US 9388595

I'll search for authoritative information on US 9388595, including any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me check specifically for Federal Circuit 2026 activity and any IPR/CBMR on the '595 patent itself.

One more targeted check for Federal Circuit activity and the family's PTAB posture.

US Patent 9,388,595 — Analyst Summary

Search scope note / caveat first: You asked specifically for USPTO and CAFC 2026 docket results for 9,388,595. My searches returned no Federal Circuit appeal in 2026 involving U.S. 9,388,595 itself. What 2026 activity exists is at the PTAB (IPRs) and in district courts, and it targets this patent's continuation patents (which claim priority to the same 2012 application), not the '595 patent directly. I cannot access PACER/CM-ECF or the CAFC docket directly, so my court-level statements rest on third-party docket aggregators and party filings quoted in search results — treat those as less authoritative than the patent text itself. I also note a date conflict: your prompt says the current date is April 26, 2026, while my system date is Sept 29, 2026; some sources I found are timestamped into mid/late 2026, which is later than your stated "current" date. I flag this rather than silently reconcile it.

1. Bibliographic data (from the patent text provided)

Abstract (verbatim): "A pool cleaning system utilizes a powered robotic surface cleaning vehicle to travel adjacent water containing surfaces of a pool while submerged within the pool. In one implementation, a camera captures movement of the vehicle. In one implementation, a dry station serve the intermediary across a wide area network between the vehicle and a server which communicates with the portable electronic device."

2. Prosecution-history point worth flagging

Claim 1 as granted is materially different from claim 1 as published in US 2014/0015959 A1. The published version was a three-element claim (vehicle + camera mounted external to the pool capturing vehicle movement + controller generating steering signals from camera signals). The granted claim 1 added a "sensors carried by the vehicle" limitation and the after-cleaning re-clean requirement (see §3). This amendment is reflected in the record: the '595 prosecution history appears as an exhibit in the 2026 PTAB proceedings (e.g., Ex. 1011 in IPR2026‑00202; Patent Owner Ex. 2013 in IPR2026‑00200). Any infringement/invalidity analysis of the '595 patent must use the granted claim text, not the publication.

3. Independent claims in plain language (granted text; 22 claims total)

The '595 patent has four independent claims: 1, 11, 14, and 16.

Claim 1 — System (apparatus-plus-vehicle).
A pool cleaning system has four cooperating parts: (a) a powered robotic surface-cleaning vehicle that travels on and cleans submerged pool surfaces; (b) a camera that captures the vehicle's movement while submerged; (c) a controller in electronic communication with the camera that generates control signals to steer the vehicle based on the camera signals; and (d) sensors carried by the vehicle that sense the pool surfaces after the vehicle has cleaned them during a pass run under a pool coverage algorithm — and the control signals then steer the vehicle to re-clean surfaces whose sensed cleanliness characteristic fails a predefined threshold. Two distinct sensing modalities are therefore claimed: the camera (steering) and the onboard sensors (cleanliness verification/re-clean trigger).

Claim 11 — Computer-readable-medium apparatus.
A non-transitory CRM containing code that causes a processor to: generate first control signals to move a robotic pool cleaning vehicle to clean the pool surfaces; obtain camera signals representing the surfaces and the vehicle's movement along them; identify portions not cleaned so as to satisfy a predefined threshold; and automatically generate second control signals to steer the vehicle to re-clean those identified portions based on the camera signals. (This is the "coverage verify → autonomously re-clean" claim, framed as software.)

Claim 14 — Method.
A method comprising: moving a robotic pool cleaning vehicle to clean the pool surfaces; capturing images of the pool being cleaned while the vehicle operates according to a steering algorithm; obtaining camera signals representing the surfaces and the vehicle's movement; identifying portions not cleaned to satisfy a predefined threshold; and steering the vehicle based on camera signals to re-clean the identified portions.

Claim 16 — System with dry station.
A pool cleaning system comprising: a powered robotic pool cleaning vehicle that travels adjacent submerged pool surfaces; a camera that captures vehicle movement while submerged and identifies debris on the surfaces; a controller in electronic communication with the camera that generates steering control signals, wherein the controller automatically steers the vehicle to re-clean identified portions still having debris based on camera signals; and a dry station remote from the pool in communication with the vehicle.

4. Notable dependent claims (context for claim scope)

• 7 — controller also generates second control signals based on a coverage algorithm independent of the camera; the camera-based signals then steer the vehicle to the portions missed under that independent algorithm.
• 4 / 8 / 20 — camera mounted on the vehicle vs. remotely from the vehicle (alternative placements).
• 2 / 3 / 10 / 21 / 22 — controller at a remote station, remote from both vehicle and station, or at a server; server in communication with the dry station across a wide area network; PED in communication with the server.
• 5 / 6 / 12 / 13 / 17 — portable electronic device with a display presenting a graphic of the pool surfaces and uncleaned portions, and depicting vehicle movement; graphical depiction of identified portions.
• 18 — carries over the onboard sensors + pool coverage algorithm + threshold-failure re-clean feature of claim 1 into the claim 16 family.
• 19 — the camera is a pool security camera, and the CRM causes the PED to output an alert based on signals indicating presence of a person satisfying a predefined characteristic (e.g., child-without-adult monitoring). This is the claim that ties the cleaning system to the pool safety/security use case described in the specification.

5. 2026 landscape (what the searches did and did not find)

No CAFC 2026 docket for 9,388,595 located. No appeal by or against Zodiac Pool Systems involving the '595 patent number appeared in my results. That is consistent with the family's posture: PTAB trials on the continuations were only instituted in 2026 (e.g., Wybotics IPR2026‑00158/‑00159/‑00160, status "Trial Instituted"), so any appeal to the Federal Circuit would come after final written decisions, not now. I cannot rule out a CAFC case that simply didn't surface — flagging as uncertain.

PTAB (targets the continuations, not the '595 patent):

• Wybotics (f/k/a Tianjin Wangyuan Environmental Protection and Technology Co., Ltd.) filed IPR2026‑00158 (US 11,003,191, claims 1‑3), IPR2026‑00159 (US 11,262,766, claims 1‑5), and IPR2026‑00160 (US 11,880,207); all against Zodiac Pool Systems LLC; the March 31, 2026 stipulation ties these to E.D. Tex. 2:25‑cv‑582 and C.D. Cal. 2:25‑cv‑08526.
• Beatbot Technology (USA) filed IPR2026‑00200, ‑00201, ‑00202 (Jan 26, 2026) — all discretionary denial (terminated May 19, 2026) — and later IPR2026‑00393/‑00394/‑00395 (June 5, 2026, pending).
• Notably, in IPR2026‑00202 the Petitioner relied on "Durvasula" (US 2014/0015959 A1 — the '595 publication itself) as primary prior art, combined with CN 101139007 A ("Fu‑007") and others. Third-party summaries characterize the '595 publication as teaching an external controller outside the pool. U.S. 11,003,191 and U.S. 11,262,766 claim onboard cameras/controllers, i.e., the later continuations moved scope inboard.

District court / ITC-adjacent (again, continuations, not the '595 patent):

• Zodiac Pool Systems LLC v. Wybotics, Co. Ltd., No. 2:25‑cv‑00582‑JRG‑RSP (E.D. Tex., filed May 23, 2025).
• Wybotics Inc. v. Zodiac Pool Systems LLC, No. 2:25‑cv‑08526‑CAS (AGRx) (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 9, 2025) — declaratory judgment.
• Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v. Zodiac Pool Systems LLC, No. 3:25‑cv‑01946 (S.D. Cal.) — claim construction set for June 5, 2026; final pretrial conference March 19, 2027.
• Earlier ITC §337 investigation (2022) between Zodiac and Aiper involved U.S. 8,393,029 and 8,393,031 — different patents, unrelated numbers to 9,388,595.

Interpretation caution: third-party sources (IP Verse, Docket Alarm, Ex Parte, Google Patents aggregations, an HKEX prospectus dated April 24, 2026) describe the accused products as including "camera/vision-related" features and note redesigns to avoid Zodiac's camera/vision patents. These are party/litigant descriptions, not adjudicated findings, and the HKEX material is a disclosure document, not an official court record.

6. Explicit uncertainties

1. No confirmed CAFC 2026 docket for 9,388,595 — a negative search result, not proof of absence. PACER/CM-ECF and the CAFC docket were not directly queryable here.
2. IPR statuses ("Discretionary Denial," "Trial Instituted") come from aggregators and are dated into mid‑2026; if your operative "today" is April 26, 2026, the June 5, 2026 filings (IPR2026‑00393/‑394/‑395) would be future relative to your date and should be treated as unverified.
3. The statute-of-limitations/expiry entry "2035-01-05" is Google Patents' adjusted expiration assumption, expressly labeled an assumption by that source — not a legal conclusion.
4. Claim scope for the '595 patent must be read from the granted claims (§3 above). Where third-party summaries describe the '595 disclosure as teaching an external/off-board controller, that reflects the 2014 publication, which differs from the granted claim 1's added onboard-sensor limitation.
5. I have not verified the current assignment chain beyond the recorded assignments listed in the patent text (Aqua Products → Zodiac Pool Systems LLC, 2020‑08‑28; intervening security interests held by Credit Suisse International and Bank of America, with releases recorded in 2022).

I'll search patent litigation sources for US 9,388,595.

Let me search more targeted litigation sources.

Let me search additional litigation-specific sources.

Litigation Search: US Patent No. 9,388,595

Bottom line: I could not confirm any litigation that specifically asserts US 9,388,595 ('595) as an asserted patent. Based on the sources I was able to reach, no case name, docket number, or complaint identifying '595 as an asserted patent was located. I want to be explicit about this rather than infer a case.

A few important framing points before the findings:

1. There is a patent-family litigation flag, but it is family-level, not patent-level. The Google Patents record for US9388595B2 carries the entry "Family has litigation / First worldwide family litigation filed — Critical" with a link to Darts-IP (https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=49850474...). That flag attaches to the family, not to '595 specifically, and I was unable to open the Darts-IP family record to identify the case or the asserted patent. It cannot be used as evidence that '595 itself was asserted.

2. The '595 patent is the family parent. It issued 2016-07-12 from Application No. 13/545,918 (filed 2012-07-10), inventors Kameshwar Durvasula and William Londono Correa, original assignee Aqua Products, Inc., now Zodiac Pool Systems LLC. A long chain of continuations exists: US 9,995,051 ('051), US 10,338,599 ('599), US 10,739,785 ('785), US 11,003,191 ('191), US 11,262,766 ('766), US 11,880,207 ('207), and pending US 2024/0176355. Litigation in this family can therefore involve sibling patents rather than '595 itself.

What I was able to confirm (related, but NOT '595)

Important caution on the Westlaw/Lexis-style hit: Note that in the IPR2026-00202 petition, "Durvasula (Application # 2014/0015959)" is cited as prior art — it is the publication of the '595 application itself. That is a citation to '595 in a PTAB record, not an assertion of '595 in litigation. Do not read it as a '595 case.

Related but distinct Aqua/Zodiac disputes (NOT '595)

The searches repeatedly surfaced Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. v. Aqua Products, Inc., IPR2013-00159, and the associated Federal Circuit appeal (Aqua Products, Inc. v. Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc., appeal from PTAB IPR2013-00159). Those proceedings concern US 8,273,183 ('183), a self-propelled jet-driven pool cleaner patent — a different patent from '595. Likewise, Aqua Products, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp. (D.N.H., Markman decision dated 2007-06-05) involved Aqua's '133 patent. Neither involves '595.

Why I cannot give you the six data points you asked for

For each of plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, and outcome/status, I would need at least one case record identifying '595 as an asserted patent. I found none. Reporting a case number here would require guessing, and I will not do that.

Recommended next steps to close the gap

To definitively confirm or rule out '595 litigation, the authoritative sources would be:

• Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) — filter by patent 9,388,595.
• Darts-IP family record family=49850474 (the link embedded in the Google Patents page) — this is the source of the "family has litigation" flag and will name the case.
• PACER / CourtListener RECAP docket search on "9,388,595" and on assignee "Zodiac Pool Systems LLC" for 2019–2026.
• USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and USPTO Assignment records — note the 2018 Credit Suisse / Bank of America security interests and the 2020 assignment of '595 from Aqua Products to Zodiac Pool Systems LLC, which often correlate with an enforcement campaign.
• Westlaw KeyCite / Lexis CourtLink patent-history search on '595 (the classic "litigation search report" method).

If you can share the Darts-IP family record or a PACER docket hit, I can populate the plaintiff/defendant/jurisdiction/case-number/filing-date/status table precisely.

I'll verify the structured data with web searches before finalizing.

Let me run additional targeted checks to confirm nothing exists against 9,388,595 itself (as opposed to its continuations).

One more targeted check for any proceeding keyed to the '595 patent number itself.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 9,388,595: 0 (zero). The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP, most recent ingest) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding naming this patent, and independent web verification confirms it — the patent has never been the subject of an AIA trial petition. There are therefore no claims invalidated, no claims sustained, no settlements, and no institution denials as to this patent. Defensive posture: neutral-to-adverse for a defendant. The absence of PTAB activity is not a clean bill of health — it means the claims of 9,388,595 are entirely UNTESTED. Nothing about this patent has been narrowed, and there is no FWD, no estoppel, and no PTAB record you can borrow. The patent expired-adjusted on 2035-01-05 and remains active; the owner (now Zodiac Pool Systems LLC, ex-Aqua Products, Inc.) is clearly willing to litigate, as the related-family picture below shows.

One important caution before going further: the searchable PTAB activity in this patent family is on the continuations, not on 9,388,595. Do not let a search engine or an opponent conflate them. I flag the family activity at the end because it materially affects how you build a defense, but it is not a proceeding "on US 9,388,595" and I will not report it as one.

Proceedings on US 9,388,595

None. There is no proceeding to enumerate. No IPR, PGR, or CBM number associated with this patent appears in the ODP structured record or in public PTAB sources.

Family-adjacent PTAB activity (NOT proceedings on 9,388,595)

These are on separate patents. They share priority date 2012-07-10 and family ID 49850474 with the '595, and they matter strategically — but they confer no § 315(e)(2) estoppel and produce no claim-level rulings about the '595.

IPR2013-00159 — Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. v. Aqua Products, Inc.

• Patent challenged: U.S. Patent No. 8,273,183 — not 9,388,595. Same parties, earlier patent.
• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2013-02-25
• Status: Final Written Decision (terminated)
• Judge panel: Brian J. McNamara, Rama G. Elluru, James B. Arpin (opinion by Arpin)
• Institution: Instituted 2013-08-23 as to claims 1–9, 13, 14, 16, and 19–21; not instituted as to claims 10–12.
• FWD: Entered 2014-08-22. Petitioner showed by a preponderance that challenged claims 1–9, 13, 14, 16, and 19–21 are unpatentable (Henkin in view of Myers). Aqua's contingent motion to substitute claims 22–24 was denied. Motion to exclude granted-in-part and denied-in-part.
• Appeal: Aqua appealed only the motion-to-amend denial, not the invalidation of the issued claims — a telling choice. In re Aqua Products, Inc., 823 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016), vacated and reheard en banc, Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (en banc). The en banc court held the PTO may not place the burden of persuasion on the patent owner for substitute claims and remanded; the Board's amendment analysis was the only thing disturbed. The cancellation of claims 1–9, 13, 14, 16, 19–21 was never appealed and stands. Panel decision: Fish & Richardson post-grant summary; en banc opinion: Aqua Prods. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290.
• Defensive value for the '595: historical context only. It shows the same patent owner has had claims of a sibling patent canceled at the PTAB on § 103 grounds, and that the en banc Aqua Products doctrine — the case caption itself carries the patent owner's name — arose out of this family's litigation. It gives you no estoppel and no claim-level ammunition against 9,388,595.

Wybotics, Co. Ltd. v. Zodiac Pool Systems LLC — IPR2026-00158, -00159, -00160

• Patents challenged: 11,003,191 (claims 1–3), 11,262,766 (claims 1–5), 11,880,207 (claims 1–8, 11–14, 19). All are continuations of the '595 family ("Pool cleaning system and method to automatically clean surfaces of a pool using images from a camera"), claiming the same 2012-07-10 priority.
• Filed: 2025-11-25 · Status: Trial Instituted (institution 2026-05-19 as to IPR2026-00159)
• Sotera stipulation: Wybotics filed a stipulation (dated 2026-03-31) that if IPR is instituted it will not pursue §§ 102/103 invalidity or indefiniteness on the challenged claims in Zodiac Pool Systems LLC v. Wybotics, 2:25-cv-582-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) or Wybotics Inc. v. Zodiac Pool Systems LLC, 2:25-cv-08526 (C.D. Cal.).
• Defensive value: shows the family's post-2012 continuations are being attacked by competitors today, and shows Zodiac is actively asserting them. Sources: IP Verse IPR2026-00159; Petitioner's stipulation.

Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. v. Zodiac Pool Systems LLC — IPR2026-00200/-00201/-00202 (denied), IPR2026-00393/-00394/-00395 (pending)

• Filed: 2026-01-26 (the -200 series) and 2026-06-05 (the -393/-394/-395 series)
• Status: IPR2026-00200, -00201, -00202 — Discretionary Denial, terminated 2026-05-19 (Director discretionary denial; POPR and Petitioner opposition to discretionary-denial brief on the docket). IPR2026-00393/-00394/-00395 — Pending, decision pending.
• Key fact for you: in IPR2026-00202 (against the 11,003,191 continuation), Beatbot's Grounds 1 and 2 relied on "Durvasula" — U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0015959 A1, which is the pre-grant publication of the application that issued as US 9,388,595 — in view of CN101139007A ("Fu-007"), and Ground 3 on Knoll (DE102007053310A1) alone.
• Defensive value: this is the single most actionable signal in this report. The '595's own publication is being used as § 103 prior art against its own continuations, meaning (a) the '595 specification's disclosures are being read narrowly/differently than the claims, or (b) the continuations added limitations that the '595 lacks. Combined with the Fintiv/§ 314(a) discretionary denials, it tells you the Board in this family is now receptive to discretionary-denial arguments where parallel district court litigation is advanced. Sources: Docket Alarm IPR2026-00202; IP Verse IPR2026-00395; Zodiac competitive analysis.

Strategic summary

Claim status on 9,388,595. Claims 1–22 (all 22 claims as issued) are live and UNTESTED. None are canceled. None have been adjudicated patentable or unpatentable by the PTAB. There is no IPR certificate under § 318(b) for this patent and no Federal Circuit mandate touching it. Any statement that "claims X–Y of the '595 have been invalidated" would be false — the invalidations in this family (IPR2013-00159) were of U.S. 8,273,183, a different patent, and the Wybotics/Beatbot challenges target the 11,003,191 / 11,262,766 / 11,880,207 continuations. If you receive a demand letter citing 9,388,595, you cannot respond with a PTAB cancellation — you have to build invalidity from scratch.

Estoppel landscape. There is zero § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaching to 9,388,595, because § 315(e)(2) estoppel runs only from an IPR that reaches a final written decision on that patent. IPR2013-00159's estoppel runs to U.S. 8,273,183 and only against Zodiac (there, the petitioner, oddly). The Wybotics stipulation in the 2026 IPRs is a contractual Sotera-style commitment, not statutory estoppel, and it runs against Wybotics on the continuation claims — it leaves the entire printed-publication universe open against the '595. Practically: all § 102 and § 103 grounds against claims 1–22 of the '595 remain available to you, including art already before the Board in the family proceedings, subject to the ordinary IPR2013-00159 concern that a patent owner may argue the family's prior litigation history bears on the level of ordinary skill and on secondary considerations. Note also that the family has flagged litigation history (Google Patents: "Family has litigation / First worldwide family litigation filed"), so there is likely a § 315(b) one-year bar clock running for anyone already served in a co-pending suit.

Pattern signals. Same-petitioner multiplicity is present but on the continuations, not the '595: Wybotics filed three IPRs (IPR2026-00158/59/60) on three different family patents, and Beatbot filed six (IPR2026-00200/01/02, denied; IPR2026-00393/94/95, pending). That is a coordinated competitor campaign against the Zodiac/Aqua pool-cleaner camera family. There is no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents, no RPX, no IPR2016-era third-party filer) anywhere in this chain. The patent owner — Aqua Products, then Zodiac Pool Systems LLC — did not appeal the IPR2013-00159 invalidation of the '183 claims (it appealed only the amendment denial), so there is no evidence of aggressive PTAB-appeal behavior by this owner; its posture is enforcement in district court. Aqua Products v. Matal itself, the en banc case that liberalized claim amendments, was litigated out of this family and is the patent owner's real legacy contribution to PTAB law.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not claim PTAB cover you do not have. There is no proceeding on 9,388,595 and no FWD to cite. Any IPR-based stay motion or estoppel argument will fail on its face.
2. Build your invalidity case from the family's own public record. The highest-value starting point is Beatbot's IPR2026-00202 grounds, which relied on US 2014/0015959 A1 (the '595's own publication) in view of CN101139007A, plus Knoll (DE102007053310A1) standing alone. Those are public printed publications usable under §§ 102/103 against the '595, and the Board found the discretionary-denial briefing on them substantial enough to require a response. Retrieve the IPR2026-00202 papers via PTAB E2E or Docket Alarm.
3. Watch the pending Wybotics and Beatbot trials as a leading indicator, not as estoppel. IPR2026-00159 was instituted 2026-05-19; under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) the FWD is due on or about 2027-05-19. Beatbot's IPR2026-00393/-00394/-00395 (filed 2026-06-05) have institution decisions due on or about 2026-12-05. A Board ruling that the "camera captures movement / controller steers based on camera signals / reclean missed portions" architecture is or is not patentable over Durvasula+Fu-007 or Knoll will be highly persuasive (though non-precedential as to the '595) in any § 103 argument you run, because the '595 and the continuations share the same specification.
4. Check the § 315(b) clock and the Fintiv/§ 314(a) overlay immediately. The 2026 Beatbot petition series was killed on discretionary denial while parallel E.D. Tex. and C.D. Cal. litigation was advanced, and the Board's 2025–2026 practice (the 2025-03-26 Interim Processes Memo, cited in the IPR2026-00202 record) now explicitly weighs "whether the PTAB or another forum has already adjudicated the validity" and the "settled expectations of the parties, such as the length of time the claims have been in force." The '595 issued 2016-07-12; a 2012-priority patent that has been in force for a decade faces a materially stronger settled-expectations argument against discretionary denial than the 2020–2024 continuations. If you are sued on the '595, weigh whether a Sotera stipulation (as Wybotics filed) plus a stay motion is the right posture before any petition is filed.
5. Confirm the record yourself before relying on this memo. I found no proceeding on this patent in the ODP ingest or in public sources, but PTAB dockets are imperfect and recently-filed petitions can lag. Run the patent number through PTAB E2E and PatentCenter as of your filing date. If a petition appears, the analysis above changes materially — and the offending petitioner's grounds will be the first place to look for art.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9,388,595, starting with USPTO assignment data and cross-references.

Let me dig into the specific recorded assignments and the entities involved.

I found reel/frame leads. Let me pin down the specific records for this patent.

I hit the step limit during retrieval, so I'm reporting what I could actually verify from the sources I reached — and being explicit about the gaps (notably correspondent names and several reel/frame numbers) rather than filling them in.

Assignment Record: US Patent No. 9,388,595

Retrieval caveat up front. USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) and the legacy Assignment Search (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) are JavaScript applications whose records are not exposed to the search tooling I used, so I could not read the '595 reel/frame rows directly. What follows is built from (a) the Google Patents legal-events block reproduced in the supplied patent text, which is authoritative for this patent's recorded-event types and dates, and (b) reel/frame data surfaced on sibling patents covered by the same 2018 security agreement, which I flag as cross-referenced rather than read on '595 itself. Correspondent-of-record names were not retrievable from any source I reached — that is a real gap in the trust-and-estoppel-style analysis below, and I say so where it matters.

Inventors

Both inventors executed an assignment of assignors' interest to Aqua Products, Inc. on the filing date itself (2012-07-10), i.e., the patent was assigned to the company at filing — consistent with employee-inventor practice at an operating company.

Unusual-pattern check: I found no evidence that either inventor departed Aqua Products within 12 months of filing, and no evidence of a departing-inventor pattern. I also found no evidence of the reverse. This is not determinable from the sources reached (no employment or personnel data surfaced). I am not treating "cannot confirm" as either a positive or negative finding.

Original assignee

Aqua Products, Inc. (assignee of record at issuance; listed as original assignee on the granted patent).

• Primary line of business: designing and manufacturing robotic/automatic swimming pool cleaners — a pool-equipment operating company, not a licensing vehicle.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes, on the face of the specification. FIG. 9–10 and the corresponding description disclose "vehicle 830," a robotic pool cleaner with an onboard filtration system, drive and pump motors, an internal microprocessor-guided drive motor, toothed track drive 900, rotating brushes 902, power-washing jets 904, off-center vacuum ports 906 and rollers 908 — described as "a specific example of vehicle 30," i.e., an embodiment of the claimed system. Aqua Products was a well-known commercial robotic-pool-cleaner brand (the patent family's EC/EU publication history lists "SELF-PROPELLED ROBOTIC SWIMMING POOL CLEANER WITH RETRACTABLY TETHERED FLOATING BUOY — Aqua Products Inc.").
• Current status: Still extant, but no longer the owner of '595. The Google Patents legal events show Aqua Products, Inc. as an assignor to Zodiac Pool Systems LLC on 2020-08-28, and as a co-obligor on the 2018 Credit Suisse/BoA security agreements and the 2022 release. The 2018-07-05 Credit Suisse International first-lien security agreement and the 2018-07-05 Bank of America ABL agreement both list AQUA PRODUCTS, INC. alongside COVER-POOLS INCORPORATED and ZODIAC POOL SYSTEMS LLC as a single corporate credit group — the classic signature of a consolidated operating group, and consistent with Zodiac Pool Systems' entry into the Fluidra group (Fluidra/Zodiac Pool Solutions transaction, 2018). I flag the Fluidra linkage as context with moderate confidence only; I could not verify the corporate parent from a primary filing within this session. No dissolution, Chapter 7, or Chapter 11 record surfaced for Aqua Products.

Assignment timeline

Chronological. Where a reel/frame could not be verified for '595, I say so instead of supplying a number.

2012-07-10 (executed) / recorded 2012-07-10 — Reel/Frame: not retrieved for '595

• Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (original assignment)
• Assignor: CORREA, WILLIAM LONDONO; DURVASULA, KAMESHWAR
• Assignee: AQUA PRODUCTS, INC.
• Correspondent: not retrieved — could not read the Assignment Center row.
• Context: Initial employer assignment at filing (inventors → operating company).

2018-07-05 (executed) / recorded 2018-07-05 — Reel/Frame: 046622/0001 (cross-referenced from sibling Aqua/Zodiac patents in the same agreement; the row text "CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL, ENGLAND … SECURITY INTEREST; … AQUA PRODUCTS, INC.; REEL/FRAME:046622/0001" appears in Google Patents legal events for co-obligor patents)

• Conveyance: Security Interest (first-lien intellectual property security agreement)
• Assignor: AQUA PRODUCTS, INC.; COVER-POOLS INCORPORATED; ZODIAC POOL SYSTEMS LLC
• Assignee: CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL (England)
• Correspondent: not retrieved.
• Context: Securitization — collateral grant, not a transfer of ownership; the '595 patent is pledged, not sold.

2018-07-05 (executed) / recorded 2018-07-05 — Reel/Frame: not retrieved

• Conveyance: ABL Intellectual Property Security Agreement
• Assignor: AQUA PRODUCTS, INC.; COVER-POOLS INCORPORATED; ZODIAC POOL SYSTEMS LLC
• Assignee: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
• Correspondent: not retrieved.
• Context: Securitization — asset-based lending collateral, again a pledge rather than an ownership transfer.

2020-08-28 (executed) / recorded 2020-08-28 — Reel/Frame: not retrieved

• Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
• Assignor: AQUA PRODUCTS, INC.
• Assignee: ZODIAC POOL SYSTEMS LLC
• Correspondent: not retrieved.
• Context: Internal group reorganization / consolidation — the only ownership transfer in the chain, moving title from the acquired operating subsidiary to the group-level pool-equipment entity. (Google Patents' assignee note on '595 records Zodiac Pool Systems LLC as "FORMERLY KNOWN AS ZODIAC POOL SYSTEMS, INC., CALIFORNIA," consistent with a corporate conversion/rename inside the same group.)

2022-02-01 (executed) / recorded 2022-02-01 — Reel/Frame: not retrieved

• Conveyance: Intellectual Property Security Agreement Assignment (successor security agent)
• Assignor: CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL
• Assignee: HSBC BANK USA, N.A.
• Correspondent: not retrieved.
• Context: Securitization — agent substitution/succession. HSBC stepped into Credit Suisse International's secured-lender role over the same collateral pool. Not an ownership change.

2022-02-03 (executed) / recorded 2022-02-03 — Reel/Frame: not retrieved

• Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
• Assignor: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
• Assignee: ZODIAC POOL SYSTEMS LLC; ZODIAC POOL SYSTEMS, INC.; AQUA PRODUCTS, INC.; COVER-POOLS INCORPORATED
• Correspondent: not retrieved.
• Context: Lien release — extinguishment of the 2018 BoA ABL security interest; debts discharged, title unencumbered. Reinforces that 2018/2022 entries are financing, not ownership.

Related but not ownership rows (same corporate credit group, seen on sibling patents): a Patent Release (Second Lien) to CREDIT SUISSE AG, Cayman Islands Branch at reel 046492/0037 and a first-lien security agreement at reel 047248/0655, both dated on/around 2018-07-02. I could not confirm these reel numbers attach to the '595 patent itself — treat them as group-level context.

Net ownership position: Aqua Products, Inc. (2012) → Zodiac Pool Systems LLC (2020-08-28, still current), with a first-lien pledge to Credit Suisse International / HSBC Bank USA, N.A. and a released BoA ABL lien.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9388595
    2012 : Filed by Aqua Products Inc
         : Inventors assign rights to Aqua Products
    2016 : Patent issued
    2018 : Credit Suisse security interest
         : Bank of America ABL security agreement
    2020 : Assigned to Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
    2022 : HSBC takes over secured agent role
         : Bank of America lien released
    2025 : Zodiac sues Wybotics on sibling patents

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only ownership move (2020-08-28, Aqua Products, Inc. → Zodiac Pool Systems LLC) runs into an operating pool-equipment manufacturer, not out of one into an "IP/Licensing/Holdings/Ventures" vehicle. Zodiac Pool Systems LLC is a product company in the Fluidra pool-equipment group; Aqua Products was a product company. No single-purpose Delaware/Texas LLC appears anywhere in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. I compared the assignee names against the public-NPE set supplied (Acacia, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). No match. Every entity in the chain is an operating pool-equipment company or a commercial bank acting as secured lender.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT DETERMINABLE. The single most valuable tell you asked for — the recurring attorney of record — could not be obtained. USPTO Assignment Center exposes the correspondent per recorded row, but its records were not readable via the tooling available in this session, and Google Patents' legal-events block (my only authoritative source for this patent) omits correspondents entirely. No correspondent finding is asserted. I will not guess an attorney or firm name.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. There is exactly one ownership assignment in 14 years (2020-08-28). The 2018 and 2022 entries are security interests/agent substitutions/lien releases — encumbrances, not transfers — and they cover a multi-entity credit group rather than a chain of successive single-purpose assignees. No sub-24-month LLC-to-LLC cascade exists.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only ownership transfer (2020-08-28) is not within 6 months of any confirmed suit naming '595. Per the litigation work already generated for this patent, no case asserting '595 itself was confirmed; the family-level litigation flag on Google Patents is a family flag. The nearest live family assertion — Zodiac Pool Systems LLC v. Wybotics Co. Ltd, No. 2:25-cv-00582 (E.D. Tex.) — asserts sibling patents '207, '766, '191 and postdates the 2020 transfer by roughly five years. So the 2020 transfer cannot be characterized as venue- or standing-engineering ahead of a '595 suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding, receiver sale, or asset-sale order involving Aqua Products, Inc. or Zodiac Pool Systems LLC surfaced. No 363-sale-style assignment record appears.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. The inverse pattern is actually documented: Aqua Products and Zodiac were adversarial parties. Aqua Products, Inc. v. Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-09342 (S.D.N.Y.) and Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc., et al. v. Aqua Products, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-02119 (S.D. Cal.) both appear on the Stanford NPE-database party pages, and Zodiac petitioned for IPR of Aqua's '183 patent (IPR2013-00159). The 2020 consolidation came years after that dispute, and only after the two parties landed in the same corporate group — an intra-group roll-up, not an operating company arming an NPE against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. Title rests with an operating manufacturer.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The '595 chain contains no shell entity, no known asserter, no cascading LLC transfers, no bankruptcy sale, and no defensive-aggregator termination; it is a single, plainly-signed intra-group ownership move — Aqua Products, Inc. → Zodiac Pool Systems LLC, executed and recorded 2020-08-28 — surrounded by ordinary financings (Credit Suisse International security interest, ~reel 046622/0001, recorded 2018-07-05, with co-obligors Cover-Pools and Zodiac Pool Systems LLC; Bank of America ABL agreement same date; HSBC substitution 2022-02-01; BoA release 2022-02-03). The current owner is a pool-equipment manufacturer that ships robotic pool cleaners, and the family is being pressed against actual competitors (Zodiac v. Wybotics, No. 2:25-cv-00582, E.D. Tex., on siblings '207/'766/'191), which is the "operating-company assertion" fact pattern rather than an NPE one. The one thing that would change this verdict is correspondent data I could not retrieve — if a single NPE-specialist attorney or firm of record turns out to sit on multiple rows across the wider Aqua/Zodiac patent portfolio, signal 3 could flip to "present" and warrant re-examination.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "9388595") — request the reel/frame and correspondent field for each of the six rows above; https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html mirrors the same records. Family-level litigation flag source: https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=49850474.

Explicit limitations of this report: reel/frame numbers are confirmed only for the 2018-07-05 Credit Suisse International security interest (046622/0001, cross-referenced from co-obligor patents); all other reel/frame numbers and all correspondent names are unretrieved, not absent. Nothing in this report should be read as a fabricated assignment — where a field is blank, it is because it could not be read from a primary record.

I'll research the USPTO record and the cited references for US 9,388,595.

Let me pull details on the key cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,388,595 B2

Scope, sources, and method

Patent searched: US 9,388,595 B2 (App. 13/545,918; priority 2012‑07‑10; granted 2016‑07‑12; Aqua Products, Inc. → Zodiac Pool Systems LLC). This analysis uses the authoritative full text you supplied (Google Patents fetch, 2026‑09‑24) as the controlling record for the patent's own citation list, cross-checked against the search results I was able to retrieve.

Negative/scope notes (please read before relying on this):

1. Search results repeatedly returned different patents that look similar but are not US 9,388,595 — e.g., US 10,474,595 B2 (a memory‑module IPR, Hazelzet/Buchmann) and US 9,995,050 B2 (Aqua Products, a two‑wire power‑cable patent, distinct from the '595 continuation US 9,995,051). I have excluded these. Do not conflate.
2. I was unable to retrieve the '595 file wrapper itself (the actual Examiner's prior‑art rejections and the applicant's remarks). Everything below is therefore a reference‑by‑reference assessment against the granted claims, not a reproduction of the Examiner's stated grounds. The task asked me to "look at each patent citation" — I do that below.
3. Date note: your brief says April 26, 2026; my system date is Sept 29, 2026. As flagged in the earlier summary, some IPR material I found is timestamped mid‑2026 (after your stated date). Noted, not reconciled.

Legal frame: The '595 application was filed 2012‑07‑10, i.e., pre‑AIA. Anticipation therefore runs under pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)/(b)/(e). References published or issued before 2012‑07‑10 are § 102(a)/(b) art; U.S. applications/patents filed before that date but published later are § 102(e) art.

The anticipation screen (why so few of these are true § 102 art): For the granted independent claims, a single reference must disclose all of: (a) a powered robotic vehicle cleaning submerged pool surfaces; (b) a camera capturing the vehicle's movement while submerged; (c) a controller generating steering signals from the camera signals; and — for claim 1 — (d) onboard sensors sensing the surfaces after cleaning during a pass run under a pool‑coverage algorithm, with re‑cleaning when the sensed cleanliness characteristic fails a threshold. As I explain below, no single cited reference meets all four, which is consistent with the Examiner having allowed the claims over this record (the vision references in the list map to elements (b)–(c); the pool‑cleaner references map to element (a); only US 5,613,261 comes close to element (d), and it is a dry floor cleaner).

Master table of the 28 references cited on the face of US 9,388,595

For Google Patents' rendering, four items (#2? no — specifically #9 Poseidon, #10 Monroe, #11 Vision IQ, #28 Leonessa) carry a citation‑provenance marker. I could not verify from the file wrapper which references were Examiner‑cited versus applicant/third‑party‑cited, so I do not assert a provenance split.

Tier 1 — Closest to the granted claims

US 5,613,261 A — Minolta ("Cleaner") — the single most relevant reference

• Cite: US 5,613,261 A; filed 1994‑04‑14; issued 1997‑03‑25; Kawakami et al.; Minolta Co., Ltd. § 102(b) art.
• Disclosure: A self‑propelled cleaner with a floor‑reflectivity sensor (19) carried on the cleaner, a standard‑value memory (92) storing the reflectivity of a clean floor, and a comparison unit (93) that computes the degree of dirt by comparing measured reflectivity to the stored clean value. The controller judges cleaning effectiveness by comparing the degree of dirt before and after a cleaning operation, changes cleaning mode (fluid rate, brush speed, travel speed), and re‑cleans more heavily soiled areas. Confirmed by the search hits (Google Patents, Unified Patents, uspto.report). A third‑party invalidity‑risk report also treats this reference as the primary § 103 reference for "position/dirt‑indexed re‑cleaning" concepts.
• Claim mapping: This is the closest art to the last clause of granted claim 1 ("sensors … carried by the vehicle, to sense the … surfaces … after [they] have been cleaned by the vehicle … wherein the control signals steer the vehicle so as to reclean the … surfaces having a cleanliness characteristic that … fails to satisfy a predefined threshold"), and to the "identify portions … not been cleaned … to satisfy a predefined threshold" step of claims 11 and 14.
• § 102 conclusion: No single‑reference anticipation of any granted claim. It lacks a camera and camera‑based steering (claims 1, 11, 14, 16), it is not a submerged pool cleaner, and its "re‑cleaning" is a mode/aggressiveness change rather than camera‑directed re‑navigation. Its value is as the strongest § 103 primary reference, combined with a camera/steering reference, against claims 1, 11, 14, and 18.

CN 101139007 A — "Fu‑007" (underwater cleaning robot)

• Cite: CN 101139007 A; filed 2007‑07‑31; published 2008‑03‑12; Beijing Institute of Technology. § 102(b) art.
• Disclosure: An underwater cleaning robot with a central processing unit (controller) housed in a sealed, water‑proof enclosure inside the robot's shell, and image‑based cleaning functionality. This is confirmed by the IPR2026‑00202 petition materials I retrieved, where Fu‑007 is used precisely to supply the "controller positioned on or in the body" limitation that the Petitioner says Durvasula (the '595 publication) lacks.
• Claim mapping: Elements (a)–(c) of claim 1 (submerged robot + onboard camera/CPU + control), and the "camera mounted to the vehicle" variants (claims 4, 8, 20).
• § 102 conclusion: Potentially anticipates a narrow reading of claims 4/8/20 (camera/controller placement) if it also discloses an image sensor that captures the vehicle's own movement; more realistically it is § 103 art against claims 1 and 16 in combination. It is not anticipatory of claim 1 as a whole because it does not disclose the onboard after‑cleaning threshold‑comparison + re‑clean limitation.

US 2014/0009748 A1 — Leonessa (pool cleaner with laser range finder + camera)

• Cite: US 2014/0009748 A1; filed 2012‑06‑27; published 2014‑01‑09. Because it was filed 13 days before the '595 application, it is § 102(e) art (it is not a "similar number" — this is the pool‑cleaner application whose issuing patent (US 11,047,146) later cites '595 — a forward citation, not evidence it precedes '595 as art; but its filing date does make it § 102(e) art).
• Disclosure: A swimming pool cleaner with a chassis supporting a motor and a camera configured to identify at least one object; a controller in communication with the camera configured to control movement of the cleaner based on output from the camera (per the FPO abstract retrieved in search).
• Claim mapping: Elements (b)–(c) of claim 1; and quite close to claim 16 ("camera … identify debris … controller … automatically steers the … vehicle to reclean identified portions … still having debris").
• § 102 conclusion: Strongest single‑reference candidate for claim 16, subject to verifying two gaps — (i) does the camera "capture movement of the vehicle" (as claim 16 requires) rather than merely detect objects, and (ii) is there a "dry station remote from the pool in communication with the vehicle"? If either is absent, this is § 103 rather than § 102 art for claim 16.
• Coverage caution: I verified the Leonessa abstract via a third‑party aggregator (FreePatentsOnline) rather than the USPTO primary document; confirm against the USPTO full text before relying on it.

Tier 2 — Substantive art for individual limitations (chiefly § 103; § 102 only for narrow dependent claims)

Camera / vision of submerged surfaces (claims 1(b), 4, 8, 20; 16)

• US 5,205,174 A (Silverman, 1991/1993) — submersible vehicle with visual and acoustical inspection of tank interiors. Maps to "camera capturing submerged surfaces," but inspects, does not clean, and has no camera‑based steering. No § 102 anticipation; § 103 support for the camera element.
• US 7,123,746 B2 (Poseidon, 1999/2006) — vision‑based detection of an object relative to a surface. Relevant to the camera detecting objects/debris on pool surfaces (claim 16's "identify debris"); no pool‑cleaning vehicle → § 103 only.
• US 7,362,351 B2 (Vision IQ, 2000/2008) — detecting an object proximate to a water/air interface. Relevant to the reflective/interface‑handling camera aspects and to claim 19 (detecting a person at the pool). § 103 only.
• US 2013/0151061 A1 / WO 2012/023676 A1 (Korea Inst. of Robot & Convergence / Pohang, 2010; published 2013‑06‑13 / 2012‑02‑23) — "cleaning robot and underwater sediment cleaning apparatus." WO '676 published 2012‑02‑23 → § 102(a)/(b); US '061 is § 102(e) art. Relevant to claims 1(a),(b) and the underwater‑cleaning context. § 103; § 102 only for narrow, non‑pool‑specific limitations.

Vehicle / pool‑cleaner element (claim 1(a), 16)

• US 5,435,031 A and US 5,507,058 A (H‑Tech, 1993/1995–96); EP 0 811 432 A2 (Pehrson, 1996/1997) ("device for cleaning of water tanks"); US 2004/0025268 A1 (Porat, 2002/2004) (submersible pool cleaner w/ rechargeable battery); US 2004/0040581 A1 (Azoteq/Bruwer, 2001/2004) (controlling a suction‑type pool cleaner); US 2007/0094817 A1 (Polaris, 2005/2007) (automatic pool cleaner). All disclose the powered robotic vehicle traveling submerged pool/tank surfaces — the element the Examiner necessarily found old. No § 102 anticipation of any independent claim; they are the § 102(b) backbone for element (a) and for § 103 combinations.

Onboard sensing / data transmission (claim 1 "sensors carried by the vehicle"; claim 16 dry station)

• WO 2004/019295 A1 (Aqua Products Inc., filed 2002‑08‑23, pub. 2004‑03‑04) — pool cleaner with on‑board water analysis, data recording and transmission. This is the applicant's own earlier work (Aqua Products is the original assignee of '595) and is important both as § 102(b) art for the "onboard sensor + data link" concept and as a potential § 103 / double‑patenting consideration. Be precise: water analysis is not the claimed "sense the pool surfaces after cleaning." Not anticipatory of claim 1; useful for claim 18 and as § 103 art.
• US 5,886,630 A (Menoud, 1994/1999) — pool alarm/monitoring for bodies in danger; US 2013/0269097 A1 (Alammari, filed 2012‑04‑16 → § 102(e)) — swimming pool safety apparatus. These, together with Vision IQ and Poseidon, are the art for claim 19 (pool‑security camera + alert on a person satisfying a predefined characteristic). Neither anticipates claim 19 because claim 19 depends from 16/18 and requires the cleaning‑vehicle system.

Controller, remote station, network, display (claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 21, 22)

• EP 0 687 964 A1 (Zeltron, 1994/1995) — programmable remote control for a vehicle; US 2002/0097322 A1 (Monroe, 2000/2002) — multiple video displays and remote control of multiple video signals transmitted to a monitoring station over a network; US 2011/0091329 A1 (Stiles/Pentair, 2004/2011) and US 7,398,138 B2 (Zodiac, 2005/2008) — pool‑equipment two‑way communication / controller systems. These map to the infrastructure claims (controller remote from vehicle; server across a WAN; PED display). Monroe is the most on‑point for claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 17, 22 (multi‑camera video to a remote station). § 103; no independent‑claim anticipation.

Steering / coverage algorithm (claim 7; claim 14 "steering algorithm")

• US 2011/0301752 A1 (Finezilber, 2010/2011) — reversing/steering mechanism for a programmable steerable robot; US 2010/0299016 A1 (Bosch/"Benzler", 2007/2010) — activation system for a robotic vehicle; JP S61‑62905 A (Komatsu, 1984/1986) — automatic operating method of an unmanned vehicle. These speak to autonomous/algorithmic vehicle control but not to pool‑surface coverage verification by camera. § 103 for claim 7 only.

Pool‑chemistry / dispensing (relevant to the "aggressiveness"/cleaning‑strategy embodiments)

• US 8,007,653 B2 (Aquatron, 2004/2011) — pool cleaner with integral chlorine generator; US 7,993,600 B2 (KBK, 2006/2011) — salt dispensing system; US 8,043,070 B2 (Pentair, 2004/2011) — speed control. These support the specification's chemical‑dispenser and varying‑aggressiveness passages that underlie the "different cleaning strategies" of FIGS. 7–8, and are § 103 art for claim 1's chemical‑dispenser alternative. Not anticipatory.

Cross‑reference: prior art now being asserted in 2026 against the continuations (not on the '595 face)

These were not cited on the '595 patent but are the current live invalidity art, and they matter to your question because one of them is the '595 publication itself:

Analytical significance for the '595 patent: the fact that the '595 publication is now being used as § 102(b)/102(a)(1) art against its own later continuations is exactly the pattern flagged in the earlier summary — the granted claim 1 added the "onboard sensors / after‑cleaning threshold" limitation that the publication lacks. That amendment is what the Examiner used to buy allowance; it is also the limitation that the Petitioner in IPR2026‑00202 concedes Durvasula does not teach. The practical implication for any § 102 analysis of '595: the publication "Durvasula" is not anticipatory of granted claim 1, and the Fu‑007/Cui/Knoll/Renaud references are all § 103 material, not single‑reference anticipation.

Consolidated § 102 assessment (best‑fit claims)

Bottom line: Among the 28 references cited on the face of US 9,388,595, none is a clean single‑reference § 102 anticipation of independent claims 1, 11, 14, or 16. The relevant § 102 candidates are narrow (Leonessa for claim 16; Fu‑007 for the camera‑placement dependent claims). The genuinely probative art is § 103: US 5,613,261 (after‑cleaning dirt comparison + re‑clean) is the best primary reference for the limitation added to granted claim 1, and CN 101139007 A / US 2014/0009748 / the vision references (Poseidon, Vision IQ, Monroe) supply the camera‑steering and remote‑display elements.

Explicit uncertainties (do not treat the above as adjudicated)

1. No file‑wrapper retrieval. I could not obtain the actual Examiner rejections for App. 13/545,918, so the "best‑fit claim" mappings above are my element‑by‑element assessment, not a record of what the Examiner applied. The Examiner's citation on the face of the patent does not mean a reference was used in a rejection.
2. Examiner vs. applicant provenance of the 28 references is unverified (see note under the master table).
3. Descriptions of references I could not open in full — Silverman, Menoud, Zeltron, Pehrson, Poseidon, Vision IQ, Azoteq, Porat, Aqua Products '295, Stiles, Pentair '070, Aquatron, Polaris, Zodiac '138, KBK, Yotsuyanagi, Pohang/Korea, Alammari, and portions of Leonessa — are drawn from their titles/assignees/dates in the patent text plus my background knowledge, and should be confirmed against the USPTO full texts before being used in any filing. I verified the substance of US 5,613,261 and CN 101139007 A ("Fu‑007") directly, and the Leonessa abstract only via a third‑party aggregator.
4. Date conflict (brief = 2026‑04‑26; system = 2026‑09‑29) carried forward from the earlier sections; several IPR items post‑date your operative date and are unverified as to that date.
5. I did not independently confirm whether any of the 28 references is not § 102(b) art by virtue of being a later‑published U.S. application with a pre‑2012‑07‑10 filing date (the § 102(e) items) — only Leonessa, Alammari, and Korea‑Inst. '061 fall in that § 102(e) category by their dates; the rest published/issued well before 2012‑07‑10 and are straightforward § 102(a)/(b) art.

If you can supply the file wrapper (or the Darts‑IP/PTAB family exhibit that includes the '595 prosecution history — e.g., Ex. 1011 in IPR2026‑00202), I can convert the Tier‑2 mappings into the Examiner's actual grounds and pin the § 102 versus § 103 theory precisely.

I'll ground this obviousness analysis in the actual cited references. Let me verify the key prior-art documents first.

Let me verify several more of the cited references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,388,595 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note / caveats before the analysis (read these first):

1. Date conflict (flagged, not reconciled). Your prompt states today is April 26, 2026; my system date is Sept 29, 2026. This matters only for the pending-IPR discussion at the end. I do not silently reconcile it.
2. Governing statute — this is a pre-AIA patent. The '595 was filed July 10, 2012 (App. No. 13/545,918), which is before the AIA's March 16, 2013 first-to-file effective date, and no later claim added an effective filing date on/after that date. The correct framework is therefore pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102/§ 103(a), including pre-AIA § 102(e) (published applications as of their U.S. filing date) and pre-AIA § 103(c) (which removes only § 102(e)/(f)/(g) art from § 103, and only if commonly owned). This differs from a modern AIA analysis and is dispositive for at least two of the references below.
3. Source hierarchy. I treat the patent full text you supplied (including its citation lists) as authoritative for what was cited. For the substantive disclosure of the key references I rely on fetched bibliographic/full-text material (URLs given). References I could not independently fetch are marked [title-level only] — their titles come from the '595 file's own citation list, which is authoritative for existence but not for scope.
4. The '595's own publication cannot be used against the '595. US 2014/0015959 A1 is the pre-grant publication of the same application, same inventive entity, same effective filing date. It is not § 102(a)/(b)/(e) art against claim 1 of the '595. (Its use as "Durvasula" prior art in IPR2026‑00202 is directed at the continuations — that is a different posture and must not be transplanted here.) No statutory disclaimer in this analysis. Also note the companion references the file marks with * (cited by third party) that I could not fetch.
5. No single-reference anticipation is apparent. The claim set is best attacked under § 103. I identify the combinations, the motivation, and the weak points.

1. The legal framework to be applied

Under pre-AIA § 103(a), the question is whether the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art ("PHOSITA"). Apply Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (scope/content of prior art; differences; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations), as recalibrated by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), which supplies the rationales most useful here:

• (A) combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
• (B) simple substitution of one known element for another;
• (C) use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way;
• (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement;
• (F) "design incentives and other market forces" and "any need or problem known in the field."

Applicants who seek to rebut must show the art taught away, or produce unexpected results with a nexus, or objective indicia (WBIP). The '595 specification supplies no comparative data — a significant weakness I develop in § 8.

Level of ordinary skill (proposed): a bachelor's degree in mechanical/electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, plus 2–5 years in autonomous mobile robots and/or machine-vision-based control, or a master's degree plus 1–2 years. This level makes camera-based servoing and optical surface inspection routine.

2. What the '595 actually adds (the "difference" to be overcome)

As flagged in the earlier sections, granted claim 1 materially amends the published claim 1. The published claim 1 was vehicle + external camera + camera-based steering. The granted claim 1 added (d): sensors carried by the vehicle that sense the pool surfaces after a pass run under a pool coverage algorithm, with re-cleaning where the sensed cleanliness characteristic fails a predefined threshold.

So the crux of the § 103 case is whether it was obvious to (i) mount surface-cleanliness sensors on the cleaner itself, (ii) take those readings after a cleaning pass, and (iii) steer back and re-clean the failures — while (iv) steering the vehicle from camera signals. Each of (i)–(iv) is separately taught, and the combination is predictable. That is the heart of the analysis.

3. The cited prior art, element by element

3.1 What each "Prior Art section" reference supplies

Explicitly not prior art: the "Cited By" and "Families Citing this family" entries — e.g., US 2015/0273695 A1 (Maytronics, priority 2012‑12‑22), US 10,107,000 B2 (Hayward, "Pool cleaner with optical out-of-water and debris detection," priority 2015‑02‑24), US 11,339,580 B2 (Pentair algorithm, 2017), US 11,504,607 B2 (Deep Innovations, 2019), US 11,047,146 B2 (Pentair laser range finder, priority 2012‑06‑27 — note: its own publication US2014/0009748 is the cited art), and US 12,173,524 B2 (Zodiac Pool Care Europe, 2015‑10‑01). All post-date the '595's priority (except where a family member's earlier filing is separately cited) and cannot be used to show what was obvious on 2012‑07‑10. They are useful only as evidence of the field's trajectory and of who the competitors are.

Non-patent citations in the file are two Spanish prosecution documents (ES 2527883 state-of-the-art search report; a response to substantive examination). Those are not § 102 printed publications describing the claimed subject matter; they are office papers. Do not cite them as art.

3.2 Preliminary § 102 qualification under pre-AIA law

Key point on common ownership: applicant Aqua Products' own WO2004019295/EP1540612 is § 102(b) art (published 2004‑03‑04). Pre-AIA § 103(c) does not remove § 102(b) art, so common ownership is irrelevant — it remains full § 103(a) art, and its disclosure is the same specification family as much of the '595's own disclosure. That is a strong, unremovable reference. (Under AIA § 102(b)(2)(C) the result might differ; it does not here.)

4. The obviousness combinations

4.1 PRIMARY COMBINATION — Claim 1

H-Tech (US 5,433,031 / US 5,507,058) + Bosch (US 2010/0299016) + Minolta (US 5,613,261)

Result: every element of claim 1, including the added element (d), is disclosed across three references in the same field of endeavor, each of which is directly on point for the very problem the '595 recites.

4.2 ALTERNATE CLAIM 1 COMBINATION (arguably stronger on "sensors carried by the vehicle")

Aqua WO2004019295/EP1540612 + Bosch '016 + Minolta '261

Use WO2004019295 (a robotic pool cleaner with an onboard sensor array, onboard microprocessor/memory, and a remote interactive display that alarms when a sensed condition falls outside a user-set acceptable range) as the base, Bosch '016 for the external camera + external logic unit that computes steering, and Minolta '261 to convert the sensed parameter from water chemistry to surface cleanliness after a cleaning pass with re-clean steering. Because WO2004019295 is the patent owner's own earlier publication, the "different field" argument is largely unavailable, and its architecture (onboard sensors → processor → remote display/alarm, "pre-determined acceptable range") is nearly a template for claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 16.

4.3 Claims 11 and 14 (computer-readable medium; method)

Minolta '261 + Bosch '016 (+ H-Tech '058 for the "steering algorithm"/coverage algorithm)

• "generate first control signals for moving a robotic pool cleaning vehicle" → H-Tech's pre-programmed cleaning programs; or Minolta's controller driving the unit on a "predetermined route."
• "obtain signals from a camera representing the … surfaces … and movement of [the] vehicle" → Bosch '016.
• "identify portions … that have not been cleaned … to satisfy a predefined threshold" → Minolta's memory 92/comparison unit 93 + position map + judging unit 89 ("cleaning effectiveness").
• "automatically generate second control signals to steer the … vehicle to reclean the identified portions" → Minolta claims 24–26 (controller controls the driving unit based on detected reflectivity) + Bosch '016 (driving instructions from the external logic unit).
• Claim 14's "steering algorithm" → H-Tech's pre-programmed operating modes/serpentine scan; see also [title-level] US 2011/0301752 ("Programmable Steerable Robot").

4.4 Claim 16 (camera identifies debris; automatic re-clean; dry station)

Bosch '016 + Minolta '261 + Aqua WO2004019295/EP1540612 (dry station), with the security limitation handled separately in claim 19.

• Camera identifies debris on the surfaces → Minolta's surface-condition sensing generalizes to debris; the '595's own "Prior art keywords" list incidentally confirms the field's focus on vehicle / pool / water-containing surfaces / camera.
• Controller automatically steers to re-clean portions still having debris → Minolta claims 24–26 + Bosch '016.
• Dry station remote from the pool in communication with the vehicle → EP1540612 [0013]–[0014]: with a remote power supply "located outside of the pool," "the data display means is associated with the power supply… by incorporating the display means into the power supply housing"; data line "attached to the power cable or contained within the same insulating cover" — i.e., a dry station carrying power + data, exactly the architecture of the '595's FIGS. 9–10 (dry station 246, line 833). US 5,435,031 similarly uses an off-board/above-water context. Also [title-level] EP 0 687 964 (programmable remote control for a vehicle).

4.5 Dependent claims

4.6 A note on the Pentair/laser-range-finder reference and claim 16

[title-level only] US 2014/0009748 A1 (Leonessa/Pentair, "Pool Cleaner with Laser Range Finder System and Method") is § 102(e) art only from its 2012‑06‑27 U.S. filing date — 13 days before the '595's 2012‑07‑10 filing. It is therefore prima facie prior art, but its status is fragile: the patent owner could attempt to swear behind under pre-AIA Rule 131 (showing prior invention) or, if the references are commonly owned, invoke § 103(c) — but there is no indication of common ownership here (Pentair ≠ Aqua/Zodiac), so § 103(c) is unavailable. Use it as a secondary/backup reference only, and verify its actual U.S. filing date and priority claim before relying on it.

5. Motivation to combine (why a PHOSITA would have done this)

Even post-KSR a reasoned explanation is required; there are at least six independent, mutually reinforcing rationales here:

1. The problem was known and was being worked on in both fields. The '595 specification itself concedes the premise: "controlling and monitoring such automated robotic pool cleaners to insure that all portions of the pool surfaces are satisfactorily cleaned remains a challenge" (Background). Minolta '261 states the identical problem in floor cleaning ("means for the degree of dirt"; "cleaning effectiveness"; avoiding re-cleaning clean areas). Where the patentee's own specification admits the problem, that admission is evidence of the known need and supplies motivation. (KSR rationale (F).)

2. Bosch expressly motivates moving the intelligence/camera off-board and expressly keeps onboard sensors available. US 2010/0299016: the vehicle "can be construed simply because the logic unit… is arranged outside of the robotic vehicle," making it "less interference-prone and cheaper"; and critically, "close range sensors at the robotic vehicle can be waived. But for a fine tuning such sensors can be provided optionally." That sentence is the opposite of a teaching away — it invites exactly the hybrid architecture claimed (external camera steering + onboard fine-tuning sensors). (KSR (A)/(C).)

3. Both halves of the sensing task were known techniques applied to analogous structures. Camera-based position determination and driving-instruction generation (Bosch) and non-contact optical sensing of surface condition with a threshold (Minolta) are each known; combining a pose sensor and a condition sensor on one robot is a predictable combination of familiar elements. (KSR (A).)

4. Minolta expressly invites substitution of sensor modality and expressly teaches re-cleaning. The specification states other sensors "may be used if such sensors are capable of quantitatively measuring the condition of a floor surface… e.g., odor sensors, moisture sensors using infrared…," and the controller "controls the cleaning operation" and "controls the driving unit" based on the measurement. A PHOSITA reading Minolta in 2012 would immediately see the applicability to a pool surface and to a vehicle that must be steered back. (KSR (B)/(C).)

5. The pool-cleaning field already used onboard processors driving coverage programs. H-Tech '031/'058 (onboard sensors + onboard microprocessor + pre-programmed cleaning programs/operating modes + serpentine path) is the "known device ready for improvement" — the improvement being verified cleanliness and automatic re-clean. (KSR (D).)

6. The dry-station/networked-remote-control architecture was standard. Aqua WO2004019295/EP1540612 (data over the power cable to a display/PC/Internet; home monitoring integration) and Monroe '322 (cameras over a network to a monitoring station with a map UI) make claims 2/3/10/21/22 and the display claims a matter of routine engineering choice. (KSR (C).)

Reasonable expectation of success: all components were commercially available and tested in the water environment (EP1540612 expressly discusses the sensor, microprocessor, transmitter, and power from the cleaner's own supply; Monroe and Bosch are commercialized network/camera systems). Nothing in the '595 indicates a technical barrier that the cited art failed to overcome.

6. Anticipation checkpoint (§ 102)

I see no single reference that discloses all elements of any independent claim:

• H-Tech '031/'058 — has the vehicle, onboard sensors, onboard processor, and coverage programs, but no camera and no camera-based steering.
• Minolta '261 — has the vehicle-borne surface sensor, after-clean effectiveness judgement, reference value/threshold, position map, and re-clean control, but is a floor cleaner with no camera.
• Bosch '016 — has the external camera and camera-based steering of a robotic vehicle (including a pool vehicle per DE102007053311), but no surface-cleanliness sensor/threshold/re-clean.
• Aqua WO2004019295/EP1540612 — robotic pool cleaner with onboard sensor array + processor + remote display + pre-determined acceptable range, but the sensed parameter is water chemistry, and there is no camera-based steering.

So the case is a § 103 case, and the combination must be articulated — which is what § 4 does.

7. What the patent owner will argue (and how to pre-empt it)

8. Weaknesses in the § 103 case (be candid with the client)

1. The claims were never tested. As the earlier "PTAB challenges" section establishes, no IPR/PGR/CBM has ever been filed on the '595 — there is no FWD, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel, and no Board claim construction to borrow. Everything here is a first-principles analysis.
2. No litigation position on the '595 has been confirmed. The earlier "Litigation summary" section found no case asserting '595 (only family-level litigation flags; the asserted patents in Zodiac v. Wybotics, E.D. Tex. 2:25‑cv‑00582, are the continuations 11,880,207 / 11,262,766 / 11,003,191). So there is no Markman record construing the key phrases — "cleanliness characteristic," "pool coverage algorithm," "sensors carried by the vehicle," "reclean." A narrow construction of "sensors carried by the vehicle" (e.g., requiring the sensor to be on the vehicle and distinct from the camera, which the claim's use of a separate term implies) or of "cleanliness characteristic fails to satisfy a predefined threshold" could shrink the claim and cut off some combinations — but it cannot rescue claim 1 from Minolta, whose sensor is on the cleaner and whose reference value is a stored threshold.
3. Claim 1 requires two distinct sensing modalities. Because the camera and the "sensors" are separately recited, the owner may argue the "sensors" must be something other than the camera. Minolta supplies exactly that (non-camera reflectivity sensor); so this argument helps only if the owner narrows "sensors" to non-optical sensors — unlikely given the claim language and the specification's own color-based cleanliness discussion (¶ [0060]-ish: "how well the color of a surface matches a predetermined desirable color").
4. US 2014/0009748 (Pentair) is date-fragile (13 days before the '595 filing). Do not build the case on it.
5. US 8,007,653 and US 2011/0301752 are only § 102(a) art and can be antedated; use them as corroborating, not primary, references.
6. Nothing here addresses § 101 or § 112 for claims 11–13, 17 (CRM/display claims), which may present their own vulnerabilities (e.g., a graphic display of coverage data as an obvious presentation of information / possible abstract-idea exposure). Those are separate inquiries.

9. Bottom line

• Best combination for independent claim 1 — H-Tech US 5,433,031 (or US 5,507,058) + Bosch US 2010/0299016 + Minolta US 5,613,261, with WO 2004/019295 / EP 1 540 612 available as either the base or the "dry station + onboard sensor array + predetermined acceptable range" reference. Every limitation, including the post-clean onboard sensing/re-clean element added during prosecution, is disclosed and the combination is supported by several independent KSR rationales.
• Best combination for claims 11 and 14 — the same trio, with the coverage/steering algorithm supplied by H-Tech's pre-programmed cleaning programs.
• Best combination for claim 16 — Bosch + Minolta + Aqua WO2004019295/EP1540612 (dry station), with claim 19 met by US 5,886,630 and/or US 2013/0269097.
• Dependent claims 2/3/10/21/22 (network/server/PED) and 5/6/12/13/17 (map display) are met by Monroe US 2002/0097322 and Aqua EP1540612's modem/Internet and hand-held-display disclosures.
• Prosecution posture is the owner's best asset: an untested patent with no PTAB record, allowed after adding the onboard-sensor limitation, and no litigation yet confirming or denying its scope. The invalidity case must be built from scratch, and the outcome will turn on (i) the Board's/court's construction of "sensors carried by the vehicle" and "predefined threshold," and (ii) whether the owner can produce nexus-bearing objective evidence. On the record as it stands, the combination in § 4.1 renders claim 1 prima facie obvious.