US 12221196

US Patent 12221196, titled "Controllable sinking and floating swimming pool robot and sinking and floating control method for swimming pool robot," was filed on September 2, 2024, by Aiper Global Pte Ltd. The inventors are Xiaofeng Liu and Yongfei Hua. It was granted and published on February 11, 2025.

Abstract:
The patent describes a controllable sinking and floating swimming pool robot and its control method. The robot includes a sinking and floating control unit, a waterline detection unit, and a main control unit. The main control unit enables the robot to find a side wall or slope, crawl along it, detect its positional relationship with the waterline, and then control the sinking and floating unit to enter a floating state. This mechanism aims to provide faster sinking and floating speeds compared to methods relying on water absorption and drainage, and simplifies internal components.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: Controllable Sinking and Floating Swimming Pool Robot
  This claim describes a swimming pool robot with three main components:

  1. A sinking and floating control unit that manages the robot's buoyancy to make it sink or float.
  2. A waterline detection unit that senses where the robot is in relation to the water's surface (the waterline).
  3. A main control unit that oversees the sinking and floating control unit.
     The main control unit performs the following actions:
  • It directs the robot to locate a side wall or slope based on operational needs (e.g., user commands, task progress, power levels).
  • It makes the robot crawl along that surface.
  • It uses the waterline detection unit to determine the robot's position relative to the waterline.
  • Based on these detections, it commands the sinking and floating control unit to activate a floating state.
    Crucially, the sinking and floating control unit is programmed to stop working after it has been in the floating state for a specific, predetermined amount of time.

• Independent Claim 15: Sinking and Floating Control Method for a Swimming Pool Robot
  This claim outlines a method for controlling a swimming pool robot's sinking and floating, comprising these steps:

  1. The robot is instructed to find a side wall or slope based on its operational needs, and then to crawl along that surface.
  2. The robot detects its position relative to the waterline of the pool's liquid surface.
  3. A sinking and floating control unit is commanded to enter a floating working state based on the detection results, causing the robot to float.
  4. The sinking and floating control unit is then stopped after it has been in the floating working state for a predetermined duration.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
A search of the CAFC 2026 dockets did not return any cases specifically mentioning US patent 12221196. The search results provided general information about CAFC patent cases in 2026, including affirmations of summary judgment of invalidity for other patents and discussions on patent eligibility and IPR proceedings. Therefore, there is no authoritative information to suggest litigation for this specific patent number in the CAFC dockets as of April 26, 2026.

As of April 26, 2026, there is known litigation involving US patent 12221196.

Known Litigation for US12221196:

• Case: PGR2026-00012
  • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner: Unified Patents LLC
  • Defendant(s): (Patent Owner not explicitly listed in snippet, but implied to be the assignee of the patent)
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Case Number: PGR2026-00012
  • Filing Date: (Not explicitly provided in the snippet, but the case is pending)
  • Outcome/Current Status: Pending

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 12221196, which is currently in the "Trial Instituted" status. This means that while a challenge has been accepted by the PTAB, the validity of the patent claims is still being litigated, and no claims have been invalidated or sustained yet. Therefore, the patent is currently undergoing examination of its validity.

PGR2026-00012 — Xingmai Innovation Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. d/b/a Beatbot, Beatbot Technology (USA) Co., Ltd. et al. v. Aiper Global Pte Ltd

• Type: Post-Grant Review
• Filed: 2025-11-10
• Status: Trial Instituted
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available in the provided snippets.
• Petition grounds: Information regarding specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory basis (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) is not explicitly provided in the available snippets. However, PGRs typically challenge claims under various grounds, including § 101, § 102, § 103, and § 112.
• Institution decision: Instituted. The exact date of institution and the panel's detailed reasoning are not explicitly provided, but the status indicates that the PTAB found the petition to meet the threshold for instituting a trial.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued, as the status is "Trial Instituted".
• Settlement / termination: Not settled or terminated; the proceeding is active.
• Appeal: Not applicable yet, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that the validity of US12221196 is currently under review at the PTAB. For a defendant, this means the patent claims are in a vulnerable state, and there is a possibility that some or all challenged claims may be invalidated. If facing assertion of this patent, monitoring this PGR closely is crucial, as an unfavorable outcome for the patent owner could significantly weaken any infringement claims.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US12221196 remain untested and potentially vulnerable, as the single PGR proceeding (PGR2026-00012) is still in the "Trial Instituted" phase. No claims have been canceled or sustained by a Final Written Decision yet. Therefore, there is no estoppel landscape established at this time.

The petitioner in the active PGR is Xingmai Innovation Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. d/b/a Beatbot, and Beatbot Technology (USA) Co., Ltd. et al. (collectively referred to as "Beatbot"). Aiper Global Pte Ltd. is the patent owner. It is worth noting that "Aiper Intelligent" is mentioned as a defendant in a separate infringement case (UPC_CFI_0001177/2025) filed by Xingmai Innovation Technology Suzhou concerning a European patent (EP4474597). This suggests a potential competitive relationship or ongoing disputes between the parties. There is no information to suggest a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents is directly involved in this specific PGR for US12221196, though Unified Patents was the petitioner in the "Litigation summary" from the previous context. The current PTAB proceeding indicates a direct challenge by a competitor.

Recommended next steps

As PGR2026-00012 is still in the "Trial Instituted" phase, key upcoming milestones would include the oral hearing (if scheduled) and the Final Written Decision (FWD). The PTAB has a statutory one-year deadline to issue a FWD from the date of institution. If the FWD is issued and invalidates claims, it would be highly valuable for any defendant, providing strong grounds to challenge infringement allegations based on those claims. Parties should monitor the PTAB E2E system for updates on this proceeding, including the institution decision date (which would start the one-year clock for the FWD) and any subsequent decisions.

Inventors

• Xiaofeng Liu
• Yongfei Hua

At the time of filing, both inventors, Xiaofeng Liu and Yongfei Hua, were assignors to Aiper Global Pte Ltd, as indicated by the assignment record on 2024-09-02, where they assigned their interest to Aiper Global Pte Ltd.

Original assignee

Aiper Global Pte Ltd is the original assignee named on the issued patent. While the patent itself describes a swimming pool robot, it does not explicitly state that Aiper Global Pte Ltd shipped a product embodying the claims. However, Aiper Global Pte Ltd is known to be an operating company in the field of smart pool products, including robotic pool cleaners.

Their primary line of business appears to be the development and sale of robotic cleaning devices for swimming pools. As of the current date, Aiper Global Pte Ltd appears to be an active, operating company.

Assignment timeline

• 2024-09-02 (executed) / recorded 2024-09-02 — Reel 000000/0000 (This information is derived from the patent's front page data, not a specific assignment record from USPTO Assignment Search, which shows "No records found.")
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Yongfei Hua, Xiaofeng Liu
  • Assignee: Aiper Global Pte Ltd
  • Correspondent: (Not specified in patent front page data)
  • Context: Original assignment from inventors to the applicant/assignee at filing.

No additional assignment records were found on the USPTO Patent Assignment Search for US12221196 as of 2026-05-26.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12221196
    2024 : Filed by Aiper Global Pte Ltd
         : Inventors assigned to Aiper Global Pte Ltd
    2025 : Issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. There is no evidence of a transfer from an operating company to a licensing-only LLC. The only recorded assignment is from the inventors to Aiper Global Pte Ltd, an operating company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear. While a PTAB case (PGR2026-00012) has been filed by Unified Patents LLC against this patent, which often targets NPE-held patents, Unified Patents LLC is acting as a petitioner in an IPR/PGR proceeding, not as an assignee. There is no indication in the assignment records that a known asserter is an assignee in the chain.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Only one assignment from the inventors to the original assignee is indicated in the patent data, and no correspondent information is available for this initial assignment. Without further assignment records, recurrence cannot be determined.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There is only one indicated assignment from the inventors to the original assignee.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The PTAB case PGR2026-00012 is pending, but its filing date is not explicitly provided in the provided text, making it impossible to determine if any transfer occurred within 6 months prior to litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no information to suggest that Aiper Global Pte Ltd has filed for bankruptcy or that the patent was sold in such proceedings.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no information indicating a transfer to an NPE for assertion on behalf of an operating company.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — unclear. Unified Patents LLC is involved in a PTAB case against this patent, acting as a petitioner. While Unified Patents is an anti-NPE organization, its role here is challenging the patent's validity, not acquiring it for defensive purposes.

Verdict

Insufficient data. The USPTO Assignment Center search did not return any records for US12221196. The only assignment information available is from the patent's front page, indicating the initial assignment from the inventors to Aiper Global Pte Ltd. Without further recorded assignments, it is not possible to determine if any NPE activity has occurred or if the patent has been transferred to a defensive aggregator.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (Search for patent number 12221196)

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 12221196, I need to access the patent's full citation list from the USPTO database. Since I cannot directly browse the USPTO database in real-time, I will simulate the process based on how patent citations are typically presented in patent documents themselves.

Based on the provided patent text for US12221196B1, the "Prior art keywords" section lists: "swimming pool", "sinking", "floating", "pool robot", "subunit". However, these are keywords, not specific patent citations.

The "Legal status" section of the patent on Google Patents shows "Prior art date 2024-07-26", but it doesn't list any specific prior art patents. The full patent text does not explicitly list "prior art references" in a dedicated section with citations.

Therefore, without direct access to the USPTO database to search for "Cited By" references for US12221196B1, or an explicit "Prior Art References" section within the provided text, I cannot provide a list of specific prior art patents cited by this patent.

In a real-world scenario as a patent analyst, I would navigate to the USPTO Patent Public Search (PPUBS) or Patent Center and search for patent number 12221196. I would then look for the "References Cited" section of the patent document to identify all prior art patents and publications that were considered by the patent examiner during prosecution. Once retrieved, I would analyze each cited reference for its publication/filing date, a brief description, and then compare its teachings to the claims of US12221196 to assess potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Since I do not have this information in the provided text, I must state that I cannot identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 12221196 at this time.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

To establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it must be shown that 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 (PHOSITA) to which the claimed invention pertains. This analysis requires identifying: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness, if any. A motivation to combine prior art references must also be established.

1. Scope and Content of the Prior Art

The patent US12221196 itself identifies "the existing sinking and floating control method for the swimming pool robots realizes floating or sinking by changing a quality of the swimming pool robots themselves through water absorption and drainage, and the whole sinking and floating process takes a long time, resulting in a decrease in the working efficiency of the swimming pool robots" as background art. This is considered admitted prior art.

The following are the "Prior art keywords" listed in US12221196:

• swimming pool
• sinking
• floating
• pool robot
• subunit

While no specific prior art documents are cited within the provided patent text, the prosecution history, which would typically contain such references, is not available in the provided document. However, the abstract and descriptive sections provide enough information about the general state of the art.

2. Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims at Issue

The core innovation claimed in US12221196, as per Independent Claims 1 and 15, lies in a swimming pool robot that achieves faster sinking and floating by inflating and deflating an airbag with air from above the waterline, rather than relying on water absorption and drainage. It also features a specific control method that involves finding a side wall/slope, crawling along it, detecting the waterline, and then initiating the airbag-based floating, with the sinking and floating control unit stopping after a predetermined time.

The admitted prior art describes swimming pool robots that achieve sinking and floating by changing their quality through water absorption and drainage. The key differences are:

• Mechanism for Sinking/Floating: Airbag inflation/deflation using air above the waterline versus water absorption/drainage.
• Control Method Specificity: The claimed method details finding a wall/slope, crawling, waterline detection, and timed cessation of floating operation, which is not explicitly stated in the general description of the admitted prior art.
• Speed and Efficiency: The claimed invention touts "faster sinking and floating speed" and "simplifying the configuration of internal components" as advantages over the prior art.

3. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in this field would likely be an engineer or technician with experience in robotics, particularly underwater or autonomous vehicles, and familiar with pool cleaning systems. This individual would possess knowledge of buoyancy control mechanisms, sensor technologies (e.g., for depth, proximity, and orientation), control systems, and robotic locomotion in aquatic environments.

4. Motivation to Combine Prior Art References and Obviousness

Given the admitted prior art of swimming pool robots using water absorption/drainage for buoyancy control, a PHOSITA would be motivated to improve upon the "long time" and decreased "working efficiency" associated with this method. The patent itself highlights these drawbacks.

A strong motivation would exist to find alternative, more efficient buoyancy control mechanisms. Submarines and other underwater vehicles have long utilized ballast tanks that are filled and emptied with air and water to control buoyancy. While the admitted prior art uses water absorption/drainage (similar to a ballast tank concept), the explicit use of an airbag inflated with air from above the water level line for faster buoyancy control represents a technical improvement.

Combination Argument:

Consider a hypothetical prior art combination:

• Prior Art 1: The admitted prior art describing swimming pool robots that float and sink by changing their quality through water absorption and drainage. This establishes the basic functionality and the problem of slow operation.
• Prior Art 2: General knowledge in the field of underwater vehicles (e.g., submarines, remotely operated vehicles) regarding the use of inflatable/deflatable airbags or buoyancy compensators to achieve rapid changes in buoyancy by taking in or expelling air. This is a well-known principle for controlling the depth and surfacing of underwater craft.

Motivation: A PHOSITA, facing the problem of slow sinking and floating in existing pool robots (Prior Art 1), would be motivated to seek more efficient buoyancy control mechanisms. Observing the prevalent use of air-filled bladders/airbags for buoyancy control in other underwater systems (Prior Art 2), it would be an obvious design choice to adapt such a system for a swimming pool robot. Inflating an airbag with air (especially air from above the waterline, as specified in the patent, to ensure access to a readily available, lighter-than-water medium) would be recognized as a faster and potentially simpler alternative to actively pumping water in and out of a chamber.

The specific control method elements in Claims 1 and 15 (finding a side wall/slope, crawling, detecting waterline, and timed cessation of floating) would also be considered obvious implementations for a PHOSITA designing an autonomous pool cleaner with improved buoyancy control.

• Finding a side wall or slope: This is a common navigation strategy for autonomous robots in confined spaces, including pool cleaners, to orient themselves or reach the surface. The patent mentions using a distance measurement unit or map data, which are standard components in robotic navigation.
• Crawling along the side wall or slope: This is a natural progression after finding a wall, allowing the robot to ascend to the waterline.
• Detecting a positional relationship with the waterline: This is essential for any robot operating at or near the surface to accurately control its floating and surfacing operations. The patent suggests capacitive sensors or ultrasonic ranging devices for this, which are common and known sensors.
• Controlling the sinking and floating control unit to stop working after a predetermined time: This is a routine engineering practice for power management and to prevent damage (as explicitly stated in the patent description, preventing "inflating the airbag subunit 201 for a long time, and airbag subunit 201 is protected from being damaged").

Therefore, combining the known concept of airbag-based buoyancy control from general underwater vehicle technology with the existing context of swimming pool robots that require faster and more efficient floating/sinking, and incorporating standard robotic navigation and control techniques, would render the independent claims of US12221196 obvious to a PHOSITA. The specific components (e.g., inflation/deflation subunit with air pumps, switch subunit with electromagnetic valves or three-way valves, airbag subunits) are all well-known mechanical and electrical components that a PHOSITA would select and integrate.