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 on 01/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Amended claims 1-5 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/18/2025.
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 9, 11-13, 15-16 and 19-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-9, 11-12, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,483,632. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below:
Current claims
U.S. Patent No. 11,483,632
Claim 9
Claims 12+18
Claims 12+18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,483,632 does not explicitly teach one or more cross-beam rails coupled to the lower rails of the stabilization frame, but does teach a closed bottom and open interior cavity to hold one or more weighted items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include cross-beam rails as they would provide additional safety and support for the weighted items that are placed inside the interior cavity.
Claim 11
Claims 12+18
Claim 12
Claims 12+18
Claims 12+18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,483,632 does not explicitly teach wherein an antenna is secured to at least one of the mounting pipes. However, it is still a telecommunications equipment mount, and it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach an antenna to a telecommunications equipment mount since antennas are used in telecommunications so that the antenna can send and receive telecommunication signals.
Claim 13
Claims 12+18
Claims 12+18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,483,632 does not explicitly teach wherein a remote radio unit is secured to at least one of the mounting pipe. However, it is still a telecommunications equipment mount, and it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach a remote radio unit to a telecommunications equipment mount since remote radio units are used in telecommunications so that they can be used to send and receive telecommunication signals.
Claim 15
Claim 8
Claim 16
Claim 9
Claim 19
Claim 11
Claim 20
Claim 11
Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,483,632 does not explicitly teach one or more cross-beam rails coupled to the bottom of the stabilization frame, but does teach a closed bottom and open interior cavity to hold one or more weighted items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include cross-beam rails as they would provide additional safety and support for the weighted items that are placed inside the interior cavity.
Claims 9, 12-13, 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-16 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,937,027. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below:
Current claims
U.S. Patent No. 11,937,027
Claim 9
Claims 16+20
Claims 16+20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,937,027 does not explicitly teach on or more cross-beam rails coupled to the lower rails of the stabilization frame, but does teach a closed bottom and open interior cavity to hold one or more weighted items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include cross-beam rails as they would provide additional safety and support for the weighted items that are placed inside the interior cavity.
Claim 12
Claims 16+20
Claims 16+20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,937,027 does not explicitly teach wherein an antenna is secured to at least one of the mounting pipes. However, it is still a telecommunications equipment mount, and it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach an antenna to a telecommunications equipment mount since antennas are used in telecommunications so that the antenna can send and receive telecommunication signals.
Claim 13
Claims 16+20
Claims 16+20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,937,027 does not explicitly teach wherein a remote radio unit is secured to at least one of the mounting pipe. However, it is still a telecommunications equipment mount, and it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach a remote radio unit to a telecommunications equipment mount since remote radio units are used in telecommunications so that they can be used to send and receive telecommunication signals.
Claim 15
Claim 14
Claim 16
Claim 15
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/17/2025.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) rejection of claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-12, and 14 has been withdrawn. The 103 rejection of claims 5 and 13 has been withdrawn. However, the amendment to independent claim 1 is drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/18/2025. So therefore, claims 1-5 and 8 are now withdrawn from consideration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action.
Claims 11-13, 16, and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105. 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.
/AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845