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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 9-11: Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “perturbation” in claims 9-11 is used by the claim to mean “protrusion” or “projection,” while the accepted meaning is “a disturbance of motion, course, arrangement, or state of equilibrium.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The structures identified as the “perturbation” in applicant’s disclosure as originally filed (e.g., elements 39 or 51) appear to be structural projections extending from surfaces of the device. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as a “projection”.
Claim 18 attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process, which renders the claim indefinite.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besnier et al. (WO 2022/090998), and further in view of Hayes et al. (US 2017/0247896).
Regarding Claim 1: Besnier teaches a pool cleaning robot comprising:
a housing (Fig. 2, element 130);
a fluid path comprising a filtering unit [0045];
a detachable fluid distributer (element 146);
a base (bottom of element 130); and
one or more output fluid conduits (element 160);
wherein the filtering unit is configured to filter fluid that entered the fluid path to provide filtered fluid [0046];
wherein the distributer is detachably mechanically coupled to the base, via a connector that comprises a connected distributer portion (elements 168) and a connector base portion (elements 124, [0040]);
wherein a movement of the distributer in an engagement direction towards the base, and a positioning of the connector distributer portion at a coupling position lock the distributer to the base ( see Fig. 3, arrows C and D; [0053, 0055].
Besnier does not expressly disclose an impeller configured to direct the filtered fluid towards the distributer. However, it is known to provide an impeller in a pool cleaning robot. For example, Hayes teaches an impeller (Fig. 9, element 156) in a pool cleaning robot to generate the fluid flow through the pool cleaning robot [0410]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Besnier with an impeller along the fluid path to direct the fluid towards the distributer, as suggested by Hayes.
Regarding Claim 2: Besnier further teaches wherein (a) a movement of the distributer in a disengagement direction in relation to the base, and (b) a positioning of the connector distributer portion at a detach position, release the distributer from the base [0055].
Regarding Claim 3: Besnier further teaches wherein the movement of the DFD in a disengagement direction in relation to the base is preceded by moving the one or more fluid conduits away from the distributer [0055].
Regarding 4: Besnier further teaches wherein the housing comprises an upper part (element 150) and a lower part (element 130), wherein the upper part is configured to upwardly move in relation to the upper part, wherein the upper part is mechanically coupled to the one or more output fluid conduits (Fig. 1, element 160).
Regarding Claim 5: Besnier further teaches wherein an upwardly movement of the upper part lifts the one or more output fluid conduits (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6: Besnier further teaches wherein the connector is a snap fit connector [0040]. Although Besnier does not expressly disclose a cantilever type snap-fit connector, these types are conventional and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Besnier with a cantilever snap fit connector to couple the distributer to the base as such connectors are well known and used in the art for connecting objects together securely.
Regarding Claim 7: Besnier further teaches the connector is a rotation based connector that is configured to rotate between a detached position to the coupling position [0055].
Regarding Claim 8: Besnier further teaches wherein the movement of the distributer in the engagement direction towards the base, and the positioning of the connector distributer portion at the coupling position are executed manually without using any mechanical tool [0040, 0055].
Regarding Claim 11: Besnier further teaches wherein the distributor comprises a distributor body (element 146). Besnier does not expressly disclose a projection located at a rear side of the distributor body and wherein the base comprises a base interface that comprises an opening to receive the projection. However, Besnier teaches that the distributor can interface with the base of the pool cleaning robot by interfacing engagement features therebetween [0039]. Engagement features including snap fit connectors are well known in the art to include a projection and a receiving opening for said projection to couple objects (Besnier [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Besnier with a distributor projection fitting into a base opening as a means of securing the objects together, as suggested by Besnier.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13: Besnier teaches the distributor comprises a distributor body (element 146). Besnier does not expressly disclose the body comprises parts that are fastened together with snap fit connectors. However, substituting a unitary piece for an assembly of parts is well known and conventional. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Besnier with a distributor body comprising body parts fastened together in order to simplify cleaning replacement, or repair of the part.
Regarding Claim 17: Besnier further teaches wherein the distributer is configured to distribute the filtered fluid to the one or more output fluid conduits [0049].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, and 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the reviewed prior art does not anticipate or fairly suggest a pool cleaning robot having all features set forth in the aforementioned claims. The closest prior art of record is that of Besnier et al. as discussed above. However, Besnier does not anticipate or fairly suggest a distributor body having a distributor inlet oriented to a distributor outlet, and a distributor projection at a rear side of the distributor body, and the outlet being located at a front side of the distributor body, as required by claims 9 and 10. Besnier does not teach or suggest the connector distributor portion is a part of a distributor intermediate body portion as required by claims 14-16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights