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. Claims 8-25 are pending. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the Title of the disclosure, “Anticorrotion” should read “Anticorro s ion” . Appropriate correction is required. 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 8-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii ( JP 2001303280 A , citations based on translation ) in view of Whitmore ( U . S . 2019 / 0071782 ) . Regarding claim 8 , Fujii teaches an anti-corrosion system ( see e.g. Paragraph 0005, lines 3-4, corrosion prevention measures ) comprising: a utility pole installed on a ground ( see e.g. Fig. 1, utility pole 5 on ground 10; Paragraph 0001 ); an anchor buried in the ground next to the utility pole ( see e.g. Fig. 1, base frame 6 as anchor buried underground; Paragraph 0005, lines 9-10, and Paragraph 0006, lines 3-4 ); a guy wire connected to the utility pole ( see e.g. Fig. 1, guy wire/branch line 1 connected to pole 5; Paragraph 0005, lines 7-9, and Paragraph 0006, lines 1-3 ); a guy wire rod coupling the anchor and the guy wire ( see e.g. Fig. 1, guy wire rod/branch line rod 2 connecting base frame 6 and guy wire/branch line 1; Paragraph 0005, lines 8-10, and Paragraph 0006, lines 1-4 ); an electrode buried in the ground next to the anchor ( see e.g. Figs. 1 and 4, zinc electrode 4; Paragraph 0007, lines 1-4 ); and an anti-corrosion current being supplied with an underground portion of the guy wire rod and the anchor as a cathode and the electrode as an anode ( see e.g. Fig. 4, steel guy wire rod, and connected base/anchor, a positive electrode, i.e. cathode, supplied with corrosion-preventive current by zinc electrode 4 as a galvanic anode; Paragraph 0004, and Paragraph 0007, lines 1-5 ). Fujii does not teach a power supply configured to supply the anti-corrosion current, wherein the power supply comprises a photovoltaic cell , instead teaching the electrode being a galvanic anode (see e.g. Paragraph 0004) . Whitmore teaches an assembly for cathodic protection of a metal section in an ionically conductive material (see e.g. Abstract), where an impressed current anode also buried in the ionically conductive material and connected to an external power supply, particularly a solar panel, i.e. photovoltaic cell, may be used to supply the current for corrosion protection of the metal section instead of or in addition to a sacrificial/galvanic anode (see e.g. Paragraph s 0003-0007, Paragraph 0053, lines 1-4, and Paragraphs 0062 and 0068 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Fujii to have the electrode being an impressed current anode with a solar panel, i.e. photovoltaic cell, connected as an external power supply instead of a sacrificial/galvanic anode as taught by Whitmore as an alternate suitable means of supplying a corrosion-preventive current to a buried metal component. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious . Regarding claim 9 , Fujii as modified by Whitmore teaches the photovoltaic cell comprises a flexible photovoltaic panel ( see e.g. Whitmore Paragraph s 0020 and 0084 ). Regarding claim 1 4 , modified Fujii teaches the guy wire rod and the anchor each comprising a steel material ( see e.g. Fujii Paragraph 0005, lines 9-10, and Paragraph 0006, lines 3-4, steel guy wire rod and base frame/anchor ). Regarding claim 1 5 , Fujii as modified by Whitmore teaches the electrode comprising a poorly soluble electrode ( see e.g. Whitmore Paragraph 0062, impressed current anode that does not corrode readily, i.e. is poorly soluble ). Regarding claim 1 6 , Fujii as modified by Whitmore teaches the poorly soluble electrode comprising a composite metal oxide electrode ( see e.g. Whitmore Paragraphs 0035, 0040 and 0062, MMO (mixed metal oxide) coated titanium as impressed current anode ). Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of Whitmore , as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kudo et al. ( JP 2004208405 A , citations based on translation) . Regarding claim 10 , modified Fujii teaches all the elements of the system of claim 8 as stated above. Modified Fujii does not explicitly teach a guy wrap on an above ground portion of the guy wire rod, wherein a portion of the power supply is attached to the guy wrap. Whitmore do es however teach the photovoltaic cell of the power supply being exteriorly installed and designed for use in s u nlight ( see e.g. Whitmore Paragraph 0051, lines 1-5, and Paragraph 0052 ) . Fujii additionally teaches the guy wire rod extending partially above ground ( see e.g. Fujii Fig. 1, portion of branch line rod 2 above ground 10 before connection to branch line 1 at tip ring 3; Paragraph 0006, lines 3-4 ). Kudo relates to guy wires for utility poles (see e.g. Page 1, lines 1-3), wherein a plastic cover called a wire guard, i.e. wire wrap, is attached to the guy wire from a ground side up to protect the guy wire and to ensure that it is safe even if pedestrians, bicycles or cars come in contact with it (see e.g. Page 1, lines 5-7), wherein a solar cell may be attached to a surface of the guard to receive light (see e.g. Fig. 2, reflector 10 comprising solar cell on wire guard 3; Page 2, paragraph starting [0007], lines 11-16, and paragraph starting [0013], lines 1-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Fujii to comprise a guy wire guard, i.e. wire wrap, on the above ground portion of the guy wire rod as taught by Kudo to protect the guy wire and to ensure that it is safe even if pedestrians, bicycles or cars come in contact with it , with the photovoltaic cell of the power supply attached to the wire guard/wrap , as further taught by Kudo as a suitable light-receiving position for incorporating a photovoltaic/solar cell into a guy wire assembly for utility poles. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Regarding claim 11 , modified Fujii teaches the guy wire rod and the anchor each comprising a steel material ( see e.g. Fujii Paragraph 0005, lines 9-10, and Paragraph 0006, lines 3-4, steel guy wire rod and base frame/anchor ). Regarding claim 12 , Fujii as modified by Whitmore teaches the electrode comprising a poorly soluble electrode ( see e.g. Whitmore Paragraph 0062, impressed current anode that does not corrode readily, i.e. is poorly soluble ). Regarding claim 13 , Fujii as modified by Whitmore teaches the poorly soluble electrode comprising a composite metal oxide electrode ( see e.g. Whitmore Paragraphs 0035, 0040 and 0062, MMO (mixed metal oxide) coated titanium as impressed current anode ). Claims 17-18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of Husock ( U . S . Patent No. 3 , 556 , 97 1 ) . Regarding claim 17 , Fujii teaches an anti-corrosion system (see e.g. Paragraph 0005, lines 3-4, corrosion prevention measures) comprising: a utility pole installed on a ground (see e.g. Fig. 1, utility pole 5 on ground 10; Paragraph 0001); an anchor buried in the ground next to the utility pole (see e.g. Fig. 1, base frame 6 as anchor buried underground; Paragraph 0005, lines 9-10, and Paragraph 0006, lines 3-4 ); a guy wire connected to the utility pole (see e.g. Fig. 1, guy wire/branch line 1 connected to pole 5; Paragraph 0005, lines 7-9, and Paragraph 0006, lines 1-3); a guy wire rod coupling the anchor and the guy wire (see e.g. Fig. 1, guy wire rod/branch line rod 2 connecting base frame 6 and guy wire/branch line 1; Paragraph 0005, lines 8-10, and Paragraph 0006, lines 1-4); an electrode buried in the ground next to the anchor (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 4, zinc electrode 4; Paragraph 0007, lines 1-4); and an anti-corrosion current being supplied with an underground portion of the guy wire rod and the anchor as a cathode and the electrode as an anode (see e.g. Fig. 4, steel guy wire rod, and connected base/anchor, protected by cell current flowing from it as a positive electrode, i.e. cathode, to the zinc electrode 4 as a negative electrode, i.e. anode; Paragraph 0007, lines 1-5). Fujii does not teach a power supply configured to supply the anti-corrosion current, wherein the power supply comprises a commercial power supply and a DC-AC converter , instead teaching the electrode being a galvanic anode supplying the anti-corrosion current (see e.g. Paragraph 0004) . Fujii does however teach the utility pole being an AC power pole (see e.g. Paragraph 0005, lines 3-4). Husock teaches a cathodic protection system for protecting underground devices (see e.g. Col. 1, lines 13-14) wherein current is provided from an array of buried anodes to the protected device to eliminate electrolytic corrosive action (see e.g. Fig. 1, anodes 12-14 connected to protected device 10; Col. 2, lines 22-35), said current being provided via a commercial power transformer as a source of supply (see e.g. Fig. 1, power transformer 20; Col. 2, lines 42-50) and a rectifier for converting the AC current into DC current, i.e. DC-AC converter ( see e.g. Fig. 1, rectifier 36; Col. 2, lines 70-72, and Col. 4, lines 8-11 ) , thus being able to provide well-regulated output from existing power lines (see e.g. Col. 1, lines 58-62) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Fujii to instead comprise the anti-corrosion current provided by a power supply comprising a commercial power transformer and rectifier, i.e. DC-AC converter, connected to a buried anode as taught by Husock as an alternate suitable means of supplying a corrosion-eliminating current for cathodic protection of an underground device that can utilize the adjacent existing power line . MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious . Regarding claim 18 , Fujii as modified by Husock teaches the commercial power supply comprising a pole-mounted transformer on the utility pole ( see e.g. Husock Col. 2, lines 46-50 ). Regarding claim 23 , modified Fujii teaches the guy wire rod and the anchor each comprising a steel material ( see e.g. Fujii Paragraph 0005, lines 9-10, and Paragraph 0006, lines 3-4, steel guy wire rod and base frame/anchor ). Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of Husock , as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kudo . Regarding claim 1 9 , modified Fujii teaches all the elements of the system of claim 8 as stated above. Modified Fujii does not explicitly teach a guy wrap on an above ground portion of the guy wire rod. Fujii does however teach the guy wire rod extending partially above ground (see e.g. Fujii Fig. 1, portion of branch line rod 2 above ground 10 before connection to branch line 1 at tip ring 3; Paragraph 0006, lines 3-4). Kudo relates to guy wires for utility poles (see e.g. Page 1, lines 1-3), wherein a plastic cover called a wire guard, i.e. wire wrap, is attached to the guy wire from a ground side up to protect the guy wire and to ensure that it is safe even if pedestrians, bicycles or cars come in contact with it (see e.g. Page 1, lines 5-7) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Fujii to comprise a guy wire guard, i.e. wire wrap, on the above ground portion of the guy wire rod as taught by Kudo to protect the guy wire and to ensure that it is safe even if pedestrians, bicycles or cars come in contact with it . Modified Fujii does not explicitly teach a portion of the power supply being attached to the guy wrap. Husock does however teach the power supply comprising a transformer located on the utility pole and a separate rectifier /DC-AC converter formed from a silicon diode ( see e.g. Husock Fig. 1, power transformer 20 and rectifier 36 ; Col. 2, lines 42-50 and 70-72 , and Col. 4, lines 8-11 ). Kudo further teaches a diode for a functional component of the guy wire assembly being attached to the guy guard/wrap (see e.g. Kudo Fig. 2, LED, i.e. light-emitting diode, attached to reflective band 8 on wire guard 3; Page 2, paragraph starting [0007], lines 11-16, and paragraph starting [0013], lines 2-4 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Fujii to comprise a portion of the power supply, particularly the silicon diode forming the separate rectifier/converter, attached to the guy guard/wrap as taught by Kudo as a suitable position for incorporating a diode into a guy wire assembly connected to a utility pole. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Regarding claim 20 , modified Fujii teaches the guy wire rod and the anchor each comprising a steel material ( see e.g. Fujii Paragraph 0005, lines 9-10, and Paragraph 0006, lines 3-4, steel guy wire rod and base frame/anchor ). Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii, Hus ock and Kudo , as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Whitmore . Regarding claim 21 , modified Fujii teaches all the elements of the system of claim 20 as stated above. Modified Fujii does not explicitly teach the electrode comprising a poorly soluble electrode. Husock does however teach the electrode being supplied with current by an external power supply for cathodic protection (see e.g. Husock Col. 2, lines 42-50). Whitmore teaches an assembly for cathodic protection of a metal section in an ionically conductive material (see e.g. Abstract), where an impressed current anode also buried in the ionically conductive material may be used to supply the current for corrosion protection of the metal section by means of a connected external power supply, typical impressed current anodes being formed by materials that do not corrode readily, i.e. are poorly soluble (see e.g. Paragraphs 0003-0007, and Paragraphs 0062 and 0068) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode of modified Fujii to comprise a material that does not corrode readily, i.e. is poorly soluble, as taught by Whitmore as suitable materials for an impressed current anode provided with current by an external power supply for cathodic protection of metal components. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. Regarding claim 22 , Fujii as modified by Whitmore teaches the poorly soluble electrode comprising a composite metal oxide electrode (see e.g. Whitmore Paragraphs 0035, 0040 and 0062, MMO (mixed metal oxide) coated titanium as impressed current anode). Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of Husock , as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Whitmore . Regarding claim 2 4 , modified Fujii teaches all the elements of the system of claim 20 as stated above. Modified Fujii does not explicitly teach the electrode comprising a poorly soluble electrode. Husock does however teach the electrode being supplied with current by an external power supply for cathodic protection ( see e.g. Husock Col. 2, lines 42-50 ) . Whitmore teaches an assembly for cathodic protection of a metal section in an ionically conductive material (see e.g. Abstract), where an impressed current anode also buried in the ionically conductive material may be used to supply the current for corrosion protection of the metal section by means of a connected external power supply , typical impressed current anodes being formed by materials that do not corrode readily, i.e. are poorly soluble (see e.g. Paragraphs 0003-0007, and Paragraphs 0062 and 0068) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode of modified Fujii to comprise a material that does not corrode readily, i.e. is poorly soluble, as taught by Whitmore as suitable materials for an impressed current anode provided with current by an external power supply for cathodic protection of metal components. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. Regarding claim 2 5 , Fujii as modified by Whitmore teaches the poorly soluble electrode comprising a composite metal oxide electrode ( see e.g. Whitmore Paragraphs 0035, 0040 and 0062, MMO (mixed metal oxide) coated titanium as impressed current anode ). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Delahoyde et al. ( U . S . Patent No. 6 , 315 , 876 ) discloses a cathodic protection system for protecting buried guy anchor structures . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1919 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9am-5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Luan Van can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-8521 . 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. /MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1795