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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The examiner notes the receipt of a Supplemental Amendment filed on 27 April 2026. This Supplemental Amendment was filed before substantive examination began, and has been entered accordingly. Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, and 14-19 have been newly amended. No claims have been newly added nor canceled. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that in the interview with Mr. Patrick Griffin (Reg. No. 69369) that took place on 27 February 2026, the examiner stated that Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Yoshino reference appeared to be persuasive, and the rejection would be withdrawn. However, after further consideration of both Applicant’s arguments and the prior art, the examiner believes that a rejection of the independent claims over Yoshino in view of Deng is proper.
In the Supplemental Response filed 27 April 2026, Applicant puts forward a number of arguments against the previous rejections of the independent claims being obvious in view of Yoshino and Deng. Specifically, Applicant puts forward three primary arguments:
I. Yoshino’s “Guide Roller 33” is Not a Generic “Guide Device” Disposed on the Robot Body as claimed in Claim 1.
II. Combining Deng’s “Guide Wheels” with Yoshino’s Robot Presents Significant Technical Hurdles, Lacking a Reasonable Expectation of Success.
III. There is No Teaching, Suggestion, or Motivation (TSM) to Make the Proposed Combination.
Regarding Argument I., Applicant argues the following:
I.1. Integrated Component of a Rotating Inlet 15: Yoshino’s guide roller 33 is not an independent wheel mounted directly to the chassis or body of the robot [sic]. As shown in FIGS. 4-5 and described at paragraphs [0047]-[0048] and [0065], the guide roller 33 is affixed to the free end of the rotating inlet 15 [sic]. This rotating inlet 15 is itself a distinct, pivotable sub-assembly mounted via a rotating shaft 27 and bearings 28 and is biased by a torsion spring 32.
I.2. Specialized Kinematic Function: The guide roller 33 in Yoshino serves a specific kinematic purpose [sic] beyond mere guidance. During a 90-degree turn operation as shown in FIG.10 [sic], the pool wall presses against this roller, causing the entire rotating inlet 15 to pivot backward [sic] (Yoshino, [0065]. This movement is an integral part of Yoshino’s design to prevent jamming in corners. Therefore, the guide roller 33 is better characterized as a kinematic feedback point [sic] for a specialized mechanical subsystem, rather than a generic “guide device” for facilitating travel along a wall.
I.3. No Motivation for Duplication on the Same Side: Yoshino’s entire control logic for wall-following and turning is built around sensing distances via sensors 16-21 and receiving contact feedback from this single, strategically placed pivot point 33 [sic]. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Yoshino to add a second, redundant contact point on the same side of the robot. Yoshino’s disclosed structure and method are complete and functional with one point 33.
Regarding I.1., the examiner notes that nowhere in the independent claims does it technically require the wheel to be mounted directly to the chassis or body of the robot. As claimed, the claims only require that “the two guide devices are respectively disposed at different positions on a first side of the body,” which under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely requires that the guide devices are disposed at different positions. Even if, arguendo, the claims did require the wheel to be mounted directly to the chassis or body of the robot, Deng very clearly teaches the wheels being mounted to the body of the robot (see at least 0049 of Deng).
Regarding I.2., the examiner notes that the guide roller 33 of Yoshino having a “specialized kinematic function” does not negate the fact that the guide roller 33 remains, generically, a “guide device.”
Regarding I.3., the examiner notes that there is no requirement that Yoshino on its own contain a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to add a second guide device. Rather, the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so is found in at least [0050] of Deng.
Regarding Argument II., Applicant argues the following:
II.1. Physical and Spatial Conflict: Yoshino’s robot, when following a left wall as described, has its left-side exterior space occupied by the protruding rotating inlet 15 and its guide roller 33 [sic] (Yoshino, Fig. 3, [0048]). Integrating a second guide wheel, as taught by Deng to be mounted at a “corner of the cleaning robot body,” onto Yoshino’s left side would require:
A significant re-design of Yoshino’s chassis to accommodate a mounting point clear of the rotating inlet’s swept path.
Risk of mechanical interference between the proposed fixed guide wheel and the moving arm of the rotating inlet 15, potentially hindering its crucial pivoting function during turns. The need for such extensive structural modification indicates the combination is not a simple matter of addition but requires non-obvious engineering changes [sic].
II.2. Functional and Control Logic Incompatibility: Yoshino’s wall-following relies on maintaining a fixed distance ‘a’ using side distance sensors ([0059]-[0060]). Adding a second, fixed guide wheel on the same side would create a permanent, fixed point of contact [sic] with the wall at a different longitudinal position than the pivotable guide roller 33. This would:
Conflict with Yoshino’s distance-based control algorithm, as the robot’s orientation relative to the wall would not be constrained by two hard contact points rather than being freely adjustable based on sensor feedback.
Introduce unpredictable forces and potential binding, especially during the initiation of a turn, where the pivotable guide roller 33 is designed to be pressed.
A POSITA would not have a reasonable expectation of success in merging these two disparate guidance systems (sensor-based distance control with a single pivot point vs. multiple fixed rolling contacts) without undue experimentation to develop entirely new control logic.
Regarding II.1. and II.2., the examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments relate to the bodily incorporation of the guide rollers of Deng into the device of Yoshino. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Further, the examiner notes that Applicant’s argument against the reasonable expectation of success is just that: argument. The assertion that a POSITA would not have a reasonable expectation of success is one which requires sufficient supporting evidence, beyond simply arguing as such.
Regarding Argument III., Applicant argues the following:
III.1. General Advantage Does Not Supply Specific Motivation: This stated benefit is a generic, post-hoc rationale. Yoshino already solves the problems of efficient travel and damage avoidance through its unique combination of distance sensors and a rotating inlet/guide roller mechanism [sic] ([0062], [0084]). There is no hint or suggestion in Yoshino that its solution is deficient or that it would be improved by adding fixed guide wheels from an unrelated robot designed for surface cleaning (Deng). In fact, adding fixed wheels could degrade the performance [sic] of Yoshino’s carefully calibrated cornering maneuver.
III.2. The References Are Not Analogous in Their Mechanical Solutions: While both relate to pool cleaning, Yoshino teaches a bottom-cleaning robot with a complex, articulated mechanical system for precise navigation [sic]. Deng teaches a surface-cleaning robot with a simpler, fixed-hull design using thrusters and passive wheels [sic].
A POSITA would not look to Deng’s simplistic wheel arrangement to modify Yoshino’s sophisticated mechanical assembly without a clear directive, which is wholly absent from these references.
Regarding III.1., the examiner notes that there is no requirement that a “hint or suggestion … that its solution is deficient or that it would be improved by adding fixed guide wheels…” be found in Yoshino. MPEP 2144(I) states that “[t]he rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law.” The examiner notes, however, that the prior art does provide a rationale to modify or combine, as found in at least [0050] of Deng, which states that “… by setting up a plurality of guide wheels 5, it will be able to facilitate the rolling travel of the cleaning robot body 1 against the pool wall, which improving the cleaning speed of the cleaning robot body 1 to the pool wall, and avoiding damage of cleaning robot body 1 by direct friction with swimming pool wall.” MPEP 2144(II) states that “[t]he strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination.” As such, sufficient motivation to combine exists.
Regarding III.2., it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Yoshino and Deng relate to pool cleaning robots which execute wall following. Hence, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “the swimming pool robot comprises at least one distance detection sensor, two guide devices, and a body, wherein the two guide devices are respectively disposed at different positions on a first side of the body, wherein the two guide devices are respectively disposed at different positions on same side of a body of the swimming pool robot….” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “the swimming pool robot comprises at least one distance detection sensor, two guide devices, and a body, wherein the two guide devices are respectively disposed at different positions on a first side of the body,
Claims 9 and 10 are similar in scope to claim 1, and are similarly objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “distance determination module configured to determine…,” “control module configured to determine…,” and “wall edge distance adjustment module…,” in claim 9, which are being interpreted as a processor per at least [0056] of the present specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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 1-4, 6-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino (US 20030102014 A1), hereafter Yoshino, in view of Deng (US 20230212868 A1), hereafter Deng.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshino discloses a method for a swimming pool robot to clean along a wall edge, the swimming pool robot comprises at least one distance detection sensor (0051, distance sensors 16 -21 are distance-detection sensors for measuring the distance from the wall surface), a guide device (0048, rotatable guide roller 33), and a body (0044, main unit 10);
Wherein the method comprises:
In a case where a task of cleaning along the wall edge is performed, determining, by the at least one distance detection sensor, a distance between the swimming pool robot and a swimming pool wall (0059, when the self-running cleaning apparatus receives an instruction to start cleaning, it moves along the wall surface while maintaining the left-side distance 'a' which is the distance from the wall surface of the pool on the left side, this operation for moving along the wall surface is an operation of moving while maintaining a fixed distance from the wall surface of the pool on the left side or right side that is detected by the first left-side distance sensor 18, the second left-side distance sensor 19, the first right side distance sensor 20, and the second right-side distance sensor 21);
Determining whether the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall matches a target distance when moving along the wall edge, and in a case where the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall does not match the target distance when moving along the wall edge, controlling the swimming pool robot to turn towards the swimming pool wall, and driving the swimming pool robot to move forward (0060, the movement-control unit 50 monitors the detected distance from the wall surface of the pool, and when the cleaning apparatus is too far from the wall surface of the pool, it drives the right motor 51, left motor 53, or displacement motor 55 in order to move closer to the wall surface of the pool); and
Determining whether the guide device touches the swimming pool wall, and in a case where the guide devices touches the swimming pool wall, driving the swimming pool robot to move forward, until the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall matches the target distance when moving along the wall edge (0062, the left-side distance 'a' is set such that it is the distance where the guide roller 33 of the rotating inlet 15 comes in contact with the wall surface of the pool, or at a distance a little less than that distance, 0059, when the self-running cleaning apparatus receives an instruction to start cleaning, it moves along the wall surface while maintaining the left-side distance 'a' which is the distance from the wall surface of the pool on the left side, this operation for moving along the wall surface is an operation of moving while maintaining a fixed distance from the wall surface of the pool on the left side or right side that is detected by the first left-side distance sensor 18, the second left-side distance sensor 19, the first right side distance sensor 20, and the second right-side distance sensor 21, 0060, the movement-control unit 50 monitors the detected distance from the wall surface of the pool, and when the cleaning apparatus is too far from the wall surface of the pool, it drives the right motor 51, left motor 53, or displacement motor 55 in order to move closer to the wall surface of the pool).
Yoshino, however, fails to teach wherein the guide device is two guide devices, wherein the two guide devices are respectively disposed at different positions on a first side of a body; and
Wherein the swimming pool robot is driven to move forward with respect to a sliding friction between the guide devices and the swimming pool wall.
Deng, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the guide device is two guide devices, wherein the two guide devices are respectively disposed at different positions on a first side of a body (0049-0050, plurality of guide wheels 5 mounted at a plurality of corners of the cleaning robot body 1); and
Wherein the swimming pool robot is driven to move forward with respect to a sliding friction between the guide devices and the swimming pool wall (0039, when the side of the cleaning robot body 1 away from the side thruster 4 is parallel to the pool wall, start the side thruster 4, the side thruster 4 pushes the cleaning robot body 1 into contact with the pool wall, then after the two rear thrusters 3 at the same speed push the cleaning robot body 1 at a constant speed along the pool wall).
Yoshino and Deng are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., pool cleaning robots. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the plurality of guide wheels and the friction based forward movement of Deng in order to provide further means of better facilitating travel along the pool wall. The motivation to combine is to facilitate rolling travel of the cleaning robot body against the pool wall, in order to improve the cleaning speed of the robot and to avoid damage of the cleaning robot body (see at least 0050 of Deng).
Claims 9, 10, and 20 are similar in scope to claim 1, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yoshino and Deng teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the target distance when moving along the wall edge is less than or equal to 5 cm.
The examiner asserts, however, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have set the target distance to 5 cm, as to do so would have been obvious to try. Specifically, the examiner notes that it would have been obvious to have had the target distance be any distance.
Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yoshino and Deng teaches the method according to claim 1, and Yoshino further teaches wherein the guide device are guide wheels or guide angle structures integrated with the swimming pool robot (0048, there is a rotatable guide roller 33 attached to the left end of the rotating inlet such that it can touch the wall surface), and Deng further teaches wherein the guide device is a plurality of guide wheels (0049-0050, plurality of guide wheels 5 mounted at a plurality of corners of the cleaning robot body 1).
Yoshino and Deng are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., pool cleaning robots. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the plurality of guide wheels of Deng in order to provide further means of facilitating travel along the pool wall. The motivation to combine is to facilitate rolling travel of the cleaning robot body against the pool wall, in order to improve the cleaning speed of the robot and to avoid damage of the cleaning robot body (see at least 0050 of Deng).
Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yoshino and Deng teaches the method according to claim 1, and Yoshino further teaches wherein the determining whether the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall matches a target distance when moving along the wall edge comprises:
In a case where the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall is less than or equal to a first preset threshold, determining the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall matches the target distance when moving along the wall edge (0059, when the self-running cleaning apparatus receives an instruction to start cleaning, it moves along the wall surface while maintaining the left-side distance 'a' which is the distance from the wall surface of the pool on the left side, this operation for moving along the wall surface is an operation of moving while maintaining a fixed distance from the wall surface of the pool on the left side or right side that is detected by the first left-side distance sensor 18, the second left-side distance sensor 19, the first right side distance sensor 20, and the second right-side distance sensor 21);
In a case where the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall is greater than the first preset threshold, determining the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall does not match the target distance when moving along the wall edge (0060, the movement-control unit 50 monitors the detected distance from the wall surface of the pool, and when the cleaning apparatus is too far from the wall surface of the pool, it drives the right motor 51, left motor 53, or displacement motor 55 in order to move closer to the wall surface of the pool).
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yoshino and Deng teaches the method according to claim 1, and Yoshino further teaches wherein the method further comprises:
In a case where the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall matches the target distance when moving along the wall edge, controlling the swimming pool robot to move forward to clean a current area along the wall edge determined based on the target distance when moving along the wall edge (0059, when the self-running cleaning apparatus receives an instruction to start cleaning, it moves along the wall surface while maintaining the left-side distance 'a' which is the distance from the wall surface of the pool on the left side, this operation for moving along the wall surface is an operation of moving while maintaining a fixed distance from the wall surface of the pool on the left side or right side that is detected by the first left-side distance sensor 18, the second left-side distance sensor 19, the first right side distance sensor 20, and the second right-side distance sensor 21);
In a process of cleaning the current area along the wall edge, detecting, by the distance detection sensor located in front of the swimming pool robot, whether there is an obstacle in front of the swimming pool robot to determine a turning time of the swimming pool robot (0064, while the self-running cleaning apparatus moves along the wall, maintaining left-distance 'a', it uses the first front distance sensor 16 and second front distance sensor 17 to detect when the distance to the wall surface of the pool in the front reaches a front distance 'b').
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yoshino and Deng teaches the method according to claim 6, and Yoshino further teaches wherein the detecting, by the distance detection sensor located in front of the swimming pool robot, whether there is an obstacle in front of the swimming pool robot to determine a turning time of the swimming pool robot comprises:
Sending, by the at least one distance detection sensor located in front of the swimming pool robot, a detection signal forward in real time (0064, while the self-running cleaning apparatus moves along the wall, maintaining left-distance 'a', it uses the first front distance sensor 16 and second front distance sensor 17 to detect when the distance to the wall surface of the pool in the front reaches a front distance 'b');
In a case where the at least one distance detection sensor receives the detection signal returned by an obstacle, determining there is the obstacle in front of the distance detection sensor (0064, while the self-running cleaning apparatus moves along the wall, maintaining left-distance 'a', it uses the first front distance sensor 16 and second front distance sensor 17 to detect when the distance to the wall surface of the pool in the front reaches a front distance 'b');
In a case where there is the obstacle in front of the at least one distance detection sensor, determining the distance between the swimming pool robot and the obstacle according to the detection signal returned (0064, while the self-running cleaning apparatus moves along the wall, maintaining left-distance 'a', it uses the first front distance sensor 16 and second front distance sensor 17 to detect when the distance to the wall surface of the pool in the front reaches a front distance 'b');
In a case where the distance between the swimming pool robot and the obstacle is less than or equal to a second preset threshold, determining the turning time of the swimming pool robot (0064, when the distance from the surface of the pool in the front reaches the front distance 'b', the cleaning apparatus performs the 90-degree right turn operation).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yoshino and Deng teaches the method according to claim 6, and Yoshino further teaches wherein the method further comprises:
In a case where the swimming pool robot reaches the turning time, executing a turning instruction to control the swimming pool robot to turn a preset angle, the present angle is less than or equal to 90 degrees (0064, when the distance from the surface of the pool in the front reaches the front distance 'b', the cleaning apparatus performs the 90-degree right turn operation);
In a case where the guide device touches the swimming pool wall or the obstacle in turning process of the swimming pool robot, driving the swimming pool robot to complete the turning (0065, in the 90 degree turning operation the guide roller 33 of the rotating inlet 15 is pressed by the wall surface of the pool).
Yoshino fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the guide device is two guide devices.
Deng, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the guide device is two guide devices, (0049-0050, plurality of guide wheels 5 mounted at a plurality of corners of the cleaning robot body 1).
Yoshino and Deng are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., pool cleaning robots. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the plurality of guide wheels of Deng in order to provide further means of facilitating travel along the pool wall. The motivation to combine is to facilitate rolling travel of the cleaning robot body against the pool wall, in order to improve the cleaning speed of the robot and to avoid damage of the cleaning robot body (see at least 0050 of Deng).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshino teaches a method for a swimming pool robot to clean along a wall edge, the swimming pool robot comprises at least one distance detection sensor (0051, distance sensors 16 -21 are distance-detection sensors for measuring the distance from the wall surface), a guide device (0048, rotatable guide roller 33), and a body (0044, main unit 10);
In a case where a task of cleaning along the wall edge is performed, determining, through the at least one distance detection sensor, a distance between the swimming pool robot and a swimming pool wall (0059, when the self-running cleaning apparatus receives an instruction to start cleaning, it moves along the wall surface while maintaining the left-side distance 'a' which is the distance from the wall surface of the pool on the left side, this operation for moving along the wall surface is an operation of moving while maintaining a fixed distance from the wall surface of the pool on the left side or right side that is detected by the first left-side distance sensor 18, the second left-side distance sensor 19, the first right side distance sensor 20, and the second right-side distance sensor 21),
Determining whether the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall matches a target distance when moving along the wall edge, and in a case where the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall does not match the target distance when moving along the wall edge, controlling the swimming pool robot to turn towards the swimming pool wall (0060, the movement-control unit 50 monitors the detected distance from the wall surface of the pool, and when the cleaning apparatus is too far from the wall surface of the pool, it drives the right motor 51, left motor 53, or displacement motor 55 in order to move closer to the wall surface of the pool);
Controlling the swimming pool robot to continue to move forward after the turning, and during the swimming pool robot's continued forward movement, the guide device is able to contact the swimming pool wall (0059, when the self-running cleaning apparatus receives an instruction to start cleaning, it moves along the wall surface while maintaining the left-side distance 'a' which is the distance from the wall surface of the pool on the left side, this operation for moving along the wall surface is an operation of moving while maintaining a fixed distance from the wall surface of the pool on the left side or right side that is detected by the first left-side distance sensor 18, the second left-side distance sensor 19, the first right side distance sensor 20, and the second right-side distance sensor 21, 0062, the left-side distance 'a' is set such that it is the distance where the guide roller 33 of the rotating inlet 15 comes in contact with the wall surface of the pool, or at a distance a little less than that distance).
Yoshino, however, fails to teach wherein the guide device is two guide devices, wherein the two guide devices are respectively disposed at different positions on the same side of the swimming pool robot.
Deng, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the guide device is two guide devices, wherein the two guide devices are respectively disposed at different positions on the same side of the swimming pool robot (0049-0050, plurality of guide wheels 5 mounted at a plurality of corners of the cleaning robot body 1).
Yoshino and Deng are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., pool cleaning robots. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the plurality of guide wheels of Deng in order to provide further means of facilitating travel along the pool wall. The motivation to combine is to facilitate rolling travel of the cleaning robot body against the pool wall, in order to improve the cleaning speed of the robot and to avoid damage of the cleaning robot body (see at least 0050 of Deng).
Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 14, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yoshino and Deng teaches the method according to claim 14, and Yoshino further teaches wherein in a case where the guide device contacts the swimming pool wall (0062, the left-side distance 'a' is set such that it is the distance where the guide roller 33 of the rotating inlet 15 comes in contact with the wall surface of the pool, or at a distance a little less than that distance), the method further comprises:
Controlling the swimming pool robot to continue to move forward, and during the swimming pool robot's continued forward movement, the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall matches the target distance when moving along the wall edge (0059, when the self-running cleaning apparatus receives an instruction to start cleaning, it moves along the wall surface while maintaining the left-side distance 'a' which is the distance from the wall surface of the pool on the left side, this operation for moving along the wall surface is an operation of moving while maintaining a fixed distance from the wall surface of the pool on the left side or right side that is detected by the first left-side distance sensor 18, the second left-side distance sensor 19, the first right side distance sensor 20, and the second right-side distance sensor 21).
Yoshino fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the guide device is two guide devices.
Deng, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the guide device is two guide devices (0049-0050, plurality of guide wheels 5 mounted at a plurality of corners of the cleaning robot body 1).
Yoshino and Deng are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., pool cleaning robots. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the plurality of guide wheels of Deng in order to provide further means of facilitating travel along the pool wall. The motivation to combine is to facilitate rolling travel of the cleaning robot body against the pool wall, in order to improve the cleaning speed of the robot and to avoid damage of the cleaning robot body (see at least 0050 of Deng).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Yoshino and Deng teaches the method according to claim 14, and Yoshino further teaches wherein the guide device is a guide wheel (0048, there is a rotatable guide roller 33 attached to the left end of the rotating inlet such that it can touch the wall surface), and Deng further teaches wherein the guide device is a plurality of guide wheels (0049-0050, plurality of guide wheels 5 mounted at a plurality of corners of the cleaning robot body 1).
Yoshino and Deng are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., pool cleaning robots. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the plurality of guide wheels of Deng in order to provide further means of facilitating travel along the pool wall. The motivation to combine is to facilitate rolling travel of the cleaning robot body against the pool wall, in order to improve the cleaning speed of the robot and to avoid damage of the cleaning robot body (see at least 0050 of Deng).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino in view of Deng, and further in view of Chafik (US 2022033395 A1), hereafter Chafik.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yoshino and Deng teaches the method according to claim 4, and Yoshino further teaches wherein the at least one distance detection sensor is disposed on a side of the swimming pool robot, and a number of the at least one distance detection sensor is two (0051, distance sensors 16 -21 are distance-detection sensors for measuring the distance from the wall surface);
In a case where the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall is less than or equal to a first preset threshold, the determining the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall matches the target distance when moving along the wall edge comprises: in a case where the distances between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall measured by the two distance sensors are both less than or equal to the first preset threshold, determining the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall matches the target distance when moving along the wall edge (0059, when the self-running cleaning apparatus receives an instruction to start cleaning, it moves along the wall surface while maintaining the left-side distance 'a' which is the distance from the wall surface of the pool on the left side, this operation for moving along the wall surface is an operation of moving while maintaining a fixed distance from the wall surface of the pool on the left side or right side that is detected by the first left-side distance sensor 18, the second left-side distance sensor 19, the first right side distance sensor 20, and the second right-side distance sensor 21);
In a case where the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall is greater than the first preset threshold, the determining the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall does not match the target distance when moving along the wall edge comprises: in a case where the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall measured by either of the distance detection sensors is greater than the first preset threshold, determining the distance between the swimming pool robot and the swimming pool wall does not match the target distance when moving along the wall edge (0076, in the operation of moving along the wall surface using the left-side distance as reference, when the left-side distances detected by the two ultrasonic sensors located on the left side, or in other words, the first left-side distance detector 18 and second left-side distance detector 19, are different, the main unit 10 is not parallel with the all, so in order to make the main unit 10 parallel with the wall surface of the pool on the left side, the movement control unit 50 drives the right motor 51, left motor 53, and displacement motor 55).
The combination of Yoshino and Deng fails to teach, however, wherein the distance sensor is an infrared sensor.
Chafik, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the distance sensor is an infrared sensor (0017, sensed information from the underwater time-of-flight sensor may be used to measure distance from an APC to a pool wall, stairs, or an obstacle within the pool, 0020, the time-of-flight sensor 12 may transmit and receive infrared radiation).
Yoshino, Deng, and Chafik are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., pool cleaning robots. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the infrared sensors of Chafik in order to provide further means of determining the distance between the pool cleaning robot and the wall of the pool. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the pool cleaning robot is able to properly detect its own environment.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino in view of Deng, and further in view of Maaske (US 7101475 B1), hereafter Maaske.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Yoshino and Deng teaches the method according to claim 15, but fails to teach wherein in a case where the two guide devices contact the swimming pool wall, the controlling the swimming pool robot to continue to move forward comprises:
Determining whether the two guide devices contact the swimming pool wall, and in a case where the two guide devices contact the swimming pool wall, the method further comprises:
Adjusting a yaw angle of the swimming pool robot to make the swimming pool robot's forward direction to be parallel to the swimming pool wall
Maaske, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach:
Determining whether the two guide devices contact the swimming pool wall, and in a case where the guide devices contact the swimming pool wall (Col. 30, Lines 13 - 64, rotating powered bumper wheel 62S makes contact with wall 293 before body 60 has an opportunity to touch the wall, this rotating contact of powered bumper wheel 62S with wall 293 generates a lateral thrust), the method further comprises:
Adjusting a yaw angle of the swimming pool robot to make the swimming pool robot's forward direction to be parallel to the swimming pool wall (Col. 30, Lines 13-64, impeller thrust vector represented by the arrow inside of body 60 is no longer pulling the vessel straight against wall 293, as the angle of body 60 with wall 293 becomes more acute, more and more of the impeller thrust vector will assist the turning action, once the turn is completed, the resulting propulsion forces are now entirely parallel to wall 293).
Yoshino, Deng, and Maaske are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., pool cleaning robots. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the reaction-force based pool wall following of Maaske in order to provide further means of ensuring that the pool cleaning robot is able to follow the wall of the pool. The motivation to combine is to increase the effectiveness of the pool cleaning robot by ensuring that the wall of the pool is properly followed.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yoshino and Deng teaches the method according to claim 15, but fails to teach wherein in a case where the two guide devices contact the swimming pool wall, the controlling the swimming pool robot to continue to move forward comprises:
Determining whether the two guide devices contact the swimming pool wall, and in a case where the two guide devices contact the swimming pool wall, the method further comprises:
Decreasing a moving speed of the swimming pool robot;
After the moving speed is decreased, a reaction force caused by the contact enables the swimming pool robot's forward direction to be parallel to the swimming pool wall.
Maaske, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach:
Determining whether the guide devices contact the swimming pool wall, and in a case where the guide devices contact the swimming pool wall (Col. 30, Lines 13 - 64, rotating powered bumper wheel 62S makes contact with wall 293 before body 60 has an opportunity to touch the wall, this rotating contact of powered bumper wheel 62S with wall 293 generates a lateral thrust), the method further comprises:
Decreasing a moving speed of the swimming pool robot (Col. 30, Lines 13-64, impeller thrust vector represented by the arrow inside of body 60 is no longer pulling the vessel straight against wall 293, as the angle of body 60 with wall 293 becomes more acute, more and more of the impeller thrust vector will assist the turning action, Examiner's note: after contacting the wall, the moving speed of the robot in its original direction of movement would be decreased as a result of the robot being unable to travel further in its direction due to the wall being in the way);
After the moving speed is decreased, a reaction force caused by the contact enables the swimming pool robot's forward direction to be parallel to the swimming pool wall (Col. 30, Lines 13-64, impeller thrust vector represented by the arrow inside of body 60 is no longer pulling the vessel straight against wall 293, as the angle of body 60 with wall 293 becomes more acute, more and more of the impeller thrust vector will assist the turning action, once the turn is completed, the resulting propulsion forces are now entirely parallel to wall 293).
Yoshino, Deng, and Maaske are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., pool cleaning robots. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the reaction-force based pool wall following of Maaske in order to provide further means of ensuring that the pool cleaning robot is able to follow the wall of the pool. The motivation to combine is to increase the effectiveness of the pool cleaning robot by ensuring that the wall of the pool is properly followed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Henkin (US 6365039 B1) teaches a pool cleaning robot having a plurality of guide wheels disposed about the perimeter of the robot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights