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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/13/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The rejection under 112(b) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The double patenting rejection over US 12,015,376 and copending Application No. 19/021,810 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The remaining art rejections are revised to incorporate new claim limitations.
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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0139733 to Jonczyk (of record).
Regarding claims 14-17 and 20, Jonczyk teaches a lead assembly for electrically coupling one or more drop lines to a feeder cable, the lead assembly comprising
A feeder cable (unlabeled in Fig. 9, 52 in Fig. 2) having a first diameter (8 AWG; ¶0025, 0028, 0032, 0037)
A drop line cable (56 in Fig. 2) having a second diameter (10 AWG or 12 AWG) different than the first diameter, per claim 19 smaller than the first diameter, the drop line cable including a first drop line that terminates at a first drop line connector (66 in Fig. 1)
One or more mold structures 172 disposed about and enclosing a region of electrical interconnection between the feeder cable and the drop line cable (¶0031)
Wherein, in the region of electrical interconnection, at least a portion of the drop line cable extends in a direction along a longitudinal axis (left-right in the frame of Fig. 9) that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of at least a portion of the feeder cable.
The assembly further comprises a feeder cable connector (unlabeled in Fig. 9, 74 in Fig. 2, ¶0027). The limitation that the feeder cable is configured to electrically couple the feeder cable to an inverter without an intervening combiner box is an intended use limitation. Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The claim is not interpreted as requiring an inverter. A skilled artisan would understand that the electrical current carrying lead assembly is capable of fulfilling such a use.
Per claim 15, Jonczyk teaches the limitations of claim 14. The feeder cable extends continuously through the one or more mold structures 172 such that the feeder cable extends out of and away from the one or more mold structures in one direction and out of and away from the one or more mold structures in an opposite direction (Fig. 9). The drop line cable includes one end (coincident with 30) that terminates within the one or more mold structures 172.
Per claim 16, Jonczyk teaches the limitations of claim 14. In the region of electrical interconnection, the drop line cable includes a section of exposed wire (coincident with 30; see Fig. 4), and the feeder cable includes a section of exposed wire.
Per claim 17, Jonczyk teaches the limitations of claim 14. In the region of electrical interconnection, the drop line cable is coupled to the feeder cable using a crimp (¶0025, 0026).
Per claim 20, Jonczyk teaches the limitations of claim 14. The one or more mold structures 172 include an overmold that surrounds the region of electrical interconnection. The limitation that the overmold is injection molded is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Per claims 25 and 26, Jonczyk teaches the limitations of claim 14. The limitation that “the feeder cable is configured to be coupled directly to a disconnect box” is an intended use limitation; the claim is not interpreted to require a disconnect box. Further, the limitation is interpreted in light of the instant disclosure. P. 7 of the instant specification recites that a feeder cable with a feeder cable connector is configured to connect to a disconnect unit. As Jonczyk’s feeder cable has a feeder cable connector, it is interpreted as being capable of being configured to be coupled directly to a disconnect box.
As the claim is not recited as requiring a disconnect box, the electrical coupling of the disconnect box to other elements is also not required. Based on the cited passages of the instant disclosure, Jonczyk’s feeder cable is capable of being connected to a disconnect box that is otherwise connected in the manner described in claim 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2008-187814A to Chugoku (machine translation relied upon herein, document and translation of record), and further in view of US 6,265,665 to Zahnen (of record).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 10 and 22-24, Chugoku teaches a lead assembly for electrically coupling one or more drop lines to a feeder cable, the lead assembly comprising
A feeder cable 201 comprising a conductive core (shown at 201a in Figs. 2, 4) and insulation (“sheath”/”cover” on p. 2 of the translation; a skilled artisan would understand such an element is either necessarily insulating, or it would have been obvious to form the sheath as insulation for safety), wherein the feeder cable has a first diameter (best seen in Fig. 2, p. 5, 6 of translation)
A drop line cable 113, wherein the drop line cable terminates at a first drop line connector 112a at a first end of the drop line cable and at a second drop line connector 112b at a second end of the drop line cable, the drop line cable comprises a conductive core (shown at 111) and insulation, and the drop line cable has a second diameter that is different than, and, per claim 10, smaller than the first diameter (relative size of cables 113 and 201 seen in side view of Fig. 4; MPEP §2125)
A mold structure (“cover with a waterproof insulating gel” described at top of p. 2 of translation, bottom half of p. 6 of translation) that encapsulates a region of electrical interconnection between the feeder cable 201 and the drop line cable 113 (region within dashed area of Fig. 4), a first drop line of the drop line cable extending in a first direction from the mold structure and a second drop line of the drop line cable extending in a different second direction from the mold structure
Wherein at least a portion of the drop line cable 113 and at least a portion of the feeder cable 201 extend parallel to one another within the region of electrical interconnection (Figs. 2, 4, MPEP §2125).
The structure of the mold structure is not detailed. Zahnen teaches a mold similar to that as described in Chugoku, formed around a similar joint and encapsulating a nexus (Figs. 1-3). Zahnen’s mold structure comprises a volume which is filled with waterproof insulating gel (18) except where excluded by the cables and nexus (Figs. 9-11, C3/L51-C4/L49, C6/L66-C7/L34). Zahnen’s mold also teaches distinct openings through which similar cables/lines exit the mold structure (Fig. 1 shows cables 24, 26 received in similarly shaped cutouts of the mold structure). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the mold structure described by Zahnen about Chugoku’s joint to avoid packaging and shipping difficulties (C1/L58-65).
As such, a skilled artisan would understand that the mold structure of modified-Chugoku would have distinct openings through which the drop line cable and the feeder cable exit the mold structure.
While Chugoku does not explicitly illustrate a feeder cable connector at an end of the feeder cable, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a feeder cable connector, as such connectors (such as 112a in Fig. 1) allow for the transmission of electricity between elements (see cited passages of Chugoku). The limitation that the feeder cable connector is configured to electrically couple the feeder cable to an inverter without an intervening combiner box is an intended use limitation. Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The claim is not interpreted as requiring an inverter. A skilled artisan would understand that the electrical current carrying lead assembly is capable of fulfilling such a use.
Per claim 8, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 7. In the region of electrical interconnection (Figs. 2, 4 of Chugoku), the drop line cable 113 is coupled to the feeder cable 201 using a crimp (p. 5 of translation: “The conductor 201a of the trunk cable 201 and the connecting portion 111 of the branching member 100A are compressed and connected together by a C-type sleeve (C-type connector) 203.”).
Per claim 22, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 7. The mold structure of modified-Chugoku, as illustrated by Zahnen comprises an overmold (10 of Figs. 1-3).
Per claims 23 and 24, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 7. The limitation that “the feeder cable is configured to be coupled directly to a disconnect box” is an intended use limitation; the claim is not interpreted to require a disconnect box. Further, the limitation is interpreted in light of the instant disclosure. P. 7 of the instant specification recites that a feeder cable with a feeder cable connector is configured to connect to a disconnect unit. As modified-Chugoku’s feeder cable has a feeder cable connector, it is interpreted as being capable of being configured to be coupled directly to a disconnect box.
As the claim is not recited as requiring a disconnect box, the electrical coupling of the disconnect box to other elements is also not required. Based on the cited passages of the instant disclosure, modified-Chugoku’s feeder cable is capable of being connected to a disconnect box that is otherwise connected in the manner described in claim 26.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chugoku and Zahnen as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 2013/0269746 to Ramsey (of record).
Regarding claim 11, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 7. A skilled artisan would understand that a gauge of wire is a thickness or diameter of wire. Chugoku does not explicitly recite a thickness of the wire of the drop line cable. However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the gauge of the wire of the drop line cable, as Ramsey teaches that a gauge of wire can be varied according to the expected current being carried on the wire (¶0005, 0008, 0009, 0025).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 12, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 7. Chugoku does not explicitly recite a thickness or size of the wire of the feeder cable. However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the gauge of the wire of the feeder cable, as Ramsey teaches that a gauge of wire can be varied according to the expected current being carried on the wire (¶0005, 0008, 0009, 0025).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 13, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 7. Chugoku does not explicitly recite a current rating of the feeder cable. However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the cross-sectional area of the feeder cable in order to support more current on the cable (¶0002-0005, 0008, 0009, 0025).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
A skilled artisan would understand that the claimed current rating of the feeder cable is an obvious result of such variation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the intended use of “the feeder cable configured to electrically couple to an inverter without an intervening combiner box” is not merely an intended use limitation, but also a structural one. The examiner agrees that intended use limitations also limit structure. Indeed, as discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, the examiner considers the instant disclosure when interpreting whether the prior art is capable of being configured for the intended use. 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.
In other words, the structure implied by the cited intended use does not exclude Jonczyk, or the combination involving Chugoku, from performing the intended use. Applicant argues that the limitation necessarily requires additional structural features be explicitly excluded: “multiple branch terminations, busbar interfaces”. However, this is neither supported by the specification as originally filed nor supported by independent evidence; therefore this exclusion is considered an argument of counsel. [A]rguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). MPEP §2145.
The evidence presented in the instant application suggests that a lead assembly with the claimed structural limitations is capable of performing the cited intended use. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
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 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