DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits 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.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 2 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/2/2026.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0130281 A1: This reference teaches a solar canopy with management circuitry (Fig. 1).
U.S. Patent 9,347,689 B1: This reference teaches a solar canopy with management circuitry (Figs. 1-2).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 5-6 each comprise multiple first-line capitalizations. Please ensure that the only capitalized letters in the claim are the first letter of the claims, appropriate mathematical terms, and acronyms. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 safety solar system for fuel canopy.” This limitation is indefinite, because the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. It is unclear what a “safety solar system” or a “fuel canopy” are.
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 “the solar panels of Claim 1” in its preamble. This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 is directed toward a safety system for a fuel canopy. Therefore, the metes and bounds of Claim 3 are unclear, because it is unclear whether Claim 3 refers to a different invention than Claim 1, or merely comprises limitations that further limit the solar panels of Claim 1.
The Examiner recommends amending Claim 3 to recite “The system of Claim 1, wherein the solar panels …”
Claim 3 further recites “a suitable cable such as 6 AWG” in line 2. This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear whether a 6AWG cable is required by Claim 3, or what types of cable are “suitable” in Claim 3.
Claim 3 further 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 “the microinverters of Claim 1” in its preamble. This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 is directed toward a safety system for a fuel canopy. Therefore, the metes and bounds of Claim 4 are unclear, because it is unclear whether Claim 4 refers to a different invention than Claim 1, or merely comprises limitations that further limit the microinverters of Claim 1.
The Examiner recommends amending Claim 4 to recite “The system of Claim 1, wherein the microinverters comprise …”
Claim 4 further 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 based on the size and need of the project.” This limitation is indefinite, because there is no prior recitation of “a project” in Claims 1 or 4. Therefore, the term “the project” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further, the metes and bounds of Claim 4 are indefinite, because it is unclear how many microinverters and/or solar panels are required by Claim 4.
Claim 5 recites “the combiner boxes of Claim 1” in its preamble. This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 is directed toward a safety system for a fuel canopy. Therefore, the metes and bounds of Claim 5 are unclear, because it is unclear whether Claim 5 refers to a different invention than Claim 1, or merely comprises limitations that further limit the combiner boxes of Claim 1.
The Examiner recommends amending the preamble of Claim 5 to recite “The system of Claim 1, …”
Claim 5 further recites “said combiner boxes further comprising: A box…” This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear whether the recited “a box” is part of one or more of the “said combiner boxes,” or a separate structure.
Claim 5 further recites “said distribution blocks allowing a safer wiring port than using wire nuts or similar securements.” The metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite, because it is unclear what structural features are required by this limitation.
Claim 5 recites “the distribution block” in line 11. This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 5 includes a prior recitation of “distribution blocks.” Therefore, it is unclear to which of these distribution blocks are referred in line 11.
Claim 6 recites “the AC panels of Claim 1” in its preamble. This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 is directed toward a safety system for a fuel canopy. Therefore, the metes and bounds of Claim 6 are unclear, because it is unclear whether Claim 6 refers to a different invention than Claim 1, or merely comprises limitations that further limit the AC panels of Claim 1.
The Examiner recommends amending the preamble of Claim 6 to recite “The system of Claim 1, …”
Claim 6 further recites “said panels” in line 1. This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 recites AC panels and solar panels. Therefore, it is unclear to which “panels” are referred by the limitation “said panels” in line 1.
Claim 6 recites “the circuit breaker panels” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because there is no prior recitation of “circuit breaker panels” in Claim 6.
Claim 6 recites “a circuit breaker panel” in line 10. This limitation is indefinite, because there is a prior recitation of “circuit breaker panels” in line 4. Therefore, it is unclear to which panel is referred in line 10.
Claim 6 further recites “at least one main panel breaker” in lines 10-11. 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 lines 10-11 of Claim 6 refers to the “at least one main service breaker panel” in Claim 1, or another structure.
Claim 6 further recites “the input cables from the container boxes” in lines 13-14. This limitation is indefinite, because there is no prior recitation of “input cables” or “container boxes.” Therefore, the metes and bounds of Claim 6 are indefinite.
Claim 6 further recites “the output cables” in line 14. This limitation is indefinite, because there is no prior recitation of “output cables.” Therefore, the metes and bounds of Claim 6 are indefinite.
Claim 6 is further unclear, because Claim 6 recites “an open ac panel top” in line 2 and “said led brace further comprising…having an open and a closed position” in lines 8-9. Therefore, the final structure of the “panel box” in Claim 6 is unclear, because it is unclear how the box can have the claimed open panel top, while the lid is in the closed position.
Claim 6 further recites “the lid securing brackets” in lines 7-8. This limitation is indefinite, because there is no prior recitation of “lid securing brackets” in Claim 6.
Claim 7 recites “the AC panels of Claim 1” in its preamble. This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 is directed toward a safety system for a fuel canopy. Therefore, the metes and bounds of Claim 7 are unclear, because it is unclear whether Claim 7 refers to a different invention than Claim 1, or merely comprises limitations that further limit the AC panels of Claim 1.
The Examiner recommends amending the preamble of Claim 7 to recite “The system of Claim 1, …”
Claim 7 further recites “the main service breaker panel” in line 1. This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 recites “at least one main service breaker panel.” Therefore, it is unclear to which main service breaker panel is referred by Claim 7.
Claim 7 recites “the output cable of the panel and the input cable of the main service breaker” in lines 3-4. 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.
Further, the limitation “the panel” in line 3 is indefinite, because it is unclear to which panel is referred by this limitation.
Claim 8 recites “the at least one main service breaker panel of Claim 1” in its preamble. This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 is directed toward a safety system for a fuel canopy. Therefore, the metes and bounds of Claim 8 are unclear, because it is unclear whether Claim 8 refers to a different invention than Claim 1, or merely comprises limitations that further limit the at least one main service breaker panel of Claim 1.
The Examiner recommends amending the preamble of Claim 8 to recite “The system of Claim 1, …”
Claim 8 further recites “the main service breaker” in lines 6 and 8. This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 recites “at least one main service breaker panel.” Therefore, it is unclear to which main service breaker panel is referred by Claim 8.
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.
Claim 8 further recites “a main disconnect switch” in line 8. This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 also recites “at least one main disconnect switch.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the switch in Claim 8 is the same as/different than the switch in Claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyden (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0044453 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, it is noted that Claim 1 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Lyden teaches a safety solar system for fuel canopy, i.e. a solar system comprising solar panels arranged above the ground (Fig. 22, with details given in Figs. 1 and 16-17, paragraphs [0210], [0158] and [0203]-[0204]).
The system of Lyden comprises a plurality of solar panels, corresponding to the solar panels 149 (Fig. 22, paragraph [0210]) and solar panels 28 (which are part of the solar tree structures 30, with details given in Fig. 1, paragraph [0158]).
The system of Lyden does not necessarily comprise a plurality of microinverters.
However, he teaches that the system of his invention may be suitably modified to comprise a microinverter on each solar panel (paragraphs [0177]-[0178]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the system of Lyden to comprise a microinverter on each solar panel 28, because he teaches that this is a suitable configuration for the system of his invention (paragraphs [0177]-[0178]).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the system comprises a plurality of microinverters.
The system of Lyden does not necessarily comprise a plurality of combiner boxes.
However, he teaches that the system of his invention may suitably comprise a plurality of combiners (paragraphs [0179] and [0183]), and that combiners may suitably include combiner boxes (paragraph [0179]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the system of Lyden to comprise a plurality of combiner boxes, because he teaches that this is a suitable configuration for the system of his invention (paragraphs [0179] and [0183]).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the system comprises a plurality of combiner boxes.
Lyden teaches that each “tree” of the array of his invention comprises a panel on its base, through which the status of the interior electrical components can be viewed (Fig. 17, paragraph [0204]). Lyden further teaches that the panel allows viewing of the state of an AC device, i.e. the inverter 91 (Fig. 17, paragraph [0204]).
Therefore, because the system of Lyden comprises a plurality of the “trees,” (Fig. 22), it is the Examiner’s position that the system of Lyden comprises a “a plurality of AC panels.”
Alternatively, Lyden teaches that the arrays of his invention may be suitably connected to a power grid using an AC panel like that shown in Fig. 18 (paragraph [0205]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the system of Lyden with a plurality of the panels of Fig. 18, because (1) he teaches that the system of Fig. 22 is coupled to one or more conventional power grids (paragraph [0210]), and (2) he teaches that the system of Fig. 18 is suitable for connecting the solar arrays of his invention to a power grid (paragraph [0205]).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the system comprises a plurality of AC panels.
This modification further teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the system comprises at least one main service breaker panel (i.e. the circuit breakers 144 in Fig. 18).
Alternatively, Lyden further teaches that each solar “tree” of his invention comprises circuit breakers (Fig, 16, paragraph [203]). Therefore, the base of one of these trees meets the limitations of a “main circuit breaker panel,” because it is a structure comprising circuit breakers.
Lyden teaches that the system of his invention comprises a meter for monitoring revenue, corresponding to the electric vending machine 148 (Fig. 22, described in paragraph [0222]).
Lyden teaches that the system of his invention comprises at least one main disconnect switch (i.e. the ground fault switch taught to be in each “tree,” paragraph [0203]).
In reference to Claim 3, it is noted that Claim 3 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Lyden teaches that the solar panels of his invention are connected to the microinverters to convert the DC electrical energy to AC electrical energy (paragraph [0178]).
Lyden also teaches that the solar panels of his invention are wired to power cords 67 (paragraph [0195], Fig. 10).
Therefore, Lyden teaches that the solar panels are wired to a suitable cable.
Lyden also teaches that one solar cell of his invention produces 17 volts x 5-6 amperes = 85-102 V-A, and that each array/”tree” of his invention comprises 32 fronds (paragraph [0257]). Lyden further teaches that the modules in a “tree” of his invention can be connected in series (paragraph [0174]), to produce additive voltage effects. Therefore, the volt-amperes produced by a single “tree” is 32 x 17 volts x 5-6 amperes = 2720-3264 V-A.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the cables/power cords of the system of Lyden to be able of handling 2720-3264 VA, because he teaches that this is a typical output for the arrays of his invention.
Forming the cables/power cords of the system of Lyden to be able of handling 2720-3264 V-A teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the cable is capable of at least 1650 Volt-amperes (V-A).
In reference to Claim 4, it is noted that Claim 4 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Lyden teaches that each solar panel comprises its own microinverter (paragraphs [0177]-[0178]), as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the microinverters comprise a 1-1 basis for combining 1 solar panel into a single microinverter based on the size and need of the project.
In reference to Claim 7, it is noted that Claim 7 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Lyden teaches that the AC panels of claim are wired to the main service breaker panel by suitable wire that is capable of supporting the panels' input electrical power (Fig. 18).
Fig. 10 of Lyden teaches that the panels have a cable extension 115 with a sealed fitting on either end near the output cable of the panel (i.e. seal 83, paragraph [0196]) and the input cable of the main service breaker (i.e. connector 141, paragraph [0195]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyden (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0044453 A1), in view of Debone, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0054490 A1 and Lindsey (U.S. Patent 4,667,840).
In reference to Claim 5, it is noted that Claim 5 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Lyden teaches that the microinverters of his invention are connected to the combiner boxes (paragraphs [0179] and [0183]).
Lyden is silent regarding the structure of the combiner boxes of his invention. Therefore, he does not teach the remaining limitations of Claim 5.
To solve the same problem of providing a combiner box for a photovoltaic array, Debone teaches a combiner box comprising a box 7 (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0038]-[0047]).
Debone teaches that the box 7 further comprises a box floor having an inner box surface and a plurality of attachment holes 23 (Fig. 2, paragraph [0038]).
Debone teaches that the box 7 further comprises four lateral box sides (Fig. 2).
Debone teaches that the box 7 further comprises a plurality of distribution blocks 17.
It is the Examiner’s position that, because these distribution blocks meet the structural limitations of the distribution blocks recited in Claim 5, they meet the functional limitations of “allowing a safer wiring port than using wire nuts or similar securement.”
Debone teaches that the box 7 further comprises an attachment bracket (i.e. an attachment plate 21) fastened to the box floor (Fig. 2, paragraph [0038]).
Fig. 2 of Debone shows that the combiner box comprises a plurality of lid fasteners and fastening holes, and a lid.
Debone teaches that the combiner box of his invention provides the benefit of reducing incorrect readings of energy output and consumption (paragraph [0002]) because it incorporates noise filtering items 24 (paragraph [0041]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have configured the combiner boxes of Lyden to have the form of the combiner boxes of Debone, in order to realize the taught benefit of reducing incorrect readings of energy output and consumption from the combiner boxes.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the combiner boxes comprise: a box, further comprising: a box floor having an inner box surface and a plurality of attachment holes; Four lateral box sides; a plurality of distribution blocks and an attachment bracket fastened to the box floor, said distribution blocks allowing a safer wiring port than using wire nuts or similar securements; and a plurality of lid fasteners and fastening holes.
Lyden in view of Debone does not teach that the box/the combiner boxes of his invention comprise fire-retardant clay, said clay used to cover the distribution blocks and provide fireproofing in case of an arc from overloading of the distribution block.
To solve the same problem of providing an electrical junction box, Lindsey teaches an electrical junction box in which the housing is molded from a composition comprising a fire retardant clay (column 4, lines 35-62).
Lindsey further teaches that the molding composition for the electrical junction box of his invention provides the benefit of being fire-resistant (column 4, lines 37-39).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the body of the combiner box of modified Lyden from the fire-retardant clay composition of Lindsey, because Lindsey teaches that this is a suitable composition for forming the body of a box comprising electrical junction materials, and that Lindsey further teaches that the composition of his invention is fire-resistant.
Forming the body of the combiner box of modified Lyden from the fire-retardant clay composition of Lindsey teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the box comprises fire-retardant clay, said clay used to cover the distribution blocks and provide fireproofing in case of an arc from overloading of the distribution block.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyden (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0044453 A1), in view of Baggio, et al. (U.S. Patent 4,546,418), and Millan Perez, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0220667 A1).
In reference to Claim 6, it is noted that Claim 6 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Lyden teaches that the AC panels shown in Fig. 18 comprise a panel box.
Lyden is silent regarding the structure of the panel box. Therefore, he does not teach the remaining limitations of Claim 6.
To solve the same problem of providing an AC panel box, Baggio teaches an AC panel box (Figs. 1-4, column 3, line 7, through column 5, line 60).
The AC panel box of Baggio comprises an ac panel floor (indicated in the inset below), an open ac panel top having a top panel edge (indicated in the inset below), four later ac panel walls (one of which is indicated in the inset below), a raised lip around the top panel edge (indicated in the inset below), and a plurality of fastener holes for attaching the circuit breaker panels with a plurality of circuit breaker panel fasteners (as indicated in the inset of Fig. 4 below).
The AC panel box of Baggio further comprises a lid 21 having a lid brace (i.e. the tab portion connected the box 20 with screw 28, Fig. 4, column 3, line 63, through column 4, line 35).
The AC panel box of Baggio further comprises a top panel 27 (Figs. 3-4, column 5, lines 10-30).
The AC panel box of Baggio further comprises a lid lip 55 to interlock with the raised lip (indicated in the inset below, column 3, lines 64-67).
The AC panel box of Baggio comprises a plurality of lid locking tabs (indicated in the inset below) to receive lid securing brackets 52/51 (Figs. 3-4, column 3, lines 52-62).
Figs. 1-4 of Baggio teach that the lid brace further comprises a pivotally attached section wall having an open and a closed position (Figs. 1-4).
The AC panel box of Baggio comprises a circuit breaker panel having a plurality of panel breakers 25-26, one of which is construed as the main panel breaker (Figs. 2-3, column 4, lines 15-20)
The AC panel box of Baggio further comprises a plurality of lid securing brackets 52/51 (Figs. 3-4, column 3, lines 52-62).
The AC panel box of Baggio further comprises a plurality of cable holes 28/29, said cable holes having edges allowing (i.e. structurally capable of allowing) input cables from container boxes and output cables running to the main service breaker panel (Figs. 2-4, column 3, lines 50-62).
Baggio teaches that the AC box of his invention provides the benefits of including a lighting structure that provides illumination to the components when the cover is opened (column 5, line 60, through column 6, line 6).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the AC panel of Lyden to have a case with the form of that of Baggio, based on Baggio’s disclosure that the case of his invention provides the benefits of including a lighting structure that provides illumination to the components when the cover is opened (column 5, line 60, through column 6, line 6).
Modified Lyden does not teach that the cable holes have gaps between the edges and the cables that are filled with fire-retardant clay.
To solve the same problem of providing electrical components, Millan Perez teaches an insulating composition suitable for insulating electrical wiring (Abstract) that comprises clay (paragraph [0021]) and provides the benefit of low smoke emission and good electrical insulation (paragraph [0013]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the AC panel of modified Lyden so that any gaps between any cabling and openings in the box are filled with the fire retarding clay composition of Millan Perez, based on Millan Perez’s disclosure that the compositions of his invention provide the benefits of low smoke emission and good electrical insulation (paragraph [0013]).
PNG
media_image1.png
741
1073
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyden (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0044453 A1), in view of De Torre (U.S. Patent 3,932,825) and Schroeder, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0288326 A1).
In reference to Claim 8, it is noted that Claim 8 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Lyden teaches that the at least one main service breaker panel comprises a plurality of main circuit breakers 144 (paragraph [0205]). It is the Examiner’s position that, because these circuit breakers are connected to the solar array (Fig.18, they meet the limitations of being “for each panel in the system.”
Lyden teaches that the at least one main service breaker panel comprises a main box with a door panel 108 (Fig. 18).
Lyden teaches that the at least one main service breaker panel comprises a surge protection device (paragraph [0205]).
Lyden teaches that the at least one main service breaker panel comprises a meter 93 spliced into the main service breaker.
Lyden shows that the meter 93 is connected to the main service breaker panel (Fig. 18). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the meter has sufficient power to function, and therefore meets the limitations that the meter has “a power supply sufficient to support the meter.”
Lyden teaches that the at least one main service breaker panel comprises a main disconnect switch 94 (i.e. an AC disconnect), said switch wired to the main service breaker (paragraph [0205]).
Lyden is silent regarding the structure of the circuit breakers. Therefore, he does not teach that each has a rating of at least 100 A and 3 pole.
To solve the same problem of providing circuit breakers in a main circuit breaker panel, De Torre teaches that 3-pole, 100A rated circuit breakers are suitable and conventional in such panels (column 7, lines 43-48). This disclosure would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using such circuit breakers in the panel of Lyden.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used 3-pole, 100A rated circuit breakers in the panel of Lyden, based on the disclosure of De Torre.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein the main circuit breakers each having a rating of at least 100 A and 3 poles.
Lyden is silent regarding the structure of the AC disconnect 94. Therefore, he does not teach that it comprises a single throw switch that can support 240 AC voltage.
To solve the same problem of providing an AC disconnect for a photovoltaic array, Schroeder teaches that a throw switch is suitable for use as an AC disconnect in such a system (paragraph [0079]) and that AC service from a grid is 240V (paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the AC disconnect of Lyden to be a throw switch that can support 240 VAC, based on the disclosure of Schroeder.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein the main service breaker panel comprises a main disconnect switch comprising a single throw switch that can support 240 AC voltage.
Conclusion
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