Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/126,101

AUTOMATIC SWIMMING POOL CLEANER CHARGING SYSTEMS AND DEVICES WITH CORROSION MITIGATION

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Mar 24, 2023
Examiner
JENNINGS, MICHAEL DEANGILO
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
ZODIAC POOL CARE EUROPE
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
840 granted / 1081 resolved
+7.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+15.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1117
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
40.4%
+0.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1081 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Response to Restriction 1. Claims 22-24 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 11, 2025. Double Patenting Rejection 2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 12-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. (18/909,181). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independents 1 and 12 of the present application are similar in scope to claims 1 and 13 of (‘181). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) 3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent (10,383,499) to Fox et al. (cited by Applicant) Regarding independent claim 1, Fox et al. discloses an automatic swimming pool cleaner (APC) (102) and a charging system (104) for the APC with the APC (102) includes a first electrical contact (306a) and the charging system (104) includes a second electrical contact (116a), and wherein at least one of the first electrical contact (306a) of the second electrical contact comprises a corrosion- mitigating feature (See Col. 6 lines 3-20 and FIG. 3). Regarding claim 2, Fox et al. discloses that both the first electrical contact (306a) and the second electrical contact (116a) comprise the corrosion-mitigating feature (See Col. 6 lines 3-20). Regarding claim 3, Fox et al. discloses that the corrosion- mitigating feature comprises at least one of a material of the electrical contact or a surface treatment (See Col. 6 lines 3-20). Regarding claim 4, Fox et al. discloses that the corrosion-mitigating feature further comprises a material of the electrical contact, and wherein the material comprises at least one of titanium or an electrically conductive plastic (See paragraph 0073]). Regarding claim 6, Fox et al. discloses the corrosion-mitigating feature includes the surface treatment (302d), and with the surface treatment comprises surface geometry (See FIG. 3), surface features, surface structures, surface textures, a drying treatment, nitrate, passivation, nitruration, and/or ruthenium. Regarding claim 7, Fox et al. discloses that the corrosion-mitigating feature includes the surface treatment, and wherein the surface treatment comprises a boss (302d) on at least one of the first electrical contact (306a) or the second electrical contact. Regarding independent claim 12, Fox et al. discloses an electrical contact (306a) enabling charging of an automatic swimming pool cleaner (102) with a charging system (104) with the electrical contact (306) comprises a corrosion-mitigating feature (nickel), and wherein the corrosion- mitigating feature comprises a surface treatment (silver or gold) (See Col. 6 lines 5-20 and FIG. 3). Regarding claim 13, Fox et al. discloses that the corrosion-mitigating feature further comprises a material of the electrical contact, and wherein the material comprises at least one of titanium or an electrically conductive plastic (See paragraph 0073]). Regarding claim 14, Fox et al. discloses that the surface treatment comprises a boss (302d) on the electrical contact (306a). Regarding claim 15, Fox et al. discloses the surface treatment (silver or gold) is configured to at least one of (i) reduce a contact surface in order to increase local pressure with another electrical contact during charging or (ii) increase a contact pressure with another electrical contact during charging. Claims 17, 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication (2022/0268045) to Lancry et al. Regarding independent claim 17, Lancry et al. discloses an automatic swimming pool cleaner (102), a charging system (324) for selectively charging or recharging the APC, and a charging control system (See claim 14) for controlling charging or recharging of the APC using the charging system based on a detection of water (See paragraph [0073] and claim 8). Regarding claim 18, Lancry et al. discloses that the charging control system (See claim 14) is configured to control charging of the APC (102) based on the detection of water on an electrical contact of the APC or the charging system (324) (See paragraph [0073]). Regarding claim 20, Lancry et al. discloses that the charging control system (See claim 14 and FIG. 3) is configured to detect water based on resistance between two electrical contacts (See paragraph [0073]). Regarding claim 21, Lancry et al. discloses that the charging system (See FIG. 3) further includes a base (326) for supporting the APC (102); and one or more feet (334) supporting the base (326) with that the one or more feet (334) support the base (326) such that the base (326) is inclined upwards and at an angle (See paragraph [0068] and FIG. 3) . Allowable Subject Matter 4. Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. MICHAEL DEANGILO. JENNINGS Examiner Art Unit 3723 /MICHAEL D JENNINGS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 24, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601106
WIPING SHEET AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING WIPING SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588751
VEHICLE WASHING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590468
POOL RELATED PLATFORM AND ADDED-ON ACCESSORIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582275
CLEANER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569103
WET ROBOT CLEANER AND CONTAMINATION PREVENTION MODULE USED THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+15.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1081 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month