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
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2008-187814A to Chugoku (included in Applicant’s IDS filed 4/28/2025, machine translation, made of record in co-pending application 18/739,127, relied upon herein).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11, 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 (shown as 201a in Figs. 2, 4) having a first diameter (best seen in Fig. 2, p. 5, 6, of translation)
A drop line cable 113 having a second diameter different from, and per claim 7, smaller than the first diameter (relative size of cables 113 and 201 seen in side view of Fig. 4; MPEP §2125), the drop line cable comprising
A first drop line configured to terminate at a first drop line connector 112a, the first drop line connector configured to be capable of detachable connection (holes 114 receive bolts)
A second drop line configured to terminate at a second drop line connector 112b
A mold structure (“cover with a waterproof insulating gel” described at top of p. 2 of translation, bottom half of p. 6 of translation), disposed about and enclosing a region of electrical interconnection between the feeder cable 201 and the drop line cable 113 (region within dashed area of Fig. 4)
Wherein, in the region of electrical interconnection, at least a portion of the drop line cable 113 extends along a longitudinal axis that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of at least a portion of the feeder cable 201.
The limitation that the first drop line connector is configured to be capable of detachable connection to a wire harness having a plurality of branches that are each configured to receive electrical power generated by a corresponding photovoltaic (PV) panel resulting in combined electrical power at the first drop line connector” is an intended use limitation; the claim is not interpreted as specifically reciting wire harness or PV panel. 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 reference clearly teaches that the drop line connector is capable of detachable connection to electric current-carrying elements.
Per claim 2, Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 1. The feeder cable 201 extends continuously through the mold structure (mold structure coincident with dashed region of Fig. 4) such that the feeder cable extends out of and away from the mold structure in one direction and out of and away from the mold structure in an opposite direction.
Per claim 3, Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 1. The drop line cable 113 includes a section of exposed wire 111 (Figs. 2, 4) and the feeder cable 201 includes a section of exposed wire 201a.
Per claim 4, Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 1. In the region of electrical connection (Fig. 2, coincident with dashed box in Fig. 4), the first drop line 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 6, Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 1. In the region of electrical interconnection (Fig. 2, coincident with dashed box in Fig. 4), at least a portion of the first drop line is arranged parallel to at least a portion of the feeder cable 201 (MPEP §2125).
Regarding claim 8, Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 1. The limitation that the lead assembly is configured to combine, in the feeder cable, combined electrical power received through the first and second drop line connectors of the first and second drop lines and to deliver the combined electrical power to an inverter that is in electrical communication with the feeder cable 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.
Regarding claim 11, Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 1. The mold structure surrounds the region of electrical interconnection, and is described by Chugoku as a “cover with a waterproof insulating gel” (p. 2 of translation, bottom half of p. 6 of translation). A skilled artisan would understand that the cover reads on an overmold, as it is formed over the 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).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chugoku as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chugoku does not explicitly illustrate a feeder cable connector at an end 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 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.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chugoku as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0269746 to Ramsey (included in Applicant’s 4/28/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 1. 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 10, Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 1. 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.).
Claim(s) 14-19, 21-36, and 38-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chugoku, and further in view of US 6,265,665 to Zahnen (included in Applicant’s 4/28/2025 IDS).
Regarding claims 14-19, 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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art 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, comprising at least one drop line, wherein the drop line terminates at a drop line connector 112a, 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 17 is smaller than, the first diameter of the feeder cable 201
A mold structure (“cover with a waterproof insulating gel” described at top of p. 2 of translation, bottom half of p. 6 of translation) disposed about and enclosing a region of electrical interconnection between the feeder cable 201 and the drop line cable 113 (region within dashed area of Fig. 4)
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 region of electrical interconnection (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 region of electrical interconnection (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 region of electrical interconnection to avoid packaging and shipping difficulties (C1/L58-65). As such, a skilled artisan would understand that the structure of modified-Chugoku would have distinct openings through which the drop line cable and the feeder cable exit the mold structure.
Per claim 15, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 14. The feeder cable 201 extends continuously through the mold structure such that the feeder cable extends out of and away from the mold structure in one direction and out of and away from the mold structure in an opposite direction (Fig. 4, MPEP §2125).
Per claim 16, Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 14. In the region of electrical connection (Fig. 2, coincident with dashed box in Fig. 4), the first drop line 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 18, Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 14. The mold structure surrounds the region of electrical interconnection, and is described by Chugoku as a “cover with a waterproof insulating gel” (p. 2 of translation, bottom half of p. 6 of translation). A skilled artisan would understand that the cover reads on an overmold, as it is formed over the 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 claim 19, Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 14. Chugoku teaches that the drop line comprises a first drop line (extending towards the left in Fig. 1, for instance) and the drop line connector 112a comprises a first drop line connector. The assembly further comprises a second drop line (extending towards the right in Fig. 1) and a second drop line connector 112b).
The claim recites several intended use limitations, including “the first drop line connector is configured to connect to a first central trunk of a first wire harness, the first drop line connector and the first drop line are configured to electrically couple the first solar array to the feeder cable”, “the second drop line connector is configured to connect to a second central trunk of a second wire harness”, and “the second drop line connector and the second drop line are configured to electrically couple the second solar array to the feeder cable”. The claim is not interpreted as reciting a (first, second) wire harness comprising a (first, second) central trunk, a plurality of branches of the (first, second) wire harness coupled to a different one of a (first, second) plurality of photovoltaic (PV) panels, the (first, second) plurality of PV panels electrically coupled by the (first, second) wire harness to form a (first, second) solar array.
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 reference clearly teaches that the drop lines, drop line connectors, and feeder cables are capable of detachable connection to electric current-carrying elements.
Regarding claims 21-32, Chugoku teaches a lead assembly for electrically coupling one or more drop lines to a feeder cable, the lead assembly comprising
A joint (within dashed area of Fig. 4) where a section of a feeder cable 201 and a section of a drop line cable 113 that includes one or more drop lines (on left and right sides of Fig. 1) can be electrically coupled at a nexus 203, the joint including the section of the feeder cable and the section of the drop line cable (p. 5, 6 of translation)
A mold that encapsulates the nexus 203 (“cover with a waterproof insulating gel” described at top of p. 2 of translation, bottom half of p. 6 of translation)
The drop line cable 113 includes a section of exposed wire 111 at the nexus 203 (Figs. 2, 4)
the feeder cable 201 includes a section of exposed wire 201a at the nexus 203
at least a portion of the section of exposed wire 111 of the drop line cable 113 is parallel to at least a portion of the section of exposed wire 201a of the feeder cable (Figs. 2, 4, MPEP §2125)
wherein at least a portion of the feeder cable 201 and at least a portion of the drop line cable 113 extend parallel to one another within the nexus 203.
The feeder cable 113 extends completely through the joint, and one of the one or more drop lines extend at least partially through the joint. The structure of the mold 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 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). 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 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 volume of the feeder cable of modified- Chugoku would exclude the material of the mold in a feeder pathway, the feeder cable extending completely through the mold via the feeder pathway, and that the volume of the drop line cable would exclude the material of the mold in a drop line cable pathway, the drop line cable extending completely through the mold structure via the drop line cable pathway, the drop line cable pathway including a first drop line pathway via which one of the one or more drop lines to extend partially through the mold.
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). As such, a skilled artisan would understand that the mold of modified-Chugoku would have distinct openings at ends of the feeder pathway and at at least one end of each of the one or more drop line pathways through which the feeder cable and the one or more drop lines exit the mold, respectively.
Claims 21, 23, 29, recite several intended use limitations, including “each of the one or more drop lines are configured to be capable of receiving electrical power from a plurality of solar panels for combination at the nexus to the feeder cable”, “the feeder cable is configured to directly conduct the combined electrical power received from the plurality of solar panels to an inverter electrically connected to the feeder cable”, and “the lead assembly is configured to combine electrical power received from the plurality of solar panels at the nexus and to deliver the combined electrical power to an inverter that is in electrical communication with the feeder cable”. The claims are not interpreted as reciting a plurality of solar panels or an inverter, .
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 reference clearly teaches that the drop lines, drop line connectors, and feeder cables are capable of detachable connection to electric current-carrying elements.
Per claim 22, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 21. The nexus 203 (Fig. 2, coincident with dashed box in Fig. 4) includes 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 24, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 21. The feeder pathway of modified-Chugoku is formed along a first longitudinal axis (Fig. 4, MPEP §2125), and the one or more drop line pathways are each formed along a longitudinal axis different from the first longitudinal axis.
Per claim 25, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 21. The feeder cable 201 has a first diameter, and the drop line cable 113 has a second diameter, wherein the second diameter is smaller than the first diameter (relative size of cables 113 and 201 seen in side view of Fig. 4; MPEP §2125).
Per claim 26, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 21. Chugoku teaches two drop lines (extending left and right in Figs. 1, 2), and therefore modified-Chugoku comprises two drop line pathways.
Per claims 27 and 28, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 21. Each of the one or more drop lines is configured to terminate at a drop line connector 112a, 112b (Fig. 1).
The limitation that each of the one or more drop line connectors is configured to connect to a wire harness that is configured to connect to a plurality of solar panels is an intended use limitation. The reference clearly teaches that the drop lines, drop line connectors, and feeder cables are capable of detachable connection to electric current-carrying elements.
Regarding claim 31, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 21. The mold is described by Chugoku as a “cover with a waterproof insulating gel” (p. 2 of translation, bottom half of p. 6 of translation). The limitation that the mold 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 claim 32, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 21. Chugoku does not teach that the mold comprises an undermold and an overmold encapsulating the undermold. Zahnen teaches that 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 a mold of an undermold (gel 18/20 of Figs. 1-3) encapsulated by an overmold (10) in order to achieve the previously recited benefits taught by Zahnen (see cited passages and Figs. above).
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).
Regarding claims 33-36, Chugoku teaches a lead assembly comprising
A joint (within dashed area of Fig. 4) where a section of a feeder cable 201 and a section of a drop line cable 113 are electrically coupled at a nexus 203, the drop line cable including two drop lines (on left and right sides of Fig. 1; p. 5, 6 of translation)
A mold that encapsulates the nexus 203 (“cover with a waterproof insulating gel” described at top of p. 2 of translation, bottom half of p. 6 of translation)
Wherein, in the nexus 203, at least a portion of the drop line cable 113 extends along a longitudinal axis that is parallel to at least a portion of the feeder cable 201 (Figs. 2, 4).
The feeder cable 113 extends completely through the joint, such that a first drop line of the two drop lines (either of the halves of line 113 on either side of nexus 203) extends partially through the joint and a second drop line of the two drop lines (the other half of 113) extends partially through the joint. The structure of the mold 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 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). 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 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 volume of the feeder cable of modified- Chugoku would exclude the material of the mold in a feeder pathway, the feeder cable extending completely through the mold via the feeder pathway, and that the volume of the drop line cable would exclude the material of the mold in a drop line cable pathway, the drop line cable extending completely through the mold structure via the drop line cable pathway, the drop line cable pathway including a first drop line pathway via which the first drop line extends partially through the mold and a second drop line pathway via which the second drop line extends partially through the mold.
Claims 33, 34, and 36 recite several intended use limitations, including “each of the two drop lines configured to connect to a different wire harness and configured to receive power from a plurality of solar panels”, “the feeder cable is configured to be directly electrically connected to a component selected from a group consisting of a trunk buss jumper, an inverter, a connection unit, a recombiner, and a disconnect unit”, “electrical power received from the plurality of solar panels is configured to be combined at the nexus and conducted directly to an inverter electrically connected to the feeder cable”. The claim is not interpreted as reciting different wire harnesses, a plurality of solar panels, a component, or an inverter.
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 reference clearly teaches that the drop lines, drop line connectors, and feeder cables are capable of detachable connection to electric current-carrying elements.
Per claim 35, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 33. Chugoku does not teach that the mold comprises a primary mold and a secondary mold encapsulating the primary mold. Zahnen teaches that 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 a mold of a primary mold (gel 18/20 of Figs. 1-3) encapsulated by a secondary mold (10), the primary mold forming an undermold-overmold interface at an outer surface of the primary mold (gel 18/20 fills mold 10 so that it touches an inner surface of the mold) in order to achieve the previously recited benefits taught by Zahnen (see cited passages and Figs. above).
Regarding claims 38-42, Chugoku teaches a lead assembly comprising
A feeder cable 201 (Figs. 2, 4, p. 5, 6 of translation)
A drop line cable 113 that includes a first drop line and a second drop line (on left and right sides of Fig. 1)
A joint (within dashed area of Fig. 4) where a section of a feeder cable 201 and a section of the drop line cable 113 are electrically coupled at a nexus 203 to electrically couple each of the first drop line and the second drop line to the feeder cable at the nexus
A mold structure that encapsulates the nexus 203 (“cover with a waterproof insulating gel” described at top of p. 2 of translation, bottom half of p. 6 of translation)
Wherein, in the nexus 203, at least a portion of the drop line cable 113 extends along a longitudinal axis that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of at least a portion of the feeder cable 201 (Figs. 2, 4).
The feeder cable 113 extends completely through the joint, such that the first drop line (either of the halves of line 113 on either side of nexus 203) extends partially through the joint and the second drop line (the other half of 113) extends partially through the joint. The structure of the mold structure is not detailed. Zahnen teaches a mold structure 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). 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 volume of the feeder cable of modified- Chugoku would exclude the material of the mold structure in a feeder pathway, the feeder cable extending completely through the mold via the feeder pathway, and that the volume of the drop line cable would exclude the material of the mold structure in a drop line cable pathway, the drop line cable extending completely through the mold structure via the drop line cable pathway, the drop line cable pathway including a first drop line pathway via which the first drop line extends partially through the mold structure and a second drop line pathway via which the second drop line extends partially through the mold structure.
Claims 38 recite intended use limitations, including “each of the first drop line and the second drop line having an end configured to be connected to a wire harness and configured to receive power from a plurality of solar panels”. The claim is not interpreted as reciting a wire harness, or a plurality of solar panels.
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 reference clearly teaches that the drop lines, drop line connectors, and feeder cables are capable of detachable connection to electric current-carrying elements.
Per claim 39, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 38. A skilled artisan would understand the first drop line extends out of and away from the joint in one direction (Figs. 2, 4 of Chugoku), and therefore out of and away from the mold structure in modified-Chugoku, and the second drop line extends out of and away from the joint in an opposite direction, and therefore out of and away from the mold structure in an opposite direction.
Per claim 40, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 38. The drop line cable 113 includes a section of exposed wire 111 at the nexus 203 (Figs. 2, 4), the feeder cable 201 includes a section of exposed wire 201a at the nexus, and the section of exposed wire of the drop line cable is electrically coupled to the section of exposed wire of the feeder cable to electrically couple the first drop line and the second drop line to the feeder cable (Ibid.).
Per claim 41, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 40. At least a portion of the section of exposed wire of the drop line cable 113 is parallel to at least a portion of the section of exposed wire of the feeder cable 201 (Figs. 2, 4, MPEP §2125).
Per claim 42, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 38. The mold structure of Chugoku, as modified by Zahnen, is self-contained (for instance, the gel 18/20 surrounds a similar joint and is fully volumetrically contained by the mold 10 in Figs. 1-3). Therefore the mold structure reads on a monolithic mold structure.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chugoku as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Ramsey.
Regarding claim 37, modified-Chugoku teaches the limitations of claim 33. 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 of Ramsey).
“{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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,015,376. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-11 of ‘376 anticipate the claimed limitations of the instant application.
Claims 14-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,015,376. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 14-20 of ‘376 anticipate the claimed limitations of the instant application.
Claims 21-32 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,015,375. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-14 of ‘375 anticipate the claimed limitations of the instant application.
Claims 33 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,015,375. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 20 of ‘375 anticipates the claimed limitations of the instant application.
Claims 38-42 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,015,375. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 20-24 of ‘375 anticipates the claimed limitations of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 is not rejected over prior art, and would be allowable if the respective double patenting rejections are overcome. Reasons for allowance are found in the prosecution history of US 12,015,376.
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