Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/550,126

POOL CLEANING SYSTEM HAVING A FLOATING UNIT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 11, 2023
Examiner
KARLS, SHAY LYNN
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Maytronics Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
903 granted / 1308 resolved
-1.0% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
1361
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
34.0%
-6.0% vs TC avg
§112
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1308 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 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. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Witelson (PGPub 20190284827). Witelson teaches a pool cleaning robot that comprises: a housing (paragraph 0060); a power supply cable interface (figure 1, where 26 contacts 24) for interfacing with a power supply cable (26); wherein at least a part of the power supply cable is external to the housing (paragraph 0071); a power supply control unit (paragraph 0089), and a wireless charging interface (222, 242; paragraph 0131, 0134); wherein the power supply control unit is configured to control (a) a provision of power from the power supply cable to the wireless charging interface (via cable 26); and (b) a provision of power from the wireless charging interface to one or more power consuming elements of the pool cleaning robot (via 224, 242). With regards to claim 2, the wireless charging interface is configured to wirelessly charge (via 222/242) a rechargeable battery (505) via a battery wireless charging interface (paragraph 0107) when receiving the power from the power supply cable (figure 1; element 26). With regards to claim 3, the wireless charging interface is further configured to provide power from the rechargeable battery; and wherein the power supply control unit is configured to control a provision of the power from the detachable rechargeable battery to the one or more power consuming elements of the pool cleaning robot (when the battery is charged, the battery provides power to the elements of the robot). With regards to claim 4, the robot comprises the battery. With regards to claim 5, the rechargeable battery further comprises an additional battery wireless charging interface (figure 9 and 11). With regards to claim 6, the additional battery wireless charging interface faces away from the pool cleaning robot (figure 9 and 11). With regards to claim 8, the battery is non-detachable (it does not have be detached from the housing). With regards to claim 9, the power from the power supply cable is provided by a floating unit (24). With regards to claim 10, the power from the power supply cable is provided by an external power supply (28). With regards to claim 11, Witelson teaches a method for power control, the method comprises: receiving power (a) by a power supply cable interface (figure 1, where 26 contacts 24) of a pool cleaning, and (b) from a power supply cable (26) that has at least a part that is external to a housing of the pool cleaning robot (paragraph 0071); and controlling, by a power supply control unit (paragraph 0089) of the pool cleaning robot, (a) a provision of power from the power supply cable to a wireless charging interface (via cable 26) of the pool cleaning robot; and (b) a provision of power from the wireless charging interface to one or more power consuming elements of the pool cleaning robot (via 224, 242). With regards to claim 12, the method comprises wirelessly charging, by the wireless charging interface (224 and 242), a rechargeable battery (505) via a battery wireless charging interface (paragraph 0107), when receiving the power from the power supply cable (26). With regards to claim 13, providing power, by the wireless charging interface, from the rechargeable battery; and controlling, by the power supply control unit, a provision of the power from the detachable rechargeable battery to one or more power consuming elements of the pool cleaning robot (when the battery is charged, the battery provides power to the elements of the robot). With regards to claim 14, the robot comprises the rechargeable battery. With regards to claim 15, charging the battery, by an entity (24, 28) that is external to the pool cleaning robot, via an additional battery wireless charging interface (figure 9 and 11). With regards to claim 16, the additional battery wireless charging interface faces away from the pool cleaning robot (figure 9 and 11). With regards to claim 18, the battery is non-detachable (it does not have be detached from the housing). With regards to claim 19, feeding the power supply cable by power from a floating unit (24). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witelson (‘827). Witelson teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that the battery is detachable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Witelson so that the battery is detachable. This will allow for one battery to be charged while another battery is in use. Thus allowing the user to use the cleaning robot continuously without downtime for recharging. Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witelson (‘827) in view of Porat (USPN 20060223394) Witelson teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that the power comes from a foldable solar panel. Porat teaches using a foldable solar panel (96; figure 6 and 7) to charge a robot pool cleaner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the external power supply of Witelson with a foldable solar panel as taught by Porat to allow for using renewable and clean energy from the sun. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm). 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 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. /SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 11, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594588
Sucker Rod Wiping Tool
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583012
LOCKING ASSEMBLY AND ROLLER ASSEMBLY EMPLOYING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576318
TOWEL WITH INTEGRATED BRUSH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575662
TOOTHBRUSH WITH REPLACEABLE BRUSH HEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569324
ORAL CARE SYSTEM, IMPLEMENT, AND/OR KIT
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
69%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+26.6%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1308 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