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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/12/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The art rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New analysis follows.
Claim Interpretation
The claims have recitations of “a drop line cable”, comprising a “first drop line” and a “second drop line”. The phrase “drop line cable” is not used in the specification as originally filed. The concept of a drop line cable comprising more than one drop line seems to be best illustrated in Fig. 35 of the instant drawings. A skilled artisan would understand that the element 12, labeled a “drop line”, is a continuous wire, or “conductive core”, surrounded by insulation, with two portions which extend in opposing directions away from a region of electrical interconnection.
Independent claims 7 and 14 recite “the feeder cable configured to electrically couple to an inverter without an intervening combiner box”. The claims are drawn to a lead assembly; the “configured to” language supports an interpretation that the claims are not requiring an inverter. The intended use limitation is interpreted in light of the instant application. Instant Figures 1 and 2, and the associated text on p. 1-2 of the instant specification, discuss configurations including a combiner box. Instant Figures 3 and 4, and the associated text on p. 6, illustrate how the inclusion of wire harness connectors which accommodate connections to wire harnesses and feeder cable connectors which accommodate connections to the feeder cable render an intervening combiner box unnecessary, Therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand “the feeder cable configured to electrically couple to an inverter without an intervening combiner box” is a limitation that can be performed by a lead assembly with the claimed structure.
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 7, 8, 10-17, 19, 20, and 22-26 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.
Newly amended claim 7 recites that the feeder cable has at least one inlet, wherein the at least one feeder cable inlet is electrically interconnected to a drop line cable. The term “inlet” is not recited in the disclosure as originally filed. As is best seen in instant Figures 18 and 37, an “exposed wire” 18, which is part of a feeder cable electrically connects to a drop line cable. A skilled artisan would not understand, even when read in light of the disclosure, how the exposed wire portion of the feeder cable is an “inlet”. In other words, does “inlet” represent only a portion of the feeder cable, and which part of the feeder cable is not inlet? As best as the examiner can determine from the context of the claim, Applicant intends for “inlet” to represent only the portion of the feeder cable that is within the mold structure. However, since the specification is silent as to the scope of “inlet”, if this is indeed the intended scope of “inlet”, the examiner suggests further limiting language.
Claim 7 recites “the mold structure has an opening through which the drop line cable enters and only a single distinct outlet opening through which the feeder cable exits”. The scopes of “opening” and “outlet opening” are not clear. Neither “outlet” nor “opening” are found in the specification as originally filed. Figure 12 of the instant drawings (similar to Figures 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26) illustrate elements that may be interpreted as an opening; that is, the cylindrical hollow volume of the mold structure (extending into the page in the frame of the cited Figures) through which the feeder cable both enters and exits the mold structure and the smaller diameter tube-shaped hollow volume through which the drop line cable enters the mold structure. However, as both an “opening through which the drop line cable enters” and an “outlet opening through which the feeder cable exits” are claimed, and the use of the term “inlet” used prior in the claim, confuses the interpretation. Are the “opening” and the “outlet opening” only the circular projections of the hollow volume formed at one and another end of the mold structure? In that case, there are two outlet openings through which the feeder cable exits. Or is “outlet opening” implying that there is also a distinct, unclaimed inlet opening? Claim 14 also recites this language, and is similarly indefinite.
Claim 7 recites that the drop line cable comprises a first drop line that extends away from the mold structure and a second drop line that extends in a different second direction. That reads on the embodiment shown in Figure 29. How can this be accommodated in conjunction with “only a single, distinct outlet opening through which the feeder cable exits”?
Claims 8, 10-13, 15-17, 19, 20, and 22-26 are also rejected based on their respective dependence from claims 7 and 14.
Claims 15 and 20 recite “the one or more mold structures” several times. These limitations lack antecedent basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7, 8, 10-17, 19, 20, and 22-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The indefiniteness of the claims has precluded their comparison with the prior art. However, should the claims be clarified, they may still be rejectable over prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights