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 Status
Rejected Claims: 1-16
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 28 JANUARY 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 14-15 has been acknowledged.
In view of the amendments to the drawings and the specification, the objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 3-6 and 14, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 15, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been sustained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 28 JANUARY 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding the obviousness rejection of claim 1 in view of Wang in view of Stone, that Wang in view of Stone does not make obvious the location of the lateral propulsion assembly being located on a first moving mechanism because Wang requires the upward direction of the left/right thrusters to maintain the robot on the bottom/wall of the pool and then Stone teaches side thrusters without a moving mechanism. As such, one would be motivated to modify the propulsion of Wang to be located only on the sides and therefore the robot would lose the driving force to secure the robot to the bottom and walls of the pool. Therefore, the combination would not result in the instant claim 1 and the instant claim 1 is not obvious and is allowable in view of the prior art (Arguments filed 28 JANUARY 2026, Page 9 to Page 12, Paragraph 1).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, Wang teaches thrusters that perform lateral motion and downward thrust. Stone teaches several sets of thrusters in all directions to improve the precision of underwater movement. Looking at Stone, one would be motivated to provide additional thruster(s) for lateral movement, rather than replacing the existing thrusters of Wang, as there are eight different thrusters located on the robot taught by Stone. The teaching that is lacking from Wang in view of Stone is simply the placement of the thruster in the gap formed by the wheels and track on the side of the swimming pool robot. Wang teaches that lateral thrust is important in addition to wheels for pool movement. Stone teaches lateral thrusters going through the robot from one side to the other. Applicant has not argued the criticality of the location of the thruster being between the wheels and so the particular placement of a part is seen as an obvious matter of a design choice and is a simple rearrangement of parts (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). Therefore, the invention would be made obvious by Wang in view of Stone and would perform the same function, regardless of the location of the thrusters on the side of the robot and so claim 1 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that Stone is not analogous to the claimed invention because the autonomous underwater vehicle of Stone is not specifically a swimming pool cleaning robot (Arguments filed 28 JANUARY 2026, Page 10, Paragraph 5 to Page 11, Line 2).
In response to applicant's argument that Stone is nonanalogous art, 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, Stone pertains to thruster devices for autonomous underwater robots. While the robots of Stone do not necessarily perform cleaning functions, swimming pool robots are also autonomous underwater robots that utilize thrusters (in addition to wheels) for movement control. Therefore, Stone is analogous to the instant invention because it pertains to the control of autonomous underwater robots utilizing thrusters for movement control.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 8, that the purpose of the main water pump and lateral impellor in instant claim 8 are different from those taught by Wang in view of Stone and therefore claim 8 is allowable (Arguments filed 28 JANUARY 2026, Page 12, Paragraph 2 to Page 13).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the functions of the water pump and the impellors) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, Wang teaches the sequential limitations in fluid communication as described in instant claim 8 and Stone teaches separate lateral thrusters as described in instant claim 1. Applicant would need to positively recite structural differences in the instant claims to differentiate the purposes of the water pump and impellors to overcome the current rejection of claim 8.
Applicant argues, regarding claims 2-7 and 9-10, that claims 2-7 and 9-10 depend upon claim 1 and are allowable for the reasons discussed above (Arguments filed 28 JANUARY 2026, Page 14, Paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, claim 1 is not allowable and so claims 2-7 and 9-10 are also not allowable.
Applicant argues, regarding claims 11-16, that Duffaut does not disclose the specific location of the LIDAR in instant claims 11 and 15 and so it would not be obvious to locate it below the at least one image capturing part and so claims 11-16 are allowable (Arguments filed 28 JANUARY 2026, Page 14, Paragraph 3 to Page 15).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Duffaut teaches the inclusion of LIDAR and locating sensors on the front of the cleaning robot (Fig. 10, #48; Paragraph 0076). Applicant has not argued the criticality of the location of the distance detection part being below the image capturing part and the LIDAR on the front of the swimming pool robot would perform the same function as in the instant claims 11 and 15. As such, the particular placement of a part is seen as an obvious matter of a design choice and is a simple rearrangement of parts (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). Therefore, claims 11 and 15 are made obvious by Wang in view of Stone in view of Duffaut and claims 11-16 are not allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US Patent Application No. 20230279685 A1) hereinafter Wang in view of Stone et al (US Patent Application No. 20160176487 A1) hereinafter Stone.
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches an automatic swimming pool cleaning robot (i.e., a swimming pool robot; Abstract) including a housing (i.e., comprising a body; Fig. 1, #1)
with two driving motors (Fig. 2, #4) controlling crawler belts (Fig. 1, #5) at both sides of the housing (i.e., two moving mechanisms disposed on two sides of the body; Paragraph 0034) that drive the automatic swimming pool cleaning robot to move on a bottom and walls of a swimming pool (i.e., wherein the two moving mechanisms are configured to drive the swimming pool robot to move on a bottom of a swimming pool and/or a wall of the swimming pool; Paragraph 0013)
where the robot is capable of lateral translation due to the controlling of the water outlets for the purpose of cleaning waterlines (i.e., a lateral propulsion assembly; Paragraph 0016).
Wang does not teach wherein the lateral propulsion assembly comprises a lateral flow channel comprising a fluid inlet and a fluid spraying opening and a lateral impeller disposed inside the lateral flow channel and a lateral motor configured to drive the lateral impeller to rotate so that the lateral flow channel communicates with the outside.
However, Stone teaches attitude control thrusters (i.e., the lateral propulsion assembly comprises a lateral flow channel comprising a fluid inlet and a fluid spraying opening, a lateral impeller disposed inside the lateral flow channel and a lateral motor configured to drive the lateral impeller to rotate; Fig. 1, #28 and 30) that permit the vehicle to be precisely controlled (Paragraph 0058).
Stone is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the automated docking and recovery of underwater vehicles (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lateral movement of the swimming pool cleaning robot as taught by Wang with the thrusters as taught by Stone because the thruster would improve the precision of the movement of the robot.
Wang in view of Stone does not explicitly teach wherein the fluid spraying opening is disposed on a first moving mechanism. However, the particular placement of a part is seen as an obvious matter of a design choice and is a simple rearrangement of parts (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang in view of Stone makes obvious the swimming pool robot of claim 1. Stone further teaches that the thrusters go through the entire body (Fig. 15).
Wang in view of Stone does not explicitly teach wherein the fluid inlet is disposed on a second moving mechanism, so that the lateral flow channel runs through the two moving mechanisms. However, the particular placement of a part is seen as an obvious matter of a design choice and is a simple rearrangement of parts (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang in view of Stone makes obvious the swimming pool robot of claim 2. Wang further teaches that the crawler belts have different size wheels on one end than the other end (i.e., wherein each moving mechanism comprises two moving wheels and a track wrapped around the two moving wheels, wherein a region is formed between the track and the two moving wheels; Paragraphs 0033-0034).
Wang in view of Stone does not explicitly teach the fluid inlet and the fluid spraying opening are respectively located in the regions on the two sides of the body. However, the particular placement of a part is seen as an obvious matter of a design choice and is a simple rearrangement of parts (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang in view of Stone makes obvious the swimming pool robot of claim 3. Wang further teaches a cover for the wheels seen in Fig. 1 (i.e., wherein each of the moving mechanisms comprises an outer cover plate, wherein the outer cover plate at least covers the two moving wheels).
Wang in view of Stone does not explicitly teach the fluid inlet and the fluid spraying opening are respectively disposed on the outer cover plates of the two moving mechanisms. However, the particular placement of a part is seen as an obvious matter of a design choice and is a simple rearrangement of parts (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang in view of Stone makes obvious the swimming pool robot of claim 3. Wang further teaches a cover for the wheels seen in Fig. 1 (i.e., wherein each of the moving mechanisms comprises an outer cover plate, wherein the outer cover plate at least covers the two moving wheels).
Stone further teaches a mesh covering (i.e., an avoidance grill) for the thrusters in Fig. 15 (i.e., wherein the fluid inlet and the fluid spraying opening communicate with the outside through the avoidance grill).
Wang in view of Stone does not explicitly teach an avoidance hole or an avoidance grill is disposed on the outer cover plate. However, the particular placement of a part is seen as an obvious matter of a design choice and is a simple rearrangement of parts (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang in view of Stone makes obvious the swimming pool robot of claim 3. Wang further teaches a cover for the wheels seen in Fig. 1 (i.e., wherein each of the moving mechanisms comprises an outer cover plate, wherein the outer cover plate at least covers the two moving wheels).
Stone further teaches a mesh covering (i.e., an avoidance grill) for the thrusters in Fig. 15 (i.e., wherein the avoidance grill is configured to allow external liquid to flow into the lateral flow channel and the avoidance grill is configured to allow liquid in the lateral flow channel to flow out of the swimming pool robot).
Wang in view of Stone does not explicitly teach an avoidance hole or an avoidance grill is disposed on the outer cover plates. However, the particular placement of a part is seen as an obvious matter of a design choice and is a simple rearrangement of parts (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang in view of Stone makes obvious the swimming pool robot of claim 3. Wang further teaches a cover for the wheels seen in Fig. 1 (i.e., wherein the swimming pool robot comprises an outer cover plate further covers at least a part of the region between the track and the two moving wheels).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang in view of Stone makes obvious the swimming pool robot of claim 1. Wang further teaches a filtering device (i.e., further comprising a filtering box at least partially disposed inside the body; Fig. 3, #7) located on top of a water inlet (i.e., a first water inlet; Fig. 3, #101) which is located on the bottom of the housing (i.e., disposed on a bottom of the body) with two water outlets (i.e., a first water outlet; Fig. 3, #102) defined at the top of the housing (i.e., at least partially disposed on a top of the body) with a propeller, motor, and rotary blades (i.e., and a main water pump; Fig. 3, #9) located in the water flow guide pipes (i.e., disposed inside the body, wherein the first water inlet, the filtering box, the main water pump, and the first water outlet are sequentially in fluid communication to form a cleaning water path; Fig. 3, #8; Paragraph 0035).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang in view of Stone makes obvious the swimming pool robot of claim 8. Wang further teaches that the water inlet is located at the rear end of the bottom of the housing (Paragraph 0035).
Stone further teaches that a thruster is located at the front (Fig. 1, #28) of the vehicle (i.e., when the swimming pool robot moves on the bottom of the swimming pool, at least a part of the lateral flow channel is located in front of the first water inlet; Paragraph 0058).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang in view of Stone makes obvious the swimming pool robot of claim 8. Wang further teaches a handle (i.e., further comprising a first handle configured to allow a user to lift the swimming pool robot; Fig. 1).
Wang in view of Stone does not explicitly teach wherein the lateral flow channel is closer to the first handle than the first water inlet or the filtering box. However, the particular placement of a part is seen as an obvious matter of a design choice and is a simple rearrangement of parts (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Claims 11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Stone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Duffaut et al (US Patent Application No. 20240271445 A1) hereinafter Duffaut.
Regarding Claim 11, Wang in view of Stone makes obvious the swimming pool robot of claim 1. Wang further teaches the use of sensors to determine that the robot is at the waterline for the purpose of cleaning the waterline via lateral translation of the robot (Paragraph 0016).
Wang in view of Stone does not teach further comprising at least one image capturing part configured to capture an image and at least one distance detection part configured to at least detect a distance between the swimming pool robot and an object.
However, Duffaut teaches that an autonomous pool cleaner can utilize LIDAR (i.e., at least one distance detection part configured to at least detect a distance between the swimming pool robot and an object) and cameras (i.e., further comprising at least one image capturing part configured to capture an image) for the purpose of mapping a pool and localizing the autonomous swimming pool cleaner (Paragraph 0070).
Duffaut is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a swimming pool cleaner (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the swimming pool cleaning robot made obvious by Wang in view of Stone with the LIDAR and cameras as taught by Duffaut because the LIDAR and cameras would allow the cleaner to map the pool and localize the autonomous swimming pool cleaner.
Wang in view of Stone in view of Duffaut does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one distance detection part is located below the at least one image capturing part in a height direction of the swimming pool robot. However, the particular placement of a part is seen as an obvious matter of a design choice and is a simple rearrangement of parts (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang in view of Stone makes obvious the swimming pool robot of claim 1. Wang further teaches a filtering device (i.e., further comprising a filtering box at least partially disposed inside the body; Fig. 3, #7) located on top of a water inlet (Fig. 3, #101) which is located on the bottom of the housing with two water outlets (i.e., a first water outlet; Fig. 3, #102) defined at the top of the housing (i.e., at least partially disposed on a top of the body) with a propeller, motor, and rotary blades (i.e., and a main water pump; Fig. 3, #9) located in the water flow guide pipes (i.e., disposed inside the body, wherein the water inlet, the filtering box, the main water pump, and the first water outlet are sequentially in fluid communication to form a cleaning water path; Fig. 3, #8; Paragraph 0035).
Wang in view of Stone does not teach a second water inlet disposed on a side wall of the body and at least one image capturing part configured to capture an image and at least one distance detection part configured to at least detect a distance between the swimming pool robot and an object.
However, Duffaut teaches that an autonomous pool cleaner with one or more inlets (Fig. 5, #50) located on a side of the pool cleaner (i.e., a second water inlet disposed on a side wall of the body; Paragraph 0076) can utilize LIDAR (i.e., at least one distance detection part configured to at least detect a distance between the swimming pool robot and an object) and cameras (i.e., at least one image capturing part configured to capture an image) for the purpose of mapping a pool and localizing the autonomous swimming pool cleaner (Paragraph 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the swimming pool cleaning robot made obvious by Wang in view of Stone with the LIDAR and cameras as taught by Duffaut because the LIDAR and cameras would allow the cleaner to map the pool and localize the autonomous swimming pool cleaner.
Wang in view of Stone in view of Duffaut does not explicitly teach the at least one image capturing part is located below the second water inlet and above the at least one distance detection part in the height direction of the swimming pool robot. However, the particular placement of a part is seen as an obvious matter of a design choice and is a simple rearrangement of parts (In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding Claim 16, Wang in view of Stone in view of Duffaut makes obvious the swimming pool robot of claim 15. Duffaut further teaches that the sensors (Fig. 5, #48) can be located on the front of the pool cleaner (i.e., wherein the second water inlet, the at least one image capture part, and the at least one distance detection part are all disposed on a front side wall of the body; Paragraph 0076).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Stone in view of Duffaut as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Boss (US Patent Application No. 20180001981 A1) hereinafter Boss.
Regarding Claim 12, Wang in view of Stone in view of Duffaut makes obvious the swimming pool robot of claim 11. Wang in view of Stone in view of Duffaut does not teach at least one fill light configured to adjust brightness of a shot region of the at least one image capturing part.
However, Boss teaches that a hull may comprise a camera (Fig. 7, #62) located behind a window (Fig. 2, #66) and between lights (i.e., at least one fill light; Fig. 2, #64) with the lights being positioned near the camera and facing the same direction for the purpose of illuminating the photo/video target area with the ability to provide variable intensity lighting (i.e., configured to adjust brightness of a shot region of the at least one image capturing part; Paragraph 0041).
Boss is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to marine technology including remotely controlled vehicles and devices that operate underwater (Paragraphs 0002-0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the swimming pool cleaning robot made obvious by Wang in view of Stone in view of Duffaut with the lights as taught by Boss because the lights would illuminate the camera area with variable intensity lighting.
Regarding Claim 13, Wang in view of Stone in view of Duffaut makes obvious the swimming pool robot of claim 12. Boss further teaches that a hull may comprise a camera (Fig. 7, #62) located behind a window (Fig. 2, #66) and between lights (i.e., wherein the at least one fill light is close to the at least one image capturing part; Fig. 2, #64) with the lights being positioned near the camera and facing the same direction for the purpose of illuminating the photo/video target area with the ability to provide variable intensity lighting (Paragraph 0041).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang in view of Stone in view of Duffaut makes obvious the swimming pool robot of claim 13. Boss further teaches that a hull may comprise a camera (Fig. 7, #62) located behind a window (Fig. 2, #66) and between lights (i.e., wherein there are at least two fill lights, wherein the at least two fill lights are disposed substantially symmetrically on two sides of the at least one image capturing part; Fig. 2, #64) with the lights being positioned near the camera and facing the same direction for the purpose of illuminating the photo/video target area with the ability to provide variable intensity lighting (Paragraph 0041).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777