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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed July 22, 2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 11-17 are currently pending and have been examined. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1-2, 11, 13, and 16-17. Claims 10 and 18-20 are cancelled by applicant. Claims 15-26 are newly presented. The previous drawing and specification objection has been withdrawn due to the newly submitted and accepted “Drawings” and “Specification” dated 07/22/2026. The previous claim objection has been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments. The previous 112b rejections have been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments or cancelled claims. The 102 and 103 rejections have been modified due to applicant’s amendments. For the reason(s) set forth below, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive. The action is Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/03/2026 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sumonthee (US Pub. No. 2012/0103365).
Regarding claim 1, Sumonthee discloses: a pool cleaning robot (Figures 1-19 element 100 and see also paragraphs 0049-0051), comprising:
a housing (element 110/120);
an accommodation cavity (element 157) provided in the housing to receive a filtering box (element 154 and see also paragraph 0070 where the prior art discloses element 154 as “one or more filter elements” which is received in the accommodation cavity (see figure 11 annotated below)), a distance (see figure 11 annotated below Detail A) from a central point (see figure 11 annotated below Detail B) of the accommodation cavity to a front end (see figure 11 annotated below Detail C) of the housing end is less than a distance (see figure 11 annotated below Detail D) from the central point of the accommodation cavity to a rear end (see figure 11 annotated below Detail E) of the housing (see figure 11 below showing the distance of Detail A being less than the distance of Detail D) and the accommodation cavity is formed by an inner surface of a plurality of walls (see figure 11/12 annotated below showing a plurality of walls (Detail B) having inner surfaces which form the accommodation cavity (element 157)), is formed by an inner surface of a plurality of walls (see figure 11 annotated 2 and figure 12 annotated below showing a plurality of walls (Detail F) having inner surfaces which form the accommodation cavity (element 157)), an outer surface (see figure 11 annotated 2 annotated below G) of the plurality of walls and the housing for a first chamber (see figure 11 annotated 2 annotated below I), a distance (see figure 11 annotated 2 annotated below J) from a central point (see figure 11 annotated 2 annotated below K) of the first chamber to the rear end of the housing is less than a distance (see figure 11 annotated 2 annotated below L) from the central point of the first chamber to the front end of the housing (see figure 11 annotated 2 below showing the distance of Detail J being less than the distance of Detail L);
a fist wall (see figure 12 annotated below Detail M) which is one of the plurality of walls is provided with a water inlet hole (see figure 12 annotated below Detail N), a filter driving assembly (element 160 and see also paragraph 0067) is located in the first chamber (see figure 11 annotated below showing portions of the filter driving assembly (element 160) located in the first chamber (Detail I)) and is in fluid communication with the accommodation cavity through the water inlet hole (see figure 11 annotated 2 below showing water flow through portions of where the water inlet hole would necessarily be located (as best shown in figure 12 annotated below), thus being in fluid communication with the with the accommodation cavity (element 157) through the water inlet hole (Detail N)),
wherein the filter driving assembly is configured to drive water to flow into the filtering box and then into the accommodation cavity, then enter the first chamber through the water inlet hole, and finally flow outside of the housing from the first chamber (see paragraph 0067 where the prior art discloses element 160(filter driving assembly includes “a motor box 161 and an impeller unit 162”, see paragraph 0084 where the prior art discloses element 162 (impeller unit) “draws water” through the pool cleaner, and see figure 11 annotated 1-3 below showing a water flow path (arrows) flowing into multiple different components including the filtering box (element 154), also the space of the accommodation cavity (element 157) that the filter box (element 154) resides (see space that exist between the wall that the left portion of the filter box (element 154) abuts and the right side wall of the filter box) which flows after into a portion of the accommodation cavity after the filtering box, and then enters the first chamber (Detail I) through the water inlet hole (as best shown in figure 11 annotated 2 below), and finally flow outside the housing (elements 110/120) from the first chamber).
PNG
media_image1.png
1048
1122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1023
1096
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
582
768
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
476
644
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sumonthee discloses: the pool cleaning robot according to claim 1, further comprising a second wall (see figure 11 annotated below Detail A) which is one of the plurality of walls, the filtering box is located between the second wall and the filter driving assembly (see figure 11 annotated below showing the filtering box (element 154) located between the second wall (Detail A) and the filter driving assembly (element 160)), the first chamber is formed by an outer surface (see figure 11 annotated below Detail B) of the first wall and an inner space of the housing (see figure 11 annotated below Detail C).
PNG
media_image5.png
797
994
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Sumonthee discloses: the pool cleaning robot according to claim 2, further comprising a second chamber (see figure 11 annotated below Detail A) formed by the second wall and a front portion of the housing (see figure 11 annotated below showing the second chamber (Detail A) formed by the second wall and a front portion (Detail B) of the housing).
PNG
media_image6.png
752
1107
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Sumonthee discloses: the pool cleaning robot according to claim 3, wherein the second wall is configured to block water in the second chamber from directly entering the filtering box (see figure 11 annotated above showing the second chamber (Detail A) as fully enclosed chamber that is enclosed by portions of the second wall and front portion of the housing, thus the second wall would necessarily be capable of blocking water in the second chamber from directly entering the filtering box, as recited.).
Regarding claim 6, Sumonthee discloses: the pool cleaning robot according to claim 3, wherein the filter driving assembly and the second chamber are not interconnected (see figure 11 annotated above in page 11 showing the second chamber (Detail A) being blocked by the second wall, thus the filter driving assembly and the second chamber are not interconnected via the second wall).
Regarding claim 7, Sumonthee discloses: the pool cleaning robot according to claim 1, wherein the accommodation cavity is provided with a first opening (element 153), the first opening is interconnected with the water inlet through a water guiding duct (see figures 1 and 13 annotated below Detail A).
PNG
media_image7.png
752
1061
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
802
946
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Sumonthee discloses: the pool cleaning robot according to claim 7, wherein at least a part of the water guiding duct is outside the accommodation cavity (see figure 11 annotated above on page 10, showing a portion of the water guiding duct (Detail A) outside the accommodation cavity (element 157)).
Regarding claim 9, Sumonthee discloses: the pool cleaning robot according to claim 7, wherein the filtering box has a second opening (see figure 14 annotated below Detail A), the second opening is interconnected with the first opening (see figure 11 annotated above on page 18, showing a water flow (arrows) passing through the first opening (element 153) and through the filtering box (element 154) which comprises the second opening (see figure 14 annotated below), thus the second opening would necessarily be interconnected with the first opening).
PNG
media_image9.png
486
596
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Sumonthee discloses: the pool cleaning robot according to claim 1, the pool cleaning robot further comprising a container (element 156) provided in the first chamber (see figure 11 annotated 2 above (page 7)), the filter driving assembly comprising a motor (element 161 and see also paragraph 0067) provided in the container (see figure 11) and a impeller (element 162 and see also paragraph 0067) provided outside of the container and connected with the motor (see figure 11 showing portions of the impeller (element 162) provided outside bottom portions of the container (element 156) and connected with the motor (element 160)).
Regarding claim 12, Sumonthee discloses: the pool cleaning robot according to claim 11, the impeller is closer to a top of the water inlet hole than the motor (see figure 11 annotated 1 above (page 13) showing a bottom portion of the impeller (element 162) being closer to a top (the highest arrow (see top circle) passing through the filter box of element 154) than the lowest bottom wall surface of the motor (element 160)).
Regarding claim 13, Sumonthee discloses: the pool cleaning robot according to claim 1, the first chamber is closer to the rear end of the housing than the accommodation cavity or the filtering box motor (see figure 11 annotated 2 above (page 7) showing the bottom portion of the first chamber (Detail I) being closer to a rear end (Detail D) of the housing (element 110/120) than top portions of the accommodation cavity (element 157) and the filtering box (element 154)) .
Regarding claim 14, Sumonthee discloses: the pool cleaning robot according to claim 1, the pool cleaning robot further comprising:
a water inlet (element 113) provided at a bottom of the housing (see figure 8 showing a bottom view of the housing having the water inlet (element 113) provided at a bottom of a portion (element 110) of the housing); and
a water outlet (element 122) provided at a top of the housing (see figure 1);
wherein, the filter driving assembly drives water to flow into the housing through the water inlet, flow through the filtering box, the accommodation cavity and the first chamber, and then flow outside of the housing through the water outlet (see paragraph 0067 where the prior art discloses element 160(filter driving assembly includes “a motor box 161 and an impeller unit 162”, see paragraph 0084 where the prior art discloses element 162 (impeller unit) “draws water” through the pool cleaner, and see figure 11 annotated above and figure 11 annotated 2 above (pages 6-7) showing a water flow path (arrows) flowing into multiple different components including the water inlet hole (as best shown in figure 11 annotated 2 above), the filtering box (element 154), the accommodation cavity (element 157), and then enters the first chamber (Detail D) and then flow outside of the housing through the water outlet (element 122)).
Regarding claim 15, Sumonthee discloses: the pool cleaning robot according to claim 1, the pool cleaning robot further comprising:
at least one first water outlet hole (element 113 and see also paragraph 0056 where the prior art discloses element 113 “can advantageously serve as drains for when the cleaner 100 is removed from the water”, thus comprising at least one first water outlet hole) provided on the housing (see figure 8);
at least one second water outlet hole provided on one of the plurality of walls of the accommodation cavity (see figure 12 annotated below showing the plurality of walls including at least one wall having a plurality of holes (i.e. at least four holes) which the examiner selects the top two holes as at least one second water outlet hole (Detail A), see also figure 11 annotated below showing the selected at least one second water outlet hole (Detail A) having water (arrows) escaping the accommodation cavity (element 157) and flowing into a different portion of the pool robot, thus the selected at least one second water outlet hole (Detail A) is an outlet); and
a handle (element 114) disposed at the front end of the housing (see figure 1),
when the handle is lifted, the wall provided with the second water outlet hole tilts, the at least one first water outlet hole is located lower than the at least one second water outlet hole (see figure 11 annotated below showing the pool robot being tilted and showing the at least one first water outlet hole (see figure 8 showing a plurality of at least one first water outlet hole (element 113), see also paragraph 0056 where the prior art discloses element 113 “are generally configured and dimensioned to correspond with openings” of element 153, thus the examiner selects the at least one first water outlet hole (element 113) as shown below which is located lower than the at least one second water outlet hole (Detail A)), so that the filtering box, the accommodation cavity, the at least one second water outlet hole, and the at least one first water outlet hole are sequentially in fluid communication to form a water flow path to allow water in the housing to be quickly drained from the housing (See figure 11 annotated below showing the pool robot in a tilted state and having a water flow path (arrows) going through portions of the filtering box (element 154), the accommodation hole (element 157), the at least one second water outlet hole (Detail A), and the at least one first water outlet hole (element 113), thus being sequentially in fluid communication to form a water flow path. Therefore, giving that the there are no structural distinguish of the device and the prior art and since all structural limitations are met, thus the prior art would be capable of having the when the handle is lifted, the wall provided with the second water outlet hole tilts, the at least one first water outlet hole is located lower than the at least one second water outlet hole, so that the filtering box, the accommodation cavity, the at least one second water outlet hole, and the at least one first water outlet hole are sequentially in fluid communication to form a water flow path to allow water in the housing to be quickly drained from the housing, as recited.).
PNG
media_image10.png
971
919
media_image10.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumonthee (US Pub. No. 2012/0103365).
Regarding claim 5, Sumonthee discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 1 and 3, but appears to be silent wherein a volume of the accommodation cavity or a volume of the filtering box is not larger than a volume of the first chamber and a volume of the second chamber.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pool robot of Sumonthee et al. to have the volume of the accommodation cavity or a volume of the filtering box is not larger than a volume of the first chamber and a volume of the second chamber, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Sumonthee would not operate differently with the claimed volume size. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem, therefore there is no criticality placed on the volume of the accommodation cavity or the volume of the filtering box is not larger than the volume of the first chamber and the volume of the second chamber claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 17, Sumonthee discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 1 and 15, but appears to be silent wherein an area of the first water outlet hole ranges from 2000 mm² to 6000 mm².
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pool robot of Sumonthee et al. to have an area of the first water outlet hole ranges from 2000 mm² to 6000 mm², since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Sumonthee would not operate differently with the claimed area. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem (see paragraphs 0012/0036), therefore there is no criticality placed on the area claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Claim 16 recites limitations directed to the pool cleaning robot, specifically “further comprising a water baffle plate provided over the at least one second water outlet hole, wherein a part of the water baffle plate is connected to one of the plurality of walls of the accommodation cavity, when the pool robot is located in the water, the water baffle plate closes the at least one second water outlet hole, and in the process in which the pool robot is leaving the water, the part of the water baffle plate is opened under a force of gravity of water and form a gap with the wall of the accommodation cavity, so that water is capable of being quickly drained from the gap”.
The prior art Sumonthee discloses all the claimed limitations of the pool robot in claims 1 and 15, including at least one second water outlet hole (see figure 11 annotated above (page 25) Detail A) showing the water (arrow) escaping from the accommodation cavity (element 157) and flowing into a different portion of the pool robot, thus the selected at least one second water outlet hole (Detail A) is an outlet). The prior art further shows in figure 11 and discloses in paragraph 0084 that “a flow path” (see arrows) created by the impeller (element 162C) is between the intake flow regions 157 and the vent flow regions 158 can be through the side filter panels 154 and/or through the top filter panels 155. Thus creating an uninterrupted and unobstructed water flow path in order to filter water through the pool robot when the pool robot is in the water.
Thus, any proposed modification including providing a water baffle plate
over the at least one second water outlet hole and wherein the water baffle
plate closes the at least one second water outlet hole when the pool robot is
located in the water (i.e. water baffle plate in close state) would render Sumonthee unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and there would necessarily be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. Therefore, the prior art fails to disclose further comprising a water baffle plate provided over the at least one second water outlet hole, wherein a part of the water baffle plate is connected to one of the plurality of walls of the accommodation cavity, when the pool robot is located in the water, the water baffle plate closes the at least one second water outlet hole, and in the process in which the pool robot is leaving the water, the part of the water baffle plate is opened under a force of gravity of water and form a gap with the wall of the accommodation cavity, so that water is capable of being quickly drained from the gap.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-11 of the “Remarks”, the applicant argues the newly presented limitation of claim 1, specifically:
Based on Figures 2, 10-13, 22, 32 and section [0093] of Sumonthee, the lattices 153A should be located close to the front end of the housing assembly 110 while the intake flow regions 157 should be located close to the rear end of the housing assembly 110. By referring to Fig. 10 and 12, the frame 156 is located in the middle of the body 151 and the body 151 is located in the middle of the housing assembly 110, thus the distance from the central point of the body 151 to the front end of the housing assembly 110 should be the same as the distance from the central point of the body 151 to the rear end of the housing assembly 110. That is, the intake flow regions 157-which the Office Action maps to the claimed accommodation cavity- are located close to the rear end of the housing assembly 110, not the front end. Accordingly, a central point of the alleged accommodation cavity (intake flow regions 157) is not closer to the front end of the housing assembly 110 than to the rear end.
Therefore, Sumonthee doesn't disclose or teach "a distance from a central point of the accommodation cavity to a front end of the housing is less than a distance from the central point of the accommodation cavity to a rear end of the housing" of Claim 1.
Moreover, the region identified in the Office Action as the alleged first chamber (Detail D) is located in a central, upper region of the housing assembly 110, above the frame 156 and the body 151, which, as discussed above, are centered between the front and rear ends of the housing assembly 110. A central point of the alleged first chamber is therefore not closer to the rear end of the housing assembly 110 than to the front end. Similarly, Sumonthee doesn't disclose or teach "a distance from a central point of the first chamber to the rear end of the housing is less than a distance from the central point of the first chamber to the front end of the housing" of Claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner acknowledges the application explanation. However, the claim limitation does not specifically/structurally define where the central point of the accommodation cavity and first chamber must reside or provide any structural relation with other claimed structure (i.e. plurality of walls) of where the central point must be located in relation to the proposed claim structure. Therefore, as shown in the rejection above, the examiner selects that the central portion that lies in the plane between the middle bottom portion of one of the bottom walls of the accommodation wall/first chamber and in between the left/right portions of the accommodation wall/first chamber as the central portion which as disclosed in the rejection above, have the same distances as claimed which meet the claim limitation. Thus, arguments are found unpersuasive.
Regarding the arguments on page 11 of the newly presented limitations of claim 1. The examiner acknowledges the arguments and have been addressed in the rejection above.
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 ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights