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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the non-final rejection dated 20 August 2025.
All objections from the prior office action are withdrawn. All rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the prior office action are withdrawn.
Applicant arguments, with respect to the prior art rejections from the prior office action, have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. (For clarity of the record, the examiner has withdrawn the prior art rejections from the prior office action because the amended claim language includes both “directly face the second wall on the bottom of the pool” and “in a process of controlling the swimming pool cleaning robot to move towards the second wall and climb the second wall, controlling the swimming pool cleaning robot to approach the first wall” which overcomes the obviousness of the combination of references from the prior office action in view of the declaration). However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection (necessitated by amendment) is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see below).
Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 18 November 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejections of Claims 1-6 and 8-10 based upon “2023 Ultimate POOL VACUUM Robot Comparison || Seauto, Aiper, AirRROBO, Wybot, Ofuzzi” by The Hook Up (hereinafter, The Hook Up) as set forth in the last Office action (the Non-Final Rejection dated 20 August 2025) because Applicant argued “wherein the swimming pool cleaning robot is approaching the first wall in a processing of moving from the bottom of the pool towards the second wall and climbing the second wall” (argument A) and “monitoring whether the swimming pool cleaning robot traveling on the first wall is close to the second wall comprises monitoring whether a distance between the second wall and the swimming pool cleaning robot traveling on the first wall is a preset distance” (argument B). Regarding argument A, this is insufficient because, as shown in Applicant’s first video (https://youtu.be/FAXuDD1_Ngo), specifically from 1:20-1:40, the robot is on the first wall (the wall on the left side at 1:20) then the robot is farther back (1:26) then the robot is approaching the first wall in a processing of moving from the bottom of the pool towards the second wall (see 1:35, where the robot is closer to the first wall than at 1:26) and climbing the second wall (see 1:39). Applicant’s second video (https://youtu.be/nRcL1ZPnLDM) from 1:00-1:25 also shows “wherein the swimming pool cleaning robot is approaching the first wall in a processing of moving from the bottom of the pool towards the second wall and climbing the second wall”. Regarding argument B, this is insufficient because this step was disclosed by a different reference (see page 11 lines 184-188 in the last Office Action).
Therefore, this office action is FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5 and 9-10 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the English Translation of Chinese Publication CN115185282A (hereinafter, Ding) in view of the English translation of W.O. 2024/149200 (Yu and Li, hereinafter, Yu).
Note: All references to page numbers for Yu will refer to the page number of the English translation attached to this office action (pages 1-20 of 48). All references to the figures refer to the original figures appended to the English translation (see pages 39-42 of 48). Additionally, U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0333971 (in the same family as W.O. 2024/149200) is cited on the PTO-892.
Regarding Claim 1, Ding discloses A control method of a swimming pool cleaning robot (see at least [0001]: a method, device, electronic device and computer storage medium for a swimming pool cleaning robot), wherein the control method comprises:
monitoring whether the swimming pool cleaning robot traveling on a first wall is close to a second wall; wherein on the condition that the swimming pool cleaning robot is close to the second wall, controlling the swimming pool cleaning robot to descend to a bottom of a pool (see at least [0180]: when it is determined that the pool cleaning robot cannot move along the current upward cleaning section AB, the pool cleaning robot may be controlled to move down (e.g., retreat) to the bottom of the pool), and controlling the swimming pool cleaning robot to directly face the second wall on the bottom of the pool, and then controlling the swimming pool cleaning robot to move towards the second wall and climb the second wall (see at least [0188] and [0195]: the pool cleaning robot can be controlled to perform a clockwise rotation at position E or a clockwise rotation at position F such that the head end of the pool cleaning robot faces the second wall; discloses the pool cleaning robot can be controlled to perform a wall-up operation to move from the bottom of the pool to the second wall and along a cleaning path on the second wall to perform a wall cleaning task on the second wall);
wherein monitoring whether the swimming pool cleaning robot traveling on the first wall is close to the second wall comprises monitoring whether a distance between the second wall and the swimming pool cleaning robot traveling on the first wall is in a preset distance (see at least [0070]-[0073]: a preset obstacle avoidance condition used to detect collision with a wall using a collision detection sensor).
Ding does not explicitly disclose in a process of controlling the swimming pool cleaning robot to move towards the second wall and climb the second wall, controlling the swimming pool cleaning robot to approach the first wall.
Yu, in the same field of swimming pool robots, and therefore analogous art, teaches in a process of controlling the swimming pool cleaning robot to move towards the second wall and climb the second wall, controlling the swimming pool cleaning robot to approach the first wall (see at least pages 13-14 and Figure 4: the route includes horizontal and vertical elements, the robot can be instructed to retreat along the original path; since the horizontal motion can be along the path or retreating against the path, there is approaching the first wall in a process of climbing the second wall).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teachings of Ding and Yu because there may be an obstacle to avoid that requires retreating towards a previous position and therefore approaching the first wall during the retreat (see at least Yu page 14).
Regarding Claim 2, The Ding and Yu combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Yu further teaches wherein the controlling the swimming pool cleaning robot to approach the first wall comprises controlling the swimming pool cleaning robot to turn at the bottom of the pool, on a wall, or in a waterline region (see at least page 5 and FIG. 4: rotate on a wall at water level).
Note: the motivation to combine is the same as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, The Ding and Yu combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Furthermore, Ding further discloses wherein the controlling the swimming pool cleaning robot to descend to the bottom of the pool comprises controlling the swimming pool cleaning robot to advance or retreat to the bottom of the pool and rotate by a first preset angle; wherein the first preset angle preferably is 90 degrees (see at least [0103], [0180], and [0187]: the robot may be controlled to move down (e.g., retreat) to a position J directly from the position B to reach the bottom of the pool; the pool cleaning robot can be controlled to perform a clockwise rotation at position E or a clockwise rotation at position F such that the head end of the pool cleaning robot faces the second wall; the robot moves forward after performing a 90-degree clockwise turning operation).
Regarding Claim 4, The Ding and Yu combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Additionally, Yu further discloses wherein an action of the turn comprises rotating by a second preset angle (see at least pages 9-10: rotate by a first angle / target angle).
Note: the motivation to combine is the same as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, The Ding and Yu combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Ding further discloses wherein the monitoring whether the swimming pool cleaning robot traveling on the first wall is close to the second wall comprises monitoring whether a lateral face of the swimming pool cleaning robot is close to the second wall (see at least [0039] and FIG. 9D: the black area is the head end of the pool cleaning robot; Fig. 9D shows when the head and sides of the robot are near a wall, the robot may reverse directions).
Regarding Claim 9, The Ding and Yu combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Ding further discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is stored with computer programs, and the computer programs, when executed by a processor, implement the method according to claim 1 (see at least [0001] and [0231]-[0232]: a method, device, electronic device and computer storage medium for a swimming pool cleaning robot to avoid collision with a pool wall).
Regarding Claim 10, The Ding and Yu combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Ding further discloses The swimming pool cleaning robot, comprising a memory, a processor and computer programs stored on the memory and executable by the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the computer programs, implements the method according to claim 1 (see at least [0231]: an exemplary embodiment of the present application of the robot cleaning method further provides an electronic device, including: at least one processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor. The memory stores a computer program that can be executed by the at least one processor, and when the computer program is executed by the at least one processor, it is used to enable the electronic device to perform the method according to each embodiment of the present application.).
Claims 6 and 8 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view Yu in further of Chinese Publication CN117661894A (Deng et al., hereinafter, Deng).
Regarding Claim 6, The Ding and Liu combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. The Ding and Liu combination does not teach wherein the monitoring whether the swimming pool cleaning robot traveling on the first wall is close to the second wall comprises monitoring whether the distance between the swimming pool cleaning robot traveling on the first wall and the second wall is between 0 cm and 30 cm.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Deng teaches wherein the monitoring whether the swimming pool cleaning robot traveling on the first wall is close to the second wall comprises monitoring whether the distance between the swimming pool cleaning robot traveling on the first wall and the second wall is between 0 cm and 30 cm (see at least [0047]: the robot detects that the distance between the swimming pool cleaning robot and the swimming pool wall is less than or equal to 40 cm).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the combined control method of Ding and Yu with the distance to the second wall range of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine because the range between 0 and 30 cm ensures that there are not large areas near a corner which are not being cleaned by the robot due to avoidance but at the same time ensuring that as the robot nears the pool wall, there will be sufficient room for the robot to turn and not get stuck.
Regarding Claim 8, The Ding and Yu combination teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Furthermore, Yu discloses automatically avoiding obstacles in the moving direction during movement (see at least page 14). The Ding and Yu combination does not explicitly teach wherein the controlling the swimming pool cleaning robot to approach the first wall comprises controlling a distance between the swimming pool cleaning robot traveling on the second wall and the first wall to be between 0 cm and 30 cm.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Deng teaches controlling a distance between the swimming pool cleaning robot traveling on the second wall and the first wall to be between 0 cm and 30 cm (see at least [0047]: the robot detects that the distance between the swimming pool cleaning robot and the swimming pool wall is less than or equal to 40 cm).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the combined control method of Ding and Yu with the distance of Deng so that the robot does not become too close to the first wall so as to collide with the first wall while retreating on the second wall.
Conclusion
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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658