DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-31 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites, “the assembly” in line 4, which should be corrected to “the lightning surge dissipation assembly” to have proper antecedent basis. Claims 18-31 depend from objected Claim 17. 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.
Claims 17-18, 25-27, 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhame et al. (US 5,911,117, IDS Document) in view of Kiely (US 8,809,680).
Regarding Claim 17, Bhame discloses a lightning surge dissipation assembly in connection with coaxial cable extending from communications antenna located on a building exterior and with coaxial cable extending to communications equipment located within the building interior (apparatus in Figures 1-11 including coaxial cable/transmission means 37, 39 for connecting radio equipment and antenna, Abstract), the lightning surge dissipation assembly comprising:
an electrically insulated enclosure defining an electrically insulated interior space (35, Figures 1-11, Claim 3, “…cabinet (35) having side walls (55, 57), a top (53), and at least one door (61 or 63) providing access to the interior of said cabinet”, Column 7, lines 41-43, “….the SPE comprises a weatherproof cabinet 35”, Claim 3, Column 9, lines 9-17, “……a door seal gasket (not shown) may be carried on the inside face of the doors to sealingly mate with the mating surface of the door frame to aid in sealing”);
at least one polyphaser (comprising 117, Figures 4-7, 9-10) mounted on a first grounding bar mounted within the enclosure, the at least one polyphaser passively grounded to the first grounding bar (117 mounted on 57, Figure 10, Column 12, lines 3-25, “….Connectors 117 installed on side wall 57 of cabinet 35 thus constitute means for terminating cabling 37 and 39 and for interconnecting these cables to one another….Preferably, connector 117 is a surge protector/termination plug commercially available from Polyphaser Corporation of Minden, N.J. which protects against up to 50 KVA transient current….”, Column 12, lines 25-29, “It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that connectors 117 may be readily grounded to the single point grounding system SPG by connecting a grounding wire (not shown) to each of the connectors and to bus bar 41”),
at least one additional grounding bar (master ground bus bar 41, Figure 6) mounted to and insulated from the (Figure 6, Column 12, lines 40-52, ground bars/neutral ground bond located at 121, Figure 9, Column 12, lines 32-35), the at least one additional grounding bar connected with the first grounding bar by ground wire (grounding wire 44 to RF termination panel 91 comprising means 79, Column 8, lines 1-8, “….master grounding bus bar 41 is installed within the SPE to commonly ground all components and structure within the SPE. As will appear, all of the terminations, cabling, service panels, and structure of the SPE are grounded to master bus bar 41 by suitable grounding wires”), the at least one additional grounding bar positioned separate from but adjacent to the first grounding bar (117s and 41 adjacent as shown in Figure 6, Figure 10 shows details of 117 mounting, Figure 6);
at least one incoming coaxial cable (39, Figure 10) extending from one or more communications antenna mounted on a building exterior and inserted through insulated boots located at one wall of the enclosure, the inserted end of the input cable attached to the incoming coaxial cable port the polyphaser (inserted end of 39 attached to the input port of 117, Figure 10);
at least one outgoing coaxial cable (37, Figure 10) connected to the outgoing coaxial cable port of the polyphaser at one end (37 connected to the outgoing coaxial cable port of 117, Figure 10), the opposite end of the outgoing coaxial cable extending through an insulated connector at one wall of the enclosure (Figure 10);
wherein upon a lightning surge entering the enclosure through the input coaxial cable, the polyphaser breaks circuit at capacity threshold, directing the surge into the first grounding bar, the surge then traveling from the first grounding bar to the at least one additional grounding bar, thus substantially and effectively dissipating the surge within the enclosure and shielding the surge from the outgoing coaxial cable leading to the communications equipment (Column 12, lines 25-29, “…..connectors 117 may be readily grounded to the single point grounding system SPG by connecting a grounding wire (not shown) to each of the connectors and to bus bar 41”).
Bhame does not disclose a ground wire connected with the at least one additional grounding bar at one end, extending through an insulated opening in the bottom side of the enclosure.
Kiely (US 8,809,680) discloses an electrical box including and enclosure and ground wires extending through an opening in the bottom side of the enclosure (grounding wires 50 extending through opening at 20 in the bottom side of the enclosure of 45, Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the lightning surge dissipation assembly of claim of Claim 17, a ground wire as taught by Kiely, to provide a ground path to an external ground structure.
Regarding Claim 18, combination of Bhame and Kiely discloses the lightning surge dissipation assembly of Claim 17, further including an insulated universal power box disposed within the interior space of the enclosure, the power box containing a power supply apparatus and connecting electrical and grounding wires which extend from the power supply apparatus mounted within the power box through an insulated conduit (Column 11, lines 56-60, “….AC power lines 38 are connected to load panel 101 for supplying AC power to the radio equipment in cabinet 33 with these AC power lines exiting cabinet 35 through appropriate openings (not shown) in cabinet floor 58”), the conduit connected with the power box and extending downward through the interior space of the enclosure and connected with an insulated outlet connector at the bottom side of the enclosure (incoming and outgoing ports connection to coaxial cable 39, 37 respectively, Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 25, combination of Bhame and Kiely discloses the lightning surge dissipation apparatus of Claim 17, wherein the at least one polyphaser is configured for a passive antenna with no signal amplification equipment and no DC current is injected (117 for an antenna injecting DC current via 39, Figure 10, Column 12, lines 16-25, “…..These plugs also provide DC blocked protection to the incoming coaxial cables”).
Regarding Claim 26, combination of Bhame and Kiely discloses the lightning surge dissipation apparatus of Claim 17, wherein the grounding wire connected to the at least one additional grounding bar is further connected to an electrical panel or building ground allowing the surge to dissipate over the ground wire to building ground (Bhame, grounding rod 43, Figures 2-3, Column 12).
Regarding Claim 27, combination of Bhame and Kiely discloses the lightning surge dissipation assembly of Claim 17, wherein the at least one polyphaser is configured to cut off communication signals and any one or more of RF signals and DC current upon being tripped by a lightning surge to allow detection of a lightning strike to one or more antenna (Column 12, lines 3-24). Combination of Bhame and Kiely does not specifically disclose the detection of a lightning strike to one or more antenna being by the software. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use software for detection of faults in system/device.
Regarding Claim 30, combination of Bhame and Kiely discloses the lightning surge dissipation assembly of Claim 17, wherein relative dimensions of the enclosure and location of the components contained therein allows a sufficient amount of electrically insulative air space between the grounding bars and the outgoing coaxial cables to prevent a lightning surge from jumping from any one or more of the first grounding bar and at least one additional grounding bar to the outgoing coaxial cables (Bhame, Figures 1-10).
Regarding Claim 31, combination of Bhame and Kiely discloses the lightning surge dissipation assembly of Claim 17, wherein the at least one additional grounding bar comprises two additional grounding bars the first additional grounding bar connected with the first ground bar by ground wire (Column 12, lines 3-27, “…. to ground via site master bus bar 41 to the single point grounding rod 43”), the first additional grounding bar positioned separate from but adjacent to the first grounding bar, the second additional grounding bar connected with the first additional grounding bar by ground wire, the second additional grounding bar positioned separate from but adjacent to the first additional grounding bar (Column 12, lines 3-27, “…. to ground via site master bus bar 41 to the single point grounding rod 43””).
Claim 32 recites a method of dissipating an electric surge with a lightning surge dissipation assembly corresponding to Claim 17. Therefore, Claim 32 is rejected at least for the same reasons as for Claim 17.
Claims 19-22, 24, 28-29, 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhame et al. (US 5,911,117, IDS Document) in view of Kiely (US 8,809,680) and Cross et al. (US 2005/0247136).
Regarding Claim 19, combination of Bhame and Kiely discloses the lightning surge dissipation assembly of Claim 18, wherein the polyphaser includes, an incoming coaxial cable port connected to an incoming coaxial cable (port for 39, Figure 10), and an outgoing coaxial cable port connected to an outgoing coaxial cable (port for 37, Figure 10), and connection to ground (not shown in Figure 10, Column 12, lines 3-29). Combination of Bhame and Kiely does not specifically disclose a power inlet connected with and accepting power from the power supply.
Cross discloses a lightning surge dissipation apparatus (Figures 1-6), including a base station antenna polyphaser to antenna cable and radio modem cable are connected, wherein the polyphaser is grounded (Paragraph 27, Paragraph 43, “…The radio modem 44 at the base station 40 can be placed directly on the desk with the computer, or mounted to a nearby wall. The base station antenna polyphaser is then grounded, and the antenna cable and the radio modem cable are connected to the polyphase…. in the event of a lightning strike on the base station antenna, the polyphaser should prevent the electrical surge from reaching the radio modem and the computer”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the combination, a power/ground connections as taught by Cross, and to include a power inlet, such that the polyphaser can effectively function to protect the electronic devices from transients in the power supply lines.
Regarding Claim 20, combination of Bhame, Kiely and Cross discloses the lightning surge dissipation assembly of Claim 19, including a server storing and executing software connected to the communications equipment and the at least one outgoing coaxial cable (Cross, Paragraphs 41-43).
Regarding Claim 21, combination of Bhame, Kiely and Cross discloses the lightning surge dissipation assembly of Claim 20, wherein the software, may perform emergency or contingency routines in the event of the surge and at least propagate alerts including identifying the antenna that received the lightning strike.
Regarding Claim 22, combination of Bhame, Kiely and Cross does not specifically disclose the lightning surge dissipation assembly of Claim 21, wherein the software, in the event of the surge, also alternates traffic routing routines, load balancing routines, and automated hardware shut down routines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the software in the combination to perform the functions for safe and optimum operation of the system in the event of a lightning strike and the resulting surge.
Regarding Claim 24, combination of Bhame, Kiely and Cross discloses the lightning surge dissipation apparatus of Claim 19, wherein the at least one polyphaser is configured for a passive antenna with no signal amplification equipment and no DC current is injected (117 for an antenna injecting DC current via 39, Figure 10, Column 12, lines 16-25, “…..These plugs also provide DC blocked protection to the incoming coaxial cables”).
Regarding Claim 28, combination of Bhame, Kiely and Cross does not specifically disclose the lightning surge dissipation assembly of Claim 20, wherein the software, upon determining that the at least one polyphaser has been tripped, redirects receipt of communication signals that would have otherwise been received through the struck antenna. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the software in the combination to perform the functions for safe and optimum operation of the system in the event of a lightning strike and the resulting surge.
Regarding Claim 29, combination of Bhame, Kiely and Cross discloses the lightning surge dissipation apparatus of Claim 24, wherein a small DC voltage is inserted into the outgoing coaxial cables leading from the at least one polyphaser to the communications equipment as an indication of a state of the polyphaser (Cross, Column 12, lines 3-25).
Claims 33-36 basically recite the method corresponding to Claims 20-22 combined, 18, 19 except for the order/dependency and specifically reciting a combination of sensors connected to the outgoing coaxial cable (Claim 36) and Cross in the combination discloses sensors (Paragraph 20, Paragraph 43). Therefore, Claims 33-36 are rejected at least for the same reasons as for Claims 20-22, 18-19.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhame et al. (US 5,911,117, IDS Document) in view of Kiely (US 8,809,680) and Murabayashi et al. (US 2003/0058595).
Regarding Claim 23, combination of Bhame and Kiely does not specifically disclose the lightning surge dissipation assembly of Claim 18, wherein the power supply apparatus includes at least one DIN rail power supply module mounted within the enclosure, the power supply module connected with and drawing power from the power supply apparatus.
Murabayashi discloses a power supply apparatus comprising power supply modules and teaches that the power supply modules provided on a DIN rail (Paragraph 430, “….first, second, third power source units 301, 302, 303 and the uninterruptible power supply unit (UPS) 304 are mounted on a DIN rail (not shown) and are connected in parallel in this order”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the combination, a ground wire as taught by Kiely, such that plurality of power supply devices can be devices can be connected to increase power supply capacity of the power supply apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/12/2025have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant has filed terminal disclaimer on 12/12/2025 to overcome the double patenting rejection and the terminal disclaimer is approved.
The Applicant argues, on Pages 2-3 of the Remarks that that Bhame’s polyphaser 117 in shown in Figure 6 is actually outside the enclosure 35, on an outside surface of side wall 57.
In response, examiner respectfully notes that Figures 6-7 of Bhame shows the enclosure SPE 35, Figure 6 showing compartments and components including 117 inside, and Figure 6 described in Column 5, lines 41-52 as SPE 35 shown with door partially cutaway for clarity. It is further respectfully notes that there is no support for Applicant’s arguments that 117 is mounted on the exterior/outside of the enclosure 35.
The Applicant argues, on Pages 3-4 of the Remarks that the surge protection offered by 117 as suggested by Bhame is merely for signals from the antennae and may have a 50 kVA rating which is common for transformers or small generators, where transient (short-circuit) currents occur and that this level of surge protection is not known to be associated with lightning strikes to antennae as one with skill would readily understand. Therefore, one with skill in the art would not look to SPE 35 of Bhame to teach the surge protection within a single enclosure as claimed in applicant's invention because the lightning surge protection of Bhame occurs outside of the enclosure 35 at the location of the antennae 3 or 51 via 45 and 46.
In response, examiner respectfully notes that Bhame’s invention is related to protecting components provided in a single enclosure, components such as the radio equipment and RF, telco and AC power terminations within the enclosure from lightning strikes as disclosed in Column 1, lines 13-29, “…This invention relates to an outdoor enclosure or cabinet (referred to as a service protection enclosure) to be installed during the construction of a remote wireless telecommunications site (e.g., a cellular telephone "cell site") or the like, for housing the AC (alternating current) power termination connections, AC power distribution panel and circuit breakers, for housing RF (radio frequency) transmission cable terminations, and for housing telephone equipment for the termination of the telephone lines (referred to as "telco" lines) leading to and from the site. Importantly, the service protection enclosure of the present invention provides single point grounding for protecting the radio equipment and RF, telco and AC power terminations within the enclosure from lightning strikes and low power voltage transient signals often present on the telco lines, AC power lines and on the RF cables that interfere with communications transmissions to and from the site”
The Applicant argues, on Page 4 of the Remarks that the disclosure in Bhame, quoted in the office action, "It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that connectors 117 may be readily grounded to the single point grounding system SPG by connecting a grounding wire (not shown) to each of the connectors and to bus bar 41'), is only a statement/simply added subject matter by the Examiner and not taught or suggested in the art of Bhame.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the argued upon disclosure is quoted directly from Bhame, Column 12, lines 25-29, “….It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that connectors 117 may be readily grounded to the single point grounding system SPG by connecting a grounding wire (not shown) to each of the connectors and to bus bar 41”.
The Applicant further argues, on Pages 4-5 of the Remarks toward the limitation of, “the at least one additional grounding bar connected with the first grounding bar by ground wire, the at least one additional grounding bar having substantially better conductive properties including a greater mass than the first grounding bar;” and the disclosure in Column 8, lines 8-18 in Bhame provided to meet the limitations, that there is absolutely no teaching or suggestion that 117 has a connection to 41 and that there is no suggestion because all of the surge protection for equipment within 35 is taken care of with bus 41 connecting to SPG 43 via grounding wire 44 (see Fig. 2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as discussed above, Bhame has clear teaching and suggestion for 117 to have a connection to 4 as disclosed in Column 12, lines 25-29, “….It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that connectors 117 may be readily grounded to the single point grounding system SPG by connecting a grounding wire (not shown) to each of the connectors and to bus bar 41”.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on Page 5 of the Remarks regarding an L bracket disclosed in Bhame, examiner respectfully notes that the arguments are directed toward an element that is relied upon for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on Page 5 of the Remarks toward Claims 18-36, please see the response to arguments toward Claim 17 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wittig et al. (US 2012/0108083) discloses an electrical system provided on a sheet metal and teaches that the sheet metal being electrically insulated with a lacquer (Paragraph 46).
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 LUCY M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-6002. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Crystal L Hammond can be reached at (571)270-1682. 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.
/LUCY M THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2838, 1/06/2026
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838