNG
media_image2.png
450
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI BAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 9 am - 6 pm CST. 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, David Angwin can be reached 571-270-3735. 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.
/LORI L BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights