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 . Claims 1-30 were previously pending. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15-15, 21, 24, 26, and 28 have been amended. Claims 3 and 5 have been cancelled. No claim shave been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4, and 6-30 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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: “locking mechanism” in claims 2, 7-11, 13-14, 24-25, and 28-30, “pump system” in claim 11, “docking detection unit” in claim 14, “walking unit” in claims 15-23, “lateral detection unit” in claims 15-19 and 21-23, “first signal unit” in claim 16, “second signal unit” in claim 16, “base station energy storage unit” in claim 17, “first charging unit” in claims 17-18, “robot energy storage unit” in claims 17-18, “second charging unit” in claims 17-18, “electrical connection unit” in claim 18, “mileage detection unit” in claims 22-23, “posture detection unit” in claims 22-23, “fixing unit” in claim 25, and “positioning unit” in claims 26-27.
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.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “locking mechanism” in claims 2, 7-11, 13-14, 24-25, and 28-30, “pump system” in claim 11, “docking detection unit” in claim 14, “walking unit” in claims 15-23, “lateral detection unit” in claims 15-19 and 21-23, “first signal unit” in claim 16, “second signal unit” in claim 16, “base station energy storage unit” in claim 17, “first charging unit” in claims 17-18, “robot energy storage unit” in claims 17-18, “second charging unit” in claims 17-18, “electrical connection unit” in claim 18, “mileage detection unit” in claims 22-23, “posture detection unit” in claims 22-23, “fixing unit” in claim 25, and “positioning unit” in claims 26-27 all use a generic placeholder “mechanism”, “system”, or “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Locking mechanism: [0118, 0121, 0124]
Pump system – [0142]
Docking detection unit – [0131]
Walking unit – [0093]
Lateral detection unit – [0187]
Base station energy storage unit – [0162]
First charging unit – [0163]
Robot energy storage unit – [0162]
Second charging unit – [0163]
Electrical connection unit – [0166]
Mileage detection unit – [0192]
Posture detection unit – [0192]
Fixing unit – [0207-0208]
Positioning unit – [0210]
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “an above-water communication unit comprising a wireless transceiver” and “at least one underwater communication unit comprising at least one of an ultrasonic transducer, a radio-frequency transceiver, or a light emitter” and these aspects appear to be new matter. The specification discusses wirelessly communicating, but nowhere does it state that the above-water communication unit comprises a wireless transceiver. This new limitation is more specific than what is supported in the instant application. Wireless communication could be carried out by means other than a wireless transceiver. The specification discusses communicating using ultrasonic signals, radio waves, or emitting light, but nowhere does it state that the underwater communication unit comprises an ultrasonic transducer or radio-frequency transceiver. This new limitation is more specific than what is supported in the instant application. Ultrasonic and radio-frequency communication can be carried out by means other than an ultrasonic transducer or a radio-frequency transceiver
Claim 4 recites the limitation of “an image acquisition unit comprises an image sensor” and this aspect appears to be new matter. The specification discusses an image acquisition unit, but nowhere does it state that the image acquisition unit comprises an image sensor. This new limitation is more specific than what is supported in the instant application. Image acquisition could be carried with means other than an image sensor.
Claim 10 recites “a garbage collection unit comprises a container” and this aspect appears to be new matter. The specification discusses collecting garbage, but nowhere does it state that the garbage collection unit comprises a container. This new limitation is more specific than what is supported in the instant application. Garbage collection could be carried out with means other than a container.
Claim 21 recites “a timer” and this aspect appears to be new matter. The specification discusses a timing unit such that when a cumulative timing exceeds a preset time, the robot rotates. Nowhere in the specification discusses a timer. The timing unit in the specification describes tracking time and comparing it to a threshold, but does not disclose what is performing the timing. This new limitation is more specific than what is supported in the instant application. The timing could be performed by means other than an actual timer.
Claim 24 recites “a control unit positioned on an upper part of the base station… wherein the control unit comprises… a controller and a wireless transceiver” and this aspect appears to be new matter. The specification discusses a robot controller, but does not discuss a control unit of the base station comprising a controller. This new limitation is more specific than what is supported in the instant application. The specification discusses wirelessly communicating, but nowhere does it state that the wireless communication is performed by a wireless transceiver of the base station. This new limitation is more specific than what is supported in the instant application. Wireless communication could be carried out by means other than a wireless transceiver.
Claims 2, 4, and 6-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a pool cleaning robot” and “an underwater device”. According to the specification, the pool cleaning robot is the underwater device (see specification paragraph [0014-0017, 0097, 0100, 0105, 0110]). Therefore it is unclear if the underwater device introduced in claim 1 is the same or different from the pool cleaning robot introduced in claim 1. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that the underwater device includes a pool cleaning robot or another device.
Claims 2, 4, and 6-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 12-18, and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witelson (US 2021/0317675 A1) in view of Lancry (US 2021/0032888 A1) and Li (CN 107600373 A, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 4/21/2026 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Witelson discloses a pool cleaning system, comprising a pool cleaning robot (see at least Figs. 1-2, 7-11, [0104] – pool cleaning robot 22) and a base station (see at least Figs. 1-2, 7-11, [0104] – base station 24); wherein the pool cleaning robot is capable of moving toward the base station and then docking with the base station (see at least Fig. 1-2, 7-11, [0108-0110] – The pool cleaning robot 22 climbs sidewall 12 and contacts the floating unit (or at least being positioned in proximity to the floating unit 14)—thereby allowing a contactless charging process of the pool cleaning robot.); the base station is positioned at a position corresponding to a waterline of a pool (see at least Figs. 7-11); the pool cleaning robot is configured to climb up the wall upon reaching a vicinity of the base station, and then move on the pool wall to dock with the base station (see at least Figs. 1-2, 7-11, [0108-0110]); wherein the base station comprises an above-water communication unit configured to communicate with an above-water device (see at least [0032, 0081-0082] – one or more transmitters… communicate wirelessly); the base station further comprises at least one underwater communication unit (see at least [0032, 0081-0082] - one or more transmitters… communicate wirelessly), the at least one underwater communication unit being configured to guide the pool cleaning robot to move toward the base station and communicate with an underwater device (see at least [0032, 0081-0082]), wherein the at least one underwater communication unit is electrically connected to the above-water communication unit (see at least [0032, 0081-0082]).
Witelson does not appear to explicitly disclose the base station is positioned on a pool wall; the above-water communication unit comprising a wireless transceiver.
Lancry, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the base station is positioned on a pool wall (see at least Figs. 1, 5C, [0034]); the above-water communication unit comprising a wireless transceiver (see at least [0044] – base 10 capable of transmitting and receiving radio frequency (RF) or other electronic signals wirelessly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Lancry into the invention of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of providing the base station on the wall is for the purpose of stabilizing the position of the base and allowing a human to reach the cleaner without having to enter the pool (Lancry – [0034, 0040]). The motivation of providing the wireless transceiver is for the purpose of communicating instructions from the base to the cleaner in the desired manner (Lancry – [0044]). Changing the type of communication from one known type of communication to another requires only routine skill in the art and doing so would yield predictable results.
Witelson does not appear to explicitly disclose the at least one underwater communication unit comprising at least one of an ultrasonic transducer, a radio-frequency transceiver, or a light emitter; and the base station comprises a docking station for the pool cleaning robot, wherein the at least one underwater communication unit is arranged on a central axis of the docking station and/or symmetrically on both left and right sides of the central axis of the docking station.
Li, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the base station further comprises at least one underwater communication unit comprising at least one of an ultrasonic transducer, a radio-frequency transceiver, or a light emitter (see at least Fig. 4, [0055] - the ultrasonic transmitter 301 emits ultrasonic waves 302 in all directions); wherein the at least one underwater communication unit being configured to guide the pool robot to move toward the base station and communicate with an underwater device (see at least [0055-0058] – the ultrasonic transmitter 301 emits ultrasonic waves 302 in all directions, and the two ultrasonic receivers 104 on the fish body receive them… if both receives receive ultrasound signals simultaneously, proceed in the current direction), and the base station comprises a docking station for the pool robot (see at least Fig. 4, [0013]), wherein the at least one underwater communication unit is arranged on a central axis of the docking station and/or symmetrically on both left and right sides of the central axis of the docking station (see at least Figs. 1, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Li into the invention of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a simple system that ensures high positioning accuracy during autonomous return (Li - [0029]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have integrated the at least one underwater communication unit on a central axis of the docking station with a reasonable expectation of success. The goal in Li is to guide the pool cleaning robot to the docking station based on whether both receivers on the robot receive the signals, and therefore a centrally positioned transmitter would better guide the robot to align with a central axis of the charging docking station. Furthermore, selecting a centered position for the ultrasonic transmitter would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Witelson discloses wherein the pool cleaning robot and/or the base station is provided with a locking mechanism (see at least [0123-0124] - lock), the pool cleaning robot comprises at least one motor (see at least [0065] – motor 502), a power supply module (see at least [0068] – battery 505), and a filtering unit (see at least [0061] – filtering unit 501); the pool cleaning robot is configured to move toward the base station when a return condition is satisfied (see at least [0031, 0092, 0094]); and the base station is configured to control the locking mechanism to fix the pool cleaning robot when the pool cleaning robot has been docked with the base station (see at least [0123-0124]).
Regarding claim 4, Witelson does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the underwater device is the pool cleaning robot, and the underwater communication unit is configured to transmit an ultrasonic signal; the pool cleaning robot is configured to receive, when a return condition is satisfied, the ultrasonic signal transmitted by the base station via at least two ultrasonic receivers of the pool cleaning robot, wherein the at least two ultrasonic receivers are positioned at different positions of the pool cleaning robot; and based on a signal parameter of the ultrasonic signal received by each of the at least two ultrasonic receivers, the pool cleaning robot is controlled to move toward the base station until the pool cleaning robot has been docked with the base station; or the underwater device is the pool cleaning robot, the underwater communication unit is configured to transmit a wireless signal, the pool cleaning robot is configured to receive, when the return condition is satisfied, the wireless signal transmitted by the base station via at least two wireless receivers of the pool cleaning robot, wherein the at least two wireless receivers are positioned at different positions of the pool cleaning robot; and based on a signal parameter of the wireless signal received by each of the at least two wireless receivers, the pool cleaning robot is controlled to move toward the base station until the pool cleaning robot has been docked with the base station; or the underwater device is the pool cleaning robot, the underwater communication unit is configured to emit light of a preset wavelength, the pool cleaning robot is configured to acquire, when the return condition is satisfied, an environment image of the pool cleaning robot via an image acquisition unit of the pool cleaning robot; and based on pixels for the preset wavelength in the environment image, the pool cleaning robot is controlled to move toward the base station; and/or the underwater device is the pool cleaning robot, the pool cleaning robot is configured to acquire, when the return condition is satisfied, an environment image of the pool cleaning robot via an image acquisition unit of the pool cleaning robot based on ambient light and/or active light, wherein the image acquisition unit comprises an image sensor; and based on pixels in the environment image, the pool cleaning robot is controlled to move toward the base station.
Li, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the underwater device is the pool cleaning robot, and the underwater communication unit is configured to transmit an ultrasonic signal (see at least Fig. 4, [0055] - the ultrasonic transmitter 301 emits ultrasonic waves 302 in all directions); the pool cleaning robot is configured to receive, when a return condition is satisfied, the ultrasonic signal transmitted by the base station via at least two ultrasonic receivers of the pool cleaning robot (see at least Fig. 4, [0055] - the ultrasonic transmitter 301 emits ultrasonic waves 302 in all directions, and the two ultrasonic receivers 104 on the fish body receive them), wherein the at least two ultrasonic receivers are positioned at different positions of the pool cleaning robot (see at least Fig. 4); and based on a signal parameter of the ultrasonic signal received by each of the at least two ultrasonic receivers, the pool cleaning robot is controlled to move toward the base station until the pool cleaning robot has been docked with the base station (see at least [0055-0058] – if both receives receive ultrasound signals simultaneously, proceed in the current direction).
The motivation to combine Witelson and Li is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Witelson discloses wherein the base station further comprises a wireless charging transmitter coil (see at least Figs. 2, 7-11 - 242), and the pool cleaning robot further comprises a wireless charging receiver coil (222); when the pool cleaning robot has been docked with the base station, the wireless charging transmitter coil is positioned adjacent to the wireless charging receiver coil (see at least Figs. 2, 7-11); and the base station is further configured to charge, when the locking mechanism fixes the pool cleaning robot, the pool cleaning robot via the wireless charging transmitter coil and the wireless charging receiver coil (see at least [0107, 0111, 0123-0124]).
Regarding claim 8, Witelson discloses wherein the wireless charging transmitter coil is positioned on a central axis of the docking station (see at least Figs. 2, 9, [0119]).
Regarding claim 10, Witelson discloses wherein the locking mechanism is unlockable by the pool cleaning robot and/or the base station, such that the pool cleaning robot is detachable from the base station (see at least [0124]); and/or the base station further comprises a garbage collection unit comprising a container configured to extract garbage from the filtering unit.
Regarding claim 12, Witelson discloses wherein the locking mechanism and the pool cleaning robot each comprise a permanent magnet and/or a metal block, such that when the pool cleaning robot has been docked with the base station, the permanent magnet and/or the metal block of the locking mechanism establishes a magnetic connection with the permanent magnet and/or the metal block of the pool cleaning robot to fix the pool cleaning robot (see at least Fig. 11, [0123] – magnetic coupling… permanent magnet); or the locking mechanism comprises an electromagnet, and the pool cleaning robot comprises a permanent magnet and/or a metal block; when the pool cleaning robot has been docked with the base station, the electromagnet is positioned adjacent to the permanent magnet and/or the metal block; and the base station is configured to energize the electromagnet when the pool cleaning robot has been docked with the base station, such that the electromagnet applies a magnetic force to the permanent magnet and/or the metal block to fix the pool cleaning robot; or the locking mechanism comprises a hook, and the pool cleaning robot comprises a protrusion or a groove fitted to the hook; and the base station is configured to connect the hook of the locking mechanism to the protrusion or the groove to fix the pool cleaning robot when the pool cleaning robot has been docked with the base station (see at least Fig. 13, [0124] – mechanical coupling… a hook 303 attaching to an opening 304).
Regarding claim 13, Witelson discloses wherein the return condition comprises at least one of: whether remaining power of the pool cleaning robot is less than or equal to a power threshold (see at least [0094]), whether the filtering unit of the pool cleaning robot is filled with garbage, whether the pool cleaning robot has completed a predetermined cleaning task, or whether the pool cleaning robot has received a return instruction.
Regarding claim 14, Witelson discloses wherein the base station and/or the pool cleaning robot further comprises a docking detection unit, the base station and/or the pool cleaning robot further comprises a docking unit, wherein the docking detection unit is configured to determine whether the pool cleaning robot has been docked with the base station, based on a relative positional relationship between the docking detection unit and the docking unit (see at least [0036-0037, 0131]).
Regarding claim 15, Witelson discloses wherein the pool cleaning robot is provided with a walking unit, the walking unit is rotatable relative to the pool cleaning robot and is configured to come into contact with a bottom wall and a side wall of the pool (see at least Figs. 1-2, 7-11, [0109] – wheels are shown… climbing sidewall 12), the pool cleaning robot and the base station are switchable between a disconnected state and a connected state, and when the pool cleaning robot and the base station are in the disconnected state, the pool cleaning robot is capable of automatically moving toward the base station (see at least Fig. 1-2, 7-11, [0031, 0108-0110, 0123-0124] – autonomously moves towards the floating unit 24… coupling during charging); and wherein a lateral detection unit is provided on the pool cleaning robot, and is configured to detect a distance between the pool cleaning robot and an obstacle positioned at a side of the pool cleaning robot (see at least [0031, 0066] – one or more sensors).
Regarding claim 16, Witelson discloses wherein the base station is provided with a first signal unit, the pool cleaning robot is provided with a second signal unit, and the first signal unit and the second signal unit are configured to wirelessly communicate with each other (see at least [0069, 0081-0082] – wireless communication).
Witelson does not appear to explicitly disclose communicate with each other via acoustic signals, optical signals, electromagnetic signals, or radio signals.
Lancry, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: communicate with each other via acoustic signals, optical signals, electromagnetic signals, or radio signals (see at least [0044]).
The motivation to combine Witelson and Lancry is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17, Witelson discloses wherein the base station is provided with a base station energy storage unit and a first charging unit, the base station energy storage unit is connected to the first charging unit (see at least [0071, 0076, 0086, 0092] – battery… contactless charging), the pool cleaning robot is provided with a robot energy storage unit and a second charging unit, the robot energy storage unit is connected to the second charging unit (see at least [0068, 0092] – battery… contactless charging), and the first charging unit is cooperative with the second charging unit (see at least [0092] – contactless charging).
Regarding claim 18, Witelson discloses wherein the base station is provided with an electrical connection unit and a first charging unit, the electrical connection unit being connected to the first charging unit and being adapted to connect to an external power supply (see at least [0071, 0076, 0092] – power supply may be external… contactless charging); and the pool cleaning robot is provided with a robot energy storage unit and a second charging unit, the robot energy storage unit being connected to the second charging unit (see at least [0068, 0092] – battery… contactless charging), the first charging unit being cooperative with the second charging unit (see at least [0092] – contactless charging).
Regarding claim 24, Witelson discloses the system further comprises: a control unit; wherein the control unit comprises a box body, and a power supply, a controller and a wireless communication unit positioned in the box body (see at least Figs. 7-11, [0053, 0075-0081]); the controller is electrically connected to the wireless communication unit and the power supply, and the controller is configured to communicate with the pool cleaning robot via the wireless communication unit to guide the pool cleaning robot to return to the base station (see at least Figs. 1-2, 7-11, [0031, 0092, 0094, 0108-0110]); and a locking mechanism arranged on the base station, the locking mechanism being configured to fix the pool cleaning robot when the pool cleaning robot returns to the base station (see at least [0123-0124]).
Witelson does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the wireless communication unit includes a wireless transceiver; wherein the base station is vertically arranged with its bottom surface in contact with the pool wall of the pool, and the system further comprises: a control unit positioned on an upper part of the base station and at least partially exposed above a water surface of the pool.
Lancry, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the wireless communication unit includes a wireless transceiver (see at least [0044]); wherein the base station is vertically arranged with its bottom surface in contact with the pool wall of the pool (see at least Figs. 1-2, 5C, [0034, 0036]), and the system further comprises: a control unit positioned on an upper part of the base station and at least partially exposed above a water surface of the pool (see at least Figs. 1-2, 5C, [0034, 0036]).
The motivation to combine Witelson and Lancry is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 25, Witelson does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising a fixing unit fixedly connected to the base station and/or the control unit, wherein the fixing unit is configured to mount the base station and/or the control unit on the pool wall of the pool, the control unit is fixedly arranged on a bank of the pool and is connected to the base station via a cable.
Lancry, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a fixing unit fixedly connected to the base station and/or the control unit, wherein the fixing unit is configured to mount the base station and/or the control unit on the pool wall of the pool (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0034]), the control unit is fixedly arranged on a bank of the pool and is connected to the base station via a cable (see at least Fig. 1, [0036]).
The motivation to combine Witelson and Lancry is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 26, Witelson discloses wherein the locking mechanism comprises: a positioning unit electrically connected to the power supply and the controller, the positioning unit being configured to detect whether the pool cleaning robot has returned to the base station (see at least [0123-0124]); and a locking actuator electrically connected to the power supply and the controller, the locking actuator being configured to fix the pool cleaning robot when the positioning unit detects that the pool cleaning robot has returned to the base station (see at least [0123-0124]).
Regarding claim 27, Witelson discloses wherein the locking actuator comprises: an electromagnetic actuator comprising an electromagnet, wherein when the positioning unit detects that the pool cleaning robot has returned to the base station, the electromagnet is energized to attract a metal piece on a bottom of the pool cleaning robot (see at least [0123] - magnetic coupling… electromagnet); and/or a mechanical actuator comprising a power source, a transmission mechanism, and a clamping claw; wherein the power source is in transmission connection with the clamping claw via the transmission mechanism; when the positioning unit detects that the pool cleaning robot has returned to the base station, the power source is activated to drive the clamping claw to clamp the pool cleaning robot.
Regarding claim 28, Witelson discloses further comprising: a wireless charging transmitter coil arranged at the base station and electrically connected to the power supply and the controller (see at least Figs. 7-11, [0107-0110]), wherein the wireless charging transmitter coil is configured to charge an internal battery of the pool cleaning robot via a charging receiver coil of the pool cleaning robot when the pool cleaning robot returns to the base station (see at least Figs. 7-11, [0107-0110]).
Regarding claim 29, Witelson discloses further comprising: a guide apparatus comprising two guide positioning plates, wherein the two guide positioning plates are arranged in parallel and spaced apart on a side of a support plane (see at least Figs. 8-9, 11, [0118-0119]), and the guide apparatus is configured to guide the pool cleaning robot to return to the base station (see at least Figs. 8-9, 11, [0118-0119]).
Witelson does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the two guide positioning plates are arranged in parallel and spaced apart on a side of a support plane away from the pool wall of the pool.
Lancry, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the two guide positioning plates are arranged in parallel and spaced apart on a side of a support plane away from the pool wall of the pool (see at least Figs. 1-2, 10A-10D, 11A).
The motivation to combine Witelson and Lancry is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witelson in view of Lancry, Li, and Wang (CN 116816154 A, cited in the IDS dated 2/6/2026, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 4/21/2026 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 6, Witelson discloses wherein the above-water communication unit is configured to send, in response to a control instruction sent by a target terminal, the control instruction to the underwater communication unit, such that the underwater communication unit forwards the control instruction to the pool cleaning robot, the target terminal being a terminal having control authority over the pool cleaning robot (see at least [0081] - The floating device may communicate its own status wirelessly or act as an intermediary for the submerged or semi submerged pool cleaning robot.).
Witelson does not appear to explicitly disclose that the underwater communication unit is further configured to send, in response to feedback information sent by the pool cleaning robot, the feedback information to the above-water communication unit, such that the above-water communication unit forwards the feedback information to the target terminal.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: that the underwater communication unit is further configured to send, in response to feedback information sent by the pool cleaning robot, the feedback information to the above-water communication unit, such that the above-water communication unit forwards the feedback information to the target terminal (see at least [0020, 0060, 0076] - The current status information of the pool cleaning robot 1 can be sent to the base station 5 through the communication device. The base station 5 then forwards the current status information of the pool cleaning robot 1 to the operator's mobile terminal device, so that the operator can remotely monitor the remaining power of the pool cleaning robot 1, the operation status of the cleaning device, and other information.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Wang into the invention of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of alerting the operator that the current status information does not meet the normal operating conditions and allowing the operator to remotely monitor the remaining power, operation status, and other information (Wang - [0020, 0060, 0076]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witelson in view of Lancry, Li, and Porat (US 2006/0223394 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Witelson does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the base station further comprises a solar power generation panel configured to supply power to the base station and/or the wireless charging transmitter coil, the base station further comprises a battery, the solar power generation panel is electrically connected to the battery, and the battery is configured to supply power to the base station and the wireless charging transmitter coil.
However, Witelson does disclose the base station further comprises a battery, and the battery is configured to supply power to the base station and the wireless charging transmitter coil (see at least [0085-0086] – battery… contactless charging coils).
Porat, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the base station further comprises a solar power generation panel configured to supply power to the base station (see at least [0046-0047]) and/or the wireless charging transmitter coil, the base station further comprises a battery (see at least [0046-0047]), the solar power generation panel is electrically connected to the battery, and the battery is configured to supply power to the base station (see at least [0046-0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Porat into the invention of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a source of recharging current during the entire time that the solar collector panels are exposed to light, which is particularly advantageous during long daylight hours of summer (Porat – [0047-0048]). The use of solar power generation would improve energy efficiency and could be applied to yield predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witelson in view of Lancry, Li, and Morin (US 2022/0409000 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Witelson does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the base station further comprises a pump system, the garbage collection unit is docked with an opening of the filtering unit, and the base station is further configured to control the pump system to pump the garbage from the opening into the garbage collection unit.
Morin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the base station further comprises a pump system, the garbage collection unit is docked with an opening of the filtering unit, and the base station is further configured to control the pump system to pump the garbage from the opening into the garbage collection unit (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0063-0064] - the mobile robot 200 and the evacuation station 205 are aligned so that the evacuation station 205 can begin the evacuation operation… the debris 215 is suctioned by the evacuation station 205 from the debris bin 210 into the bag 235, where it is stored).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Morin into the invention of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of using the dock to automatically empty the cleaning bin of the vacuumed debris (Morin – [0003]). It would be expected that since Witelson’s robot cleans the pool and does not have any other means to evacuate the debris, dirt, and other garbage collected, that a system such as Morin’s would be needed in order to do so. Otherwise, an operator would need to manually empty which would reduce convenience. Therefore a means for emptying garbage during charging could be implemented to yield predictable results.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witelson in view of Lancry, Li, and Maeng (KR 10-2018-0094718 A, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 4/21/2026 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 19, Witelson does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein an angle between an extension direction of the lateral detection unit and a forward direction of the pool cleaning robot is greater than 0° and is not greater than 90°.
Maeng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein an angle between an extension direction of the lateral detection unit and a forward direction of the pool cleaning robot is greater than 0° and is not greater than 90° (see at least Fig. 1, [0079] – sensors 710 extend in different directions between 0 and 90 degrees relative to a forward direction as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Maeng into the invention of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of identifying obstacles in danger zones relative to the robot using a plurality of sensors (Maeng – [0026-0027]). Providing sensors in various directions could be implemented to improve maneuverability without collisions, and could implemented to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 20, Witelson does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the lateral detection unit comprises at least one of an optical distance sensor, a camera, an ultrasonic distance sensor, a mechanical switch, and a pressure sensor, the lateral detection unit is arranged on at least one of side surfaces, a top surface, a bottom surface, and a forward surface of the pool cleaning robot.
Maeng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the lateral detection unit comprises at least one of an optical distance sensor, a camera, an ultrasonic distance sensor, a mechanical switch, and a pressure sensor, the lateral detection unit is arranged on at least one of side surfaces, a top surface, a bottom surface, and a forward surface of the pool cleaning robot (see at least Fig. 1, [0079] – sensors 710 may include an ultrasonic sensor, disposed on a forward side surface as shown).
The motivation to combine Witelson and Maeng is the same as in the rejection of claim 19 above.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witelson in view of Lancry, Li, and Kim (US 2019/0332119 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Witelson does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the pool cleaning robot is provided with a timer, in a case where the pool cleaning robot is moving toward the base station, when a cumulative time of the timer exceeds a preset time, a forward surface of the pool cleaning robot rotates in a direction away from the obstacle, to change a forward direction of the pool cleaning robot.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the cleaning robot is provided with a timer, in a case where the cleaning robot is moving, when a cumulative time of the timer exceeds a preset time, a forward surface of the cleaning robot rotates in a direction away from the obstacle, to change a forward direction of the cleaning robot (see at least [0185, 0196-0198] – if obstacle does not move even after a predetermined waiting time another motion may be performed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Kim into the invention of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of recognizing an obstacle and performing a distinct operation according to the type of obstacle, thereby enabling the robot to respond to the obstacle effectively and improve cleaning efficiency (Kim – [0028]). Furthermore, implementing a timer would have been generally obvious as timers are known to be used for a variety of applications, and doing so would yield predictable results.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witelson in view of Lancry, Li, and Wolowelsky (US 2016/0129593 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Witelson does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the pool cleaning robot is provided with a mileage detection unit and a posture detection unit, the mileage detection unit is configured to record a movement distance of the pool cleaning robot, and the posture detection unit is configured to detect a posture of the pool cleaning robot.
Wolowelsky, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the pool cleaning robot is provided with a mileage detection unit (see at least [0045, 0244, 0265] - odometer) and a posture detection unit (see at least [0244, 0265] - gyro), the mileage detection unit is configured to record a movement distance of the pool cleaning robot, and the posture detection unit is configured to detect a posture of the pool cleaning robot (see at least [0045, 0244, 0265] - a basic positioning system, capable of providing a reasonable relative accuracy for a short period (for example, a dead-reckoning using gyro and odometer or a visual odometry or ego-motion system, a GPS etc.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Wolowelsky into the invention of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing the robot with a basic positioning system for reasonable relative accuracy for a short period (Wolowelsky – [0265]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witelson in view of Lancry, Li, Wolowelsky, and van der Meijden (US 2019/0101394 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Witelson does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the base station is provided with a first display panel, and the first display panel is configured to display a contour pattern of the pool and a position of the base station in the pool, according to the mileage detection unit and the posture detection unit; and/or the pool cleaning system further comprises an electronic terminal having a second display panel, and the second display panel is configured to display the contour pattern of the pool and the position of the base station in the pool, according to the mileage detection unit and the posture detection unit.
Wolowelsky, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the mileage detection unit (see at least [0045, 0244, 0265] - odometer) and the posture detection unit (see at least [0244, 0265] - gyro).
The motivation to combine Witelson and Wolowelsky is the same as in the rejection of claim 22 above.
van der Meijden, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the base station is provided with a first display panel, and the first display panel is configured to display a contour pattern of the pool and a position of the base station in the pool, according to the mileage detection unit and the posture detection unit; and/or the pool cleaning system further comprises an electronic terminal having a second display panel, and the second display panel is configured to display the contour pattern of the pool and the position of the base station in the pool, according to the mileage detection unit and other detection units (see at least [0034-0036, 0038] – display an outline of the pool…renderings may also include features of the pool).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of van der Meijden into the invention of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving operational efficiency in cleaning the pool (van der Meijden – [0008, 0039]).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witelson in view of Lancry, Li, and Slate (US 2024/0338022 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Witelson does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the two guide positioning plates each have an extension portion at one end on a same side; and a distance between the two extension portions gradually increases along a direction away from other ends of the guide positioning plates; and the base station has an arc-shaped transition portion at one end proximal to the extension portion to guide the pool cleaning robot to smoothly return to the base station from the pool wall of the pool.
Lancry, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the two guide positioning plates each have an extension portion at one end on a same side (see at least Figs. 1-2, 10A-10D, 11A – flared sidewalls are shown); and a distance between the two extension portions gradually increases along a direction away from other ends of the guide positioning plates (see at least Figs. 1-2, 10A-10D, 11A – flared sidewalls are shown); and the base station has a transition portion at one end proximal to the extension portion to guide the pool cleaning robot to smoothly return to the base station from the pool wall of the pool (see at least Figs. 1-2, 10A-10D, 11A).
The motivation to combine Witelson and Lancry is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Slate, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the two guide positioning plates each have an extension portion at one end on a same side (see at least Figs. 1-6, [0083-0084]); and a distance between the two extension portions gradually increases along a direction away from other ends of the guide positioning plates (see at least Figs. 1-6, [0083-0084]); and the base station has an arc-shaped transition portion at one end proximal to the extension portion to guide the pool cleaning robot to smoothly return to the base station from the pool wall of the pool (see at least Figs. 1-6, [0083-0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Slate into the invention of Witelson with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of guiding and securing the wheels of the autonomous vehicle during docking (Slate – [0083-0084]).
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, some of the claim limitations are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Some of these amendments have necessitated new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn. However, new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are presented above which were necessitated by the amendments.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 18-30 filed 7/17/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (1) Applicant argues that Witelson does not disclose feature B as described on page 19 of Applicant’s remarks. (2) Applicant argues that Witelson and Lancry do not mention the specific positions where the transmitters are arranged (above water, underwater, or at the water surface). (3) Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the fixed base station of Lancry with Witelson because of a fundamental difference in purpose and technical means. (4) Applicant argues that Li does not relate to a base station or docking station for the bionic robot. (5) Applicant argues that Li relates to a different technical field and application scenario.
Feature B includes newly amended limitations (i.e., that the at least one underwater communication unit comprises at least one of an ultrasonic transducer, a radio-frequency transceiver, or a light emitter). Therefore, Applicant is incorrectly asserting that the examiner alleges that Witelson discloses this feature. The examiner relies upon the combination of Witelson, Lancry, and Li for these limitations. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above.
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 specific positions of the transmitters being above, under, or at the water surface) 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). Although the claim recites “underwater communication unit, this term is interpreted according to broadest reasonable interpretation. For example, the term “underwater” could be used because the communication unit is configured for underwater use, or is configured for communication with an underwater device or underwater robot. Similarly, the term “above-water” could be interpreted to mean that the communication unit is configured for above water use, or is configured for communication with an above water device.
The underlying purpose of the base station of Witelson and Lancry is to provide charging and docking with a pool cleaner. Providing an alternative mounting location of the pool cleaner within the poo. does not destroy the core objective or functionality of Witelson. Lancry teaches that this position stabilizes the base and allows a human to reach the cleaner without having to enter the pool (Lancry – [0034, 0040]).
Li recites “a charging base station for wireless charging and install an ultrasonic transmitter on the charging base station” and “A wireless charging device and two ultrasonic receivers are installed on a miniature bionic underwater robot. The ultrasonic receivers are arranged side by side along the direction of travel of the miniature bionic underwater robot. The miniature bionic underwater robot uses the signals received by the two ultrasonic receivers to control its return direction in order to reach the charging base station for charging.” See at least paragraphs [0013-0014] of Li. It is clear that Li’s charging base station has an ultrasonic transmitter, and Li’s underwater robot has two symmetrically placed ultrasonic receivers which are used to guide it to the charging station. As explained in detail in the previous Office action and above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have integrated the at least one underwater communication unit on a central axis of the docking station with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the single transmitter of the charging station would be centered on some central axis of the charging station because the single transmitter is shown to be centered in relation to the two symmetrically placed receivers on the underwater robot. The goal in Li is to guide the pool cleaning robot to the docking station based on whether both receivers on the robot receive the signals, and therefore a centrally positioned transmitter would better guide the robot towards the central axis of the docking station. Furthermore, selecting this position would yield predictable results. This is not a logical leap, as Applicant asserts. Guiding a robot to a central axis of a charging station is well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the central axis is not further defined or limited by the claims.
With regards to the technical field of Li, the examiner relies upon Li for teaching how an underwater robot can be guided to a charging station. Therefore Li and Witelson are in the same field of endeavor in that they both relate to underwater robots with charging stations. The movement mode of Li (how the robot swims) does not prevent a person of ordinary skill in the art from using Li’s ultrasonic guiding technique with Witelson’s robot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights