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
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 1-3, 6, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Refai (US 11,336,048).
Regarding claim 1: Refai teaches an apparatus for an enclosure of a direct current connection of a photovoltaic solar panel (e.g. see Fig. 1 for an enclosure of a direct current connection, the photovoltaic solar panel limitations are considered intended use), the apparatus comprising: a housing 1 comprising at least two parts 2, 3 that, when joined together (see Figs. 6, 9), form a chamber 18 for surrounding mating direct current connectors with an air gap (see Fig. 6 for mating direct current connectors and an air gap located around its periphery), the housing comprising at least one support structure 54 for positioning the direct current connectors in a central part of the chamber (see Figs. 4a-6).
Regarding claim 2: Refai teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the at least one support structure 54 is configured to contact at least one cable connected to one of the mating direct current connectors for causing the direct current connectors to be suspended in air in a central region of the chamber (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3: Refai teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and further teaches wherein the at least one support structure 54 is configured to inhibit lateral movement of the mating direct current connectors in at least one direction (see Fig. 5 and Col. 5, lines 4-9).
Regarding claim 6: Refai teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches comprising at least one second port (e.g. port located between free ends 59; see Fig. 5) for air flow into and/or out of the chamber (e.g. see Fig. 5 wherein the port is configured to allow airflow).
Regarding claim 10: Refai teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the housing comprises an upper part 3 and a lower part 2 that mate together to surround the mating direct current connectors (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11: Refai teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the housing 1 comprises a tubular section (at 18; Fig. 2) having two open ends (see Fig. 2), and two end caps (at 2, 5; Fig. 2) configured to cover the two open ends of the tubular section (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12: Refai teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the housing comprises a dielectric material (Col. 6, lines 54-55).
Regarding claim 13: Refai teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the housing 1 has at least one outer surface configured to direct water towards an edge of the housing 1 (see rounded edges of the ends of the housing; see Fig. 6).
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 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Refai (US 11,336,048), in view of Dykhoff (US 6,521,834).
Regarding claim 4: Refai teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Refai does not explicitly teach wherein the housing comprises an inner surface facing the chamber that is at least partially coated in an intumescent material.
Dykhoff teaches comprising an inner surface that is at least partially coated in an intumescent material (Col. 5, lines 42-52).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with the housing comprising an inner surface facing the chamber that is at least partially coated in an intumescent material as taught by Dykhoff into the apparatus of Refai in order to achieve the advantage of its protection and fire stopping capabilities.
Claims 5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Refai (US 11,336,048), in view of Dahl (US 8,476,540).
Regarding claim 5: Refai teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Refai does not explicitly teach at least one first port for providing water egress from the housing.
Dahl teaches at least one first port 43 for providing water egress from a housing (see Fig. 1 and Col. 12, lines 46-60).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with at least one first port for providing water egress from the housing as taught by Dahl into the apparatus of Refai in order to achieve the advantage of removing unwanted moisture from the housing.
Regarding claim 7: Refai, in view of Dahl, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and further teaches wherein the at least one first port 43 and/or at least one second port provides an entrance or exit point to a labyrinthine path for exit of water and/or entry of air and/or exit of air (see Fig. 1 and Col. 12, lines 46-60 of Dahl).
Regarding claim 8: Refai, in view of Dahl, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and further teaches wherein the at least one first 43 and/or at least one second port is located at a distal end of at least one part of the housing (see Fig. 1 and Col. 12, lines 46-60 of Dahl).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Refai (US 11,336,048), in view of Dahl (US 8,476,540), further in view of Dykhoff (US 6,521,834).
Regarding claim 9: Refai, in view of Dal, teaches all the limitations of claim 5.
Refai does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one first port and/or at least one second port comprises a respective inner surface that is at least partially coated in an intumescent material.
Dykhoff teaches at least partially coated in an intumescent material (Col. 5, lines 42-52).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with the at least one first port and/or at least one second port comprises a respective inner surface that is at least partially coated in an intumescent material as taught by Dykhoff into the apparatus of Refai in order to achieve the advantage of its protection and fire stopping capabilities.
Claims 14-15, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Refai (US 11,336,048), in view of Dupuis (US 2017/0033546).
Regarding claim 14: Refai teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Refai does not explicitly teach an assembly comprising: the apparatus of claim 1, and an outer housing configured to receive the apparatus in an inner cavity defined by an inner surface of the outer housing.
Dupuis teaches an assembly (Fig. 1D) comprising an apparatus 120, and an outer housing 140 configured to receive the apparatus in an inner cavity defined by an inner surface of the outer housing (see Fig. 2A).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with an assembly comprising: the apparatus of claim 1, and an outer housing configured to receive the apparatus in an inner cavity defined by an inner surface of the outer housing as taught by Dupuis into the apparatus of Refai in order to achieve the advantage of comprising an outer housing for holding the apparatus in a desired position.
Regarding claim 15: Refai, in view of Dupuis, teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and Dupuis further teaches wherein the outer housing 140 is configured to cover at least one port (at 129a; Fig. 1D) provided in the apparatus (see Fig. 1A of Dupuis).
Regarding claim 17: Refai, in view of Dupuis, teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and Dupuis further teaches wherein the outer housing 140 comprises a bracket 142 configured to attach to a support structure (e.g. via opening 151; see Fig. 3B and Para. 0043 of Dupuis).
Regarding claim 18: Refai, in view of Dupuis, teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and Dupuis further teaches further comprising at least one split grommet 150 configured to be located in the outer housing for receiving a direct current cable connected to at least one of the mating direct current connectors (see Fig. 4 of Dupuis).
Regarding claim 19: Refai, in view of Dupuis, teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and Dupuis further teaches wherein the outer housing is configured to hold the at least two parts of the housing together (see Figs. 1A-1D).
Regarding claim 20: Refai, in view of Dupuis, teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and Dupuis further teaches wherein the outer housing has at least one outer surface configured to direct water to an edge of the outer housing (see Fig. 1A for shape of outer housing and configured to direct water towards the edges).
Regarding claim 21: Refai, in view of Dupuis, teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and Dupuis further teaches further comprising wherein the mating direct current connectors having have a rating defined by a manufacturer of the direct current connectors, and wherein a size of the air gap is selected to enable the direct current connectors to operate at or below said rating (see Fig. 6 of Refai for connectors mated to each other and gaps of various sizes).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Refai (US 11,336,048), in view of Dupuis (US 2017/0033546), further in view of Dykhoff (US 6,521,834).
Regarding claim 16: Refai, in view of Dupuis, teaches all the limitations of claim 14.
Refai does not explicitly teach wherein the inner surface of the outer housing is at least partially coated with an intumescent material.
Dykhoff teaches at least partially coated in an intumescent material (Col. 5, lines 42-52).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with the inner surface of the outer housing is at least partially coated with an intumescent material as taught by Dykhoff into the apparatus of Refai in order to achieve the advantage of its protection and fire stopping capabilities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 5-7 of Applicant’s Arguments, the applicant argues that reference Refai (US 11,336,048) does not teach all the limitations of claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant specifically that Refai does not teach “a housing comprising at least two parts that, when joined together, form a chamber for surrounding mating direct current connectors with an air gap”, the examiner would like to the applicant’s attention to Figure 8 wherein a direct electrical connection, that transfer current, is surrounded and held by a housing that is comprised of multiple parts and air gaps can be seen surrounding the electrical connection within in Figure 6.
The applicant further argues, see pages 7-8, that Refai does not teach “direct current connectors” but also states that the reference does not state the exact type of connection provided by the cables. The examiner would like to point out that the type of electrical connection within does not affect the housing structure and the other limitations seen in claim 1. Direct current connectors may traditionally experience problems of arcing but these limitations are not claimed. Refai does teach a housing surrounding and protecting a direct electrical connection within that transfers current.
The applicant further argues, see page 8, that Refai, in view of Dykhoff, does not teach all the limitations of claim 4. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Reference Dykhoff is used to teach the using of intumescent material for its fire stopping and protective properties and not used to teach a housing or an air gap that is taught by Refai.
The applicant further argues, see pages 8-9, that Refai, in view of Dahl, does not teach all the limitations of claims 5, 7 and 8. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Reference Dahl teaches a “drain aperture 43” for the purposes of draining/escaping of material not wanted within and would meet the limitations of claims 5, 7 and 8 wherein a “port” is claimed. Reference Dahl is not used to teach a housing or an air gap that is taught by Refai.
The applicant further argues, see pages 9-10, that Refai, in view of Dupuis, does not teach all the limitations of claims 14, 15 and 17-21. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Reference Dupuis teaches an apparatus (120) and an outer housing (140) that is configured to receive the apparatus (see Fig. 2A) for the purposes of holding an apparatus in a desired closed position and would meet the limitations of the aforementioned claims. Reference Dupuis is not used to teach a housing or an air gap that is taught by Refai.
The applicant further argues, see page 10, that Refai, in view of Dupuis, and further in view of Dykhoff, does not teach all the limitations of claim 16. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments for references Refai, in view of Dupuis, and further in view of Dykhoff can be seen above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OSCAR C JIMENEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0272. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571) 272-2009. 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.
/OSCAR C JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights