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 06/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 14-21 are currently pending, with 14-21 being withdrawn from consideration. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/26/2026.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skrepcinski et al. (US 2016/0322697, hereby referred as Skrepcinski) in view of Haines et al. (US 2025/0337150, hereby referred as Haines).
Regarding claim 1, Skrepcinski teaches the following:
a mounting system (figure 9) for mounting communication equipment to a monopole tower, the system comprising:
a first mounting assembly (figures 1-5 and 9) comprising:
an upper pole attachment mount (top element 12, figures 1-5 and 9);
a lower pole attachment mount (top element 12, figures 1-5 and 9);
first and second upper arms (top elements 52, figures 1-5 and 9), respectively including proximal ends that are respectively couplable to the upper pole attachment mount (as shown in figures 1-5 and 9);
first and second lower arms (bottom elements 52, figures 1-5 and 9), respectively including proximal ends that are respectively couplable to the lower pole attachment mount (as shown in figures 1-5 and 9);
an upper face member (top element 102, figures 1-5 and 9), coupled to respective distal ends of the first and second upper arms (as shown in figures 1-5 and 9); and
a lower face member (bottom element 102, figures 1-5 and 9), coupled to respective distal ends of the first and second lower arms (as shown in figures 1-5 and 9); and
a plurality of antenna mounts (elements 106 and their connection to elements 102, figures 1-5 and 9), an individual antenna mount including a coupler for removably coupling with the upper or lower face member (as shown in figures 1-5 and 9).
Skrepcinski does not teach a plurality of antenna offset mounts, an individual antenna offset mount including a coupler for removably coupling with the upper or lower face member, the individual antenna offset mount further including an elongate member configured to travel, in a direction substantially perpendicular to the upper or lower face member, along the antenna offset mount and thereby modify an offset distance of the antenna from the upper or lower face member, the individual antenna offset mount end-user-adjustable to position an antenna attached at or near a distal end of the antenna offset mount, at a first specified offset distance from the upper or lower face member, wherein the first specified offset distance is selectable by an end user through travel of the elongate member relative to the coupler while the coupler remains coupled with the upper or lower face member. However, Skrepcinski does teach that the azimuth angle can be modified (paragraphs [0027]-[0029], figures 3-4).
Haines suggests the teachings of a mounting system comprising a plurality of antenna offset mounts (elements 314 and their connections to element 312 by elements 360, figures 7-8), an individual antenna offset mount including a coupler (element 366, figures 7-8) for removably coupling with the upper or lower face member (elements 312, figures 7-8), the individual antenna offset mount further including an elongate member (element 362, figures 7-8) configured to travel, in a direction substantially perpendicular to the upper or lower face member, along the antenna offset mount and thereby modify an offset distance of the antenna from the upper or lower face member (as shown in figures 7-8, paragraph [0053]), the individual antenna offset mount end-user-adjustable to position an antenna attached at or near a distal end of the antenna offset mount, at a first specified offset distance from the upper or lower face member ((as shown in figures 7-8, paragraph [0053]), wherein the first specified offset distance is selectable by an end user through travel of the elongate member relative to the coupler while the coupler remains coupled with the upper or lower face member (as shown in figures 7-8, paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the plurality of antenna mounts of Skrepcinski to be offset mounts such as the ones taught by Haines as claimed as suggested by the teachings of Haines in order to enable antennas mounted thereon to be positioned at distances that permit their width dimensions to be substantially coplanar when the antennas are rotated to the desired azimuth angle (paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Skrepcinski and Haines as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the individual antenna offset mounts (Haines, elements 314 and their connections to element 312 by elements 360, figures 7-8) are each end-user-adjustable to position the antenna attached at or near the distal end of the antenna offset mount at a second specified offset distance from the corresponding upper (Skrepcinski, top element 102, figures 1-5) (Haines, top element 312, figures 7-9) or lower face member (Haines, bottom element 312, figures 7-9) (Skrepcinski, bottom element 102, figures 1-5);
The combination of Skrepcinski and Haines does not explicitly teach wherein the second specified offset distance is at least one inch greater than the first specified offset distance.
However, it is well known that base station antennas such as the ones disclosed by Skrepcinski and Haines are large in size. While drawings are not drawn to scale, the distances shown in figures 3-4 and 7-9 of Haines clearly show that the distances are large in relation to the size of the base station antennas. Haines also teaches that the distance can be modified in order to permit their width dimensions to be substantially coplanar when the antennas are rotated to the desired azimuth angle (paragraph [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the second specified offset distance of the combination of Skrepcinski and Haines to be at least one inch greater than the first specified offset distance as suggested by the teachings of Skrepcinski and Haines as the distances can be adjust as desired in order to permit their width dimensions to be substantially coplanar when the antennas are rotated to the desired azimuth angle (Haines, paragraph [0053]), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Skrepcinski and Haines as referred in claim 1 teaches the mounting system with the exception for the following:
wherein the first specified offset distance is within a range of about 0.5 inches to about 24 inches.
However, it is well known that base station antennas such as the ones disclosed by Skrepcinski and Haines are large in size. While drawings are not drawn to scale, the distances shown in figures 3-4 and 7-9 of Haines clearly show that the distances are large in relation to the size of the base station antennas. Haines also teaches that the distance can be modified in order to permit their width dimensions to be substantially coplanar when the antennas are rotated to the desired azimuth angle (paragraph [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the first specified offset distance of the combination of Skrepcinski and Haines to be within a range of about 0.5 inches to about 24 inches as suggested by the teachings of Skrepcinski and Haines as the distances can be adjust as desired in order to permit their width dimensions to be substantially coplanar when the antennas are rotated to the desired azimuth angle (Haines, paragraph [0053]), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Skrepcinski and Haines as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein: the plurality of antenna offset mounts (Haines, elements 314 and their connections to element 312 by elements 360, figures 7-8) include first and second antenna offset mounts respectively, removably coupled to the upper face member (Skrepcinski, top element 102, figures 1-5) (Haines, top element 312, figures 7-9) and the lower face member (Haines, bottom element 312, figures 7-9) (Skrepcinski, bottom element 102, figures 1-5); and
the first and second antenna offset mounts are each independently end-user-adjustable to modify an offset distance of the antenna from the respective upper or lower face member (Haines, as shown in figures 7-9, paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Skrepcinski and Haines as referred in claim 4 teaches the following:
wherein the first and second antenna offset mounts (Haines, elements 314 and their connections to element 312 by elements 360, figures 7-8) are end-user-adjustable toward respective different offset distances, such that an antenna attached to each of the first and second antenna offset mounts is capable of being positioned by an end user at an angle from a face plane defined by the upper and lower face members (Haines, as shown in figures 7-9, paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Skrepcinski and Haines as referred in claim 4 teaches the following:
wherein: the plurality of antenna offset mounts (Haines, elements 314 and their connections to element 312 by elements 360, figures 7-8) include third and fourth antenna offset mounts respectively (Haines, as shown in figures 3-4 and 7-9, figures 7-9 only shows a portion of an assembly, whereas 3-4 show the whole thing which includes 4 antennas on each side), removably coupled to the upper face member (Skrepcinski, top element 102, figures 1-5) (Haines, top element 312, figures 7-9) and the lower face member (Haines, bottom element 312, figures 7-9) (Skrepcinski, bottom element 102, figures 1-5); and
the third and fourth antenna offset mounts are each independently end-user-adjustable from each other and from the first and second antenna offset mounts to modify an offset distance of the antenna from the respective upper or lower face member (Haines, as shown in figures 3-4 and 7-9, paragraphs [0051] and [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Skrepcinski and Haines as referred in claim 6 teaches the following:
wherein the third and fourth antenna offset mounts are each end-user-adjustable toward respective different offset distances than either of the first and second antenna offset mounts (Haines, as shown in figures 3-4 and 7-9, paragraphs [0051] and [0053]), such that a first antenna attached to the first and second antenna offset mounts is end-user-adjustable to protrude from the assembly, along its entire length, at a greater offset distance than a second antenna attached to the third and fourth antenna offset mounts (Haines, as shown in figures 3-4 and 7-9, paragraphs [0051] and [0053]).
Additional Comments
The reverse, using Haines as the main reference and Skrepcinski as a secondary reference teaching the upper pole attachment mount and first and second upper arms could also be made.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Severin et al. (US 2023/0178873), Stekr et al. (US 2023/0402735), Stekr et al. (US 2019/0267696), Burnett (US 2023/0167648), Severin et al. (US 2022/0085481),
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that neither Skrepcinski nor Haines discloses an elongate member that travels in a direction substantially perpendicular to an upper or lower face member while the coupler it is traveling through remains coupled with the upper or lower face member.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The telescopic mount has an elongate member (362) which travels in a direction substantially perpendicular to an upper or lower face member while the coupler (361 and 366) it is traveling through remains coupled with the upper or lower face member (102). While the structure of the mounts appears different from the mount shown in figure 1A of the current application, these details are not claimed, and the mount of Haines would read on the current claimed limitations.
The applicant also argues that there is no proper reason to combine the two references since Haines is using the adjustable mounts to have the antennas coplanar address a skew issue, which Skrepcinski does not have since its brackets rotate together to be coplanar.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While Skrepcinski shows that the brackets rotate together to be coplanar, in the embodiment of figure 9 when there are three mounts around a vertical post, there would be minimal movement that could be made to the various mounts to address an alignment issue. Using the adjustable mounts of Haines would allow the antennas to be oriented in various directions to allow for a better positioning that could address the alignment of the various antennas.
Regarding claims 2-3, the applicant argues that the scale cannot be inferred from non-scaled drawings, and that both references do not identify a minimum quantitative differential between the offsets.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the scale cannot be inferred from non-scaled drawings, both Skrepcinski and Haines are mounts for base station antennas, which are usually large is size, and are mounted to vertical mounting poles. Furthermore, the mounts is a telescopic mount that allows the user to modify the distance (paragraph [0053]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill could adjust the distances of a telescopic mount so that the first offset distance is in a range of about 0.5 to about 24 inches, and the second offset distance is at least one inch greater than the first offset distance.
Regarding claims 4-5, the applicant argues that Haines teaches that opposite since the upper and lower extendable units use a stabilizer bar so that the antenna remains coplanar, which teaches away from the claimed limitations.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Only figure 9 shows the use of a stabilizer bar to have the same distances. Paragraph [0053] states that "in some embodiments upper and lower extendable units 360 that are attached to the same vertical pole 314 may be stabilized by a stabilizer bar 369 or a similar mechanism". This does not mean this is needed in all embodiments. Figure 7 clearly shows not using a stabilizer bar, and in that embodiment, the upper and lower offset mounts are independently end-user-adjustable as recited in the 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
Prosecution Insights