Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/397,637

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONNECTED AQUATIC DEVICES

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 27, 2023
Examiner
WANG, HARRIS C
Art Unit
2439
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Pentair, Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
372 granted / 534 resolved
+11.7% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
552
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.7%
-28.3% vs TC avg
§103
56.2%
+16.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
§112
9.3%
-30.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 534 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1-9, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armon (US 2020/0250337) in view of Bennett (US 2019/0087548) Regarding Claim 1, Armon (US 2020/0250337) teaches a connected aquatic system for managing requests from one or more disparate applications, comprising: a pool component (Paragraph [0072], Fig. 1 teaches a pool cleaning robot); a central controller in communication with the pool component (Paragraph [0072] teaches controller and communication unit) and designed to execute programmable instructions including: connecting the pool component to a cloud-based server via a network; establishing a communication link between the cloud-based server and a disparate application (Paragraph [0055-0057] teaches connection to a cloud environment, and connecting to a smart device application); receiving a request from the disparate application, wherein the request includes a plurality of third-party data; and in response to receiving the request, providing access to the pool component based on the plurality of third-party data, wherein the third-party data comprises an access level (Paragraph [0064] teaches receiving a request which includes an access level (i.e. family members that are not owners may have access to photos and videos) (Paragraph [0037] teaches only approved users may retrieve and upload data). Armon does not explicitly teach one or more access levels associated with a plurality of aquatic settings Bennett (US 2019/0087548) teaches one or more access levels associated with a plurality of aquatic settings (Fig. 3, and associated text teaches one or more access levels associated with a plurality of aquatic settings (e.g. safety warning support, music control, input pool temperature) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Armon to include a plurality of aquatic settings and the results would be predictable (i.e. there would be multiple aquatic settings) Regarding Claim 2, Armon and Bennett teaches the system of claim 1. Armon teaches further comprising an authentication system that is in communication with the central controller (Paragraph [0053-0056] teaches password protected access to the internet and authentication for cloud services) Regarding Claim 3, Armon and Bennett teaches the system of claim 1. Armon teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the authentication system determines the access level and wherein the access level is associated with a user (Paragraph [0037] teaches only approved users may retrieve and upload data). Regarding Claims 4-5, Armon and Bennett teaches the system of claim 1. Armon teaches the system of claim 1, wherein a request for a user to update a parameter of the pool component is received by the central controller via the disparate application (Paragraph [0069-0070] teaches pool component is turned off). Regarding Claim 6, Armon and Bennett teaches the system of claim 1. Armon teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the request is sent to an authentication system in communication with the central controller to determine if the access level permits the user to update the parameter of the pool component (Paragraph [0037] teaches only approved users may retrieve and upload data) Regarding Claim 7, Armon and Bennett teaches the system of claim 6. Armon teaches the system of claim 6, further comprising a notification system that is in communication with the central controller (Paragraph [0048-0051][0068] teaches a notification system) Regarding Claim 8, Armon and Bennett teaches the system of claim 7. Armon teaches wherein the notification system generates a notification that the parameter of the pool component is updatable by the user based on the access level and sends the notification to a user device via the central controller (Paragraph [0051] teaches notification requests approval for access) Regarding Claim 9, Armon and Bennett teaches the system of claim 1. Armon teaches wherein the pool component can be provided in a form of a pool pump, a booster pump, a filter, a solar controller, one or more solar panels, a heater, a sanitizer, a water quality monitor, a pH regulator, a salt chlorine generator, a water feature, a pool cleaner, a pool skimmer, a pool drain, a pool light, one or more valves, one or more sensors, or a combination thereof (Paragraph [0048] teaches a pool cleaner) Regarding Claim 14, Armon (US 2020/0250337) teaches a method of communicating between disparate applications within a connected aquatic system, comprising: providing a pool component in communication with a controller; (Paragraph [0072], Fig. 1 teaches a pool cleaning robot); a central controller in communication with the pool component (Paragraph [0072] teaches controller and communication unit) and designed to execute programmable instructions including: connecting the pool component to a cloud-based server via a network; establishing a communication link between the cloud-based server and a disparate application (Paragraph [0055-0057] teaches connection to a cloud environment, and connecting to a smart device application); receiving a request from the disparate application, wherein the request includes a plurality of third-party data; and in response to receiving the request, providing access to the pool component based on the plurality of third-party data, wherein the third-party data comprises an access level (Paragraph [0064] teaches receiving a request which includes an access level (i.e. family members that are not owners may have access to photos and videos) (Paragraph [0037] teaches only approved users may retrieve and upload data) Armon does not explicitly teach a plurality of disparate pool components Bennett teaches a plurality of disparate pool components (Fig. 2 and 8 so multiple disparate pool components) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Armon to include a plurality of disparate pool components and the results would be predictable (i.e. there would be multiple pool components) Regarding Claims 15-18, Claims 15-18 are similar in scope to Claims 4-6, 8 and are rejected for a similar rationale. Claim(s) 10-13, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armon and Bennett in view of Khalid (US 2017/0170979) Regarding Claim 10, Armon and Bennett teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the disparate application can be provided in a form of an application for payment services, calendaring services, scheduling services, short-term rental services, virtual reality platform services, contracting services, pool equipment dealer services, pool chemical services, or a combination thereof. Khalid (US 2017/0170979) teaches disparate application can be provided in a form of an application for payment services, calendaring services, scheduling services, short-term rental services, virtual reality platform services, contracting services, pool equipment dealer services, pool chemical services, or a combination thereof (Paragraph [0189] and Fig. 41 teaches pool chemical services) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the application to include an application for pool chemical services and the results would be predictable (i.e. the application would be used for pool chemical services) Regarding Claim 11, Armon and Bennett teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the third-party data further comprises a unique identifier for a user and a time period for the access level, wherein the access level and the time period for the access level are associated with the unique identifier for the user. Khalid (US 2017/0170979) teaches a unique identifier for a user and a time period for the access level, wherein the access level and the time period for the access level are associated with the unique identifier for the user (Paragraph [0153] teaches determining whether a user has sufficient privileges and whether commands occur within a time period) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the identifier of the user to include a time period for access control associated with the unique identifier The motivation is to limit the access level for the user Regarding Claims 12-13, Armon and Bennett teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach further comprising a database that is in communication with the central controller, wherein the third-party data is stored in a database Khalid teaches database that is in communication with the central controller, wherein the third-party data is stored in a database (Paragraph [0070] teaches a database in communication with a central controller, wherein third-party data is stored in the database) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the storage of third-party data in Armon with storing in a database and the results would be predictable (i.e. third-party data would be stored in a database in communication with a controller) Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is similar in scope to Claim 10 and is rejected for a similar rationale. Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is similar in scope to Claims 1, 6-8, 12-13 and are rejected for a similar rationale. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRIS C WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1462. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30. 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, LUU PHAM can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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. /HARRIS C WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 27, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 18, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587535
DETECTING ABNORMAL DATA ACCESS BASED ON DATA SIMILARITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12574373
Remotely Configuring Communication Restrictions
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574380
APPLYING SECURITY POLICIES BASED ON ENDPOINT AND USER ATTRIBUTES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567973
GALOIS HASH AUTHENTICATION-BASED CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12554881
CONTROL TOWER FOR LINKING ACCOUNTS TO APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+20.7%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 534 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