DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 18/581,746, filed 2/20/2024, which claims priority to provisional application 63/486,021, filed 2/20/2023.
Claims 1-8 are pending; Claims 1 and 3-8 are considered herein.
In light of the amendments filed 6/22/2026, the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are modified, the prior art rejections are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0041442 A1: This reference teaches the use of fire-retarding clay materials in a solar cell structure (paragraph [0055]).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 includes the term “A lid” in its final line. Please amend this limitation to “a lid.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “A solar system of solar panels arranged above the ground.” The instant specification does not provide support for the scope of this amendment (i.e. all configurations of the solar panels being arranged above the ground). The Examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite “A solar system comprising solar panels arranged on the roof of a fuel station canopy,” which is supported by Fig. 2A and paragraph [0020] of the instant specification.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “a plurality of combiner boxes teach comprising fire-retardant clay lining an inner surface and covering distribution blocks to suppress arcing and inhibit ignition of fuel vapors.” The instant specification does not provide support for the scope of this amendment (i.e. fire retardant clay lining any inner surface of the combiner boxes). The Examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite “a plurality of combiner boxes teach comprising fire-retardant clay lining an inner surface of each combiner box floor and covering distribution blocks to suppress arcing and inhibit ignition of fuel vapors,” which is supported by Figs. 3-4 and paragraph [0021] of the instant specification.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “at least one main disconnect switch configured for hazardous or any location installation.” The instant specification does not provide support for the scope of this amendment, because there is no support in the instant specification for the switch being configured to be installed in a hazardous location or “any location.” The Examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite “at least one main disconnect switch,” which is supported by the originally-filed claims.
Claims 3-8 contain new matter, because of their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “said clay lining the inner box surface.” The instant specification does not provide support for the scope of this amendment (i.e. fire retardant clay lining any inner surface of the combiner boxes). It is noted that this limitation further appears to be a repeated limitation from Claim 1, and is therefore also indefinite, as described further below.
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 and 3-8 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.
Claim 1 recites “a meter for monitoring revenue.” This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear what “revenue” is referred to by “a meter for monitoring revenue.”
Claims 3-8 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “capable of at least 1650 Volt-amperes (V-A).” The metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite, because it is unclear how a cable can be “capable of” a certain V-A.
Claim 4 recites “said microinverters comprising 1-1 basis, 2- 1 basis, and 4-1 basis for combining 1, 2 or 4 solar panel configurations into a single microinverter.” This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear how many microinverters and/or solar panels are required by Claim 4.
Claim 4 recites “the canopy roof” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because there is no prior recitation of “a canopy” or “a canopy roof.”
Claim 5 recites “said combiner boxes further comprising: a box…” This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear whether the recited “a box” and all of the features of the box recited in Claim 5 is part of one or more of the “said combiner boxes,” or a separate structure.
Claim 5 recites “a plurality of distribution blocks.” This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear whether these distribution blocks are the same as/different from the distribution blocks recited in Claim 1.
It is further noted that Claims 1 and 5 recite similar limitations regarding fire retardant clay being positioned in the combiner boxes. The limitations directed to this feature in Claim 5 are indefinite, because it is unclear whether the clay materials recited in Claim 5 are the same as/different from the clay recited in Claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “the inner box surface.” This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear which box is referred to by this limitation.
Claim 6 recites repeated structural limitations from Claim 1 (i.e. lips, cable holes, fire retardant clay). These limitations are indefinite, because it is unclear whether these features are the same as/different from the features recited in Claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “a plurality of fastener holes for attaching the panels with a plurality of circuit breaker panel fasteners.” This limitation is indefinite, because it appears that “the panels” refers to the solar panels of line 1. It is unclear how these solar panels can be attached with a plurality of circuit breaker panel fasteners.
Claim 6 further recites “at least one main panel breaker” in line 12. This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 recites “at least one main service breaker panel.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the “at least one main panel breaker” in Claim 6 refers to the “at least one main service breaker panel” in Claim 1, or another structure.
Claim 7 recites “the output cable of the panel and the input cable of the main service breaker” in lines 4-5. This limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, there is no prior recitation of “an output cable” or “an input cable.” Therefore, these terms lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 further recites “a meter” in line 6 and “the meter” in line 7. It is unclear whether this meter is the same or different than the meter for monitoring revenue recited in Claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the position that the claim amendments overcome the objections of record are largely persuasive. One outstanding objection remains, as described above.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the position that the claim amendments overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of record are largely persuasive. Some outstanding rejections remain, as described above.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are presented herein. These rejections are necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the position that the claim amendments overcome the prior art rejections of record are persuasive. These rejections are withdrawn.
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 SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights