DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on the Semi-Automatic Portable Solar Controller filed December 7, 2023.
A telephonic call was made and an email was sent to Applicant on December 5, 2025 but did not result in a return call or email.
Applicant is encouraged to contact the examiner, Dustin Dam, at (571) 270-5120.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only.
Claims 1-6 are not in the form of one sentence.
For example, claim 1 begins with “A semi-automatic portable solar controller comprising:…” and claim 1 also recites in the middle of the claim, “An adjustable mechanism”, “The stabilizing mechanism”, “Multiple U-shaped blocks”, and multiple other capitalized terms rendering the claim not in the form of one sentence.
Similarly, claims 2-5 also contain multiple capitalized terms in the middle of the claim rendering the claim not in the form of one sentence.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other end of the support rod" on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “other end of the support rod”, it is unclear as to what "the other end of the support rod" recited on line 3 of claim 1 is referring to. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Amending “the other end of the support rod” to “another end of the support rod” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 1 recites, “each adjustable mechanism” on line 6.
However, claim 1 previously recites, “An adjustable mechanism” on line 5.
It is unclear how many adjustable mechanisms are required in the claim. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "The stabilizing mechanism" on line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “stabilizing mechanism”, it is unclear as to what "The stabilizing mechanism " recited on line 7 of claim 1 is referring to. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Amending “The stabilizing mechanism” to “a stabilizing mechanism” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inner walls of the two triangular blocks" on line 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “inner walls of the two triangular blocks”, it is unclear as to what "the inner walls of the two triangular blocks" recited on line 7-8 of claim 1 is referring to. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Amending “the inner walls of the two triangular blocks” to “inner walls of the two triangular blocks” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the three sides of the two triangular blocks" on line 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “three sides of the two triangular blocks”, it is unclear as to what "the three sides of the two triangular blocks" recited on line 9-10 of claim 1 is referring to. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Amending “the three sides of the two triangular blocks” to “three sides of the two triangular blocks” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the two arms of each U-shaped bock" on line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “two arms of each U-shaped bock”, it is unclear as to what "the two arms of each U-shaped bock" recited on line 11 of claim 1 is referring to. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Amending “the two arms of each U-shaped bock” to “two arms of each U-shaped bock” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the opposite side of the two arms of each U-shaped block" on line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “opposite side of the two arms of each U-shaped block”, it is unclear as to what "the opposite side of the two arms of each U-shaped block" recited on line 11 of claim 1 is referring to. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Amending “the opposite side of the two arms of each U-shaped block” to “opposite side of the two arms of each U-shaped block” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the connecting rod" on line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “connecting rod”, it is unclear as to what "the connecting rod" recited on line 1-2 of claim 2 is referring to. Dependent claim is rejected for dependency.
Amending “the connecting rod” to “a connecting rod” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the outer surface near one end of the connecting rod" on line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “outer surface near one end of the connecting rod”, it is unclear as to what "the outer surface near one end of the connecting rod" recited on line 2-3 of claim 2 is referring to. Dependent claim is rejected for dependency.
Amending “the outer surface near one end of the connecting rod” to “an outer surface near one end of the connecting rod” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "The outer surface of the connecting rod" on line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “outer surface of the connecting rod”, it is unclear as to what "The outer surface of the connecting rod" recited on line 6 of claim 2 is referring to. Dependent claim is rejected for dependency.
Amending “The outer surface of the connecting rod” to “an outer surface of the connecting rod” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the inside of the hollow square rod" on line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “inside of the hollow square rod”, it is unclear as to what "the inside of the hollow square rod" recited on line 7 of claim 2 is referring to. Dependent claim is rejected for dependency.
Amending “the inside of the hollow square rod” to “an inside of the hollow square rod” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "The outer surface of the hollow square rod" on line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “outer surface of the hollow square rod”, it is unclear as to what "The outer surface of the hollow square rod" recited on line 12 of claim 2 is referring to. Dependent claim is rejected for dependency.
Amending “The outer surface of the hollow square rod” to “an outer surface of the hollow square rod” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "The outer surfaces of the two locking blocks" on line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “outer surfaces of the two locking blocks”, it is unclear as to what "The outer surfaces of the two locking blocks" recited on line 4 of claim 3 is referring to. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Amending “The outer surfaces of the two locking blocks” to “outer surfaces of the two locking blocks” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "The inside of each of the two hollow square rods" on line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “inside of each of the two hollow square rods”, it is unclear as to what "The inside of each of the two hollow square rods" recited on line 7 of claim 3 is referring to. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Amending “The inside of each of the two hollow square rods” to “an inside of each of the two hollow square rods” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "The bottoms of multiple vertical rods" on line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “bottoms of multiple vertical rods”, it is unclear as to what "The bottoms of multiple vertical rods" recited on line 10 of claim 3 is referring to. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Amending “The bottoms of multiple vertical rods” to “bottoms of multiple vertical rods” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the two ends of the top of the two hollow square rods" on line 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “two ends of the top of the two hollow square rods”, it is unclear as to what "the two ends of the top of the two hollow square rods" recited on line 10-11 of claim 3 is referring to. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Amending “the two ends of the top of the two hollow square rods” to “two ends of the top of the two hollow square rods” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the other end of multiple folding rods" on line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “other end of multiple folding rods”, it is unclear as to what "the other end of multiple folding rods" recited on line 1-2 of claim 4 is referring to. Dependent claim is rejected for dependency.
Amending “the other end of multiple folding rods” to “another end of multiple folding rods” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the outer surfaces of the multiple folding rods" on line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “outer surfaces of the multiple folding rods”, it is unclear as to what "the outer surfaces of the multiple folding rods" recited on line 2-3 of claim 4 is referring to. Dependent claim is rejected for dependency.
Amending “the outer surfaces of the multiple folding rods” to “outer surfaces of the multiple folding rods” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the other end" on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claim is rejected for dependency.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the two solar folding soft panels" on line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “two solar folding soft panels”, it is unclear as to what "the two solar folding soft panels" recited on line 6 of claim 5 is referring to.
Amending “the two solar folding soft panels” to “two solar folding soft panels” would overcome the rejection.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the inner wall of the external threaded sleeve" on line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “inner wall of the external threaded sleeve”, it is unclear as to what "the inner wall of the external threaded sleeve" recited on line 2-3 of claim 6 is referring to. Dependent claim is rejected for dependency.
Amending “the inner wall of the external threaded sleeve” to “an inner wall of the external threaded sleeve” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the two ends of the external threaded sleeve" on line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “two ends of the external threaded sleeve”, it is unclear as to what "the two ends of the external threaded sleeve" recited on line 4 of claim 6 is referring to. Dependent claim is rejected for dependency.
Amending “the two ends of the external threaded sleeve” to “two ends of the external threaded sleeve” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the outer surface of the external threaded sleeve" on line 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “outer surface of the external threaded sleeve”, it is unclear as to what "the outer surface of the external threaded sleeve" recited on line 5-6 of claim 6 is referring to. Dependent claim is rejected for dependency.
Amending “the outer surface of the external threaded sleeve” to “an outer surface of the external threaded sleeve” would overcome the rejections.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the interior of the battery box" on line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “interior of the battery box”, it is unclear as to what "the interior of the battery box" recited on line 1-2 of claim 7 is referring to.
Amending “the interior of the battery box” to “an interior of the battery box” would overcome the rejection.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the multiple clamp pieces" on line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is no previously recited “multiple clamp pieces”, it is unclear as to what "the multiple clamp pieces" recited on line 1-2 of claim 8 is referring to.
Amending “the multiple clamp pieces” to “multiple clamp pieces” would overcome the rejection.
Applicant is encouraged to contact the examiner, Dustin Dam, at (571) 270-5120 to discuss the rejections of the claims and potential claim language to overcome the rejections of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
While the scope of the claims are unclear/indefinite (recall rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above), the system depicted in Fig. 1 and detailed in Fig. 5 of the instant specification appears to include allowable subject matter during an initial prior art search.
Applicant is encouraged to contact the examiner, Dustin Dam, at (571) 270-5120 to discuss claim language to capture allowable subject matter disclosed in the instant specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 December 13, 2025