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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-7 and 14-20 in the reply filed on 12/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of species A in the reply filed on 12/28/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the species don’t require the certain shapes as the claims are open ended on the shapes, and there would not be a series search and examination burden as searching for one would overlap with the search of the other. This is not found persuasive because while species I does not require a triangular arrangement, species II does require a third upper arm, a third lower arm, and a hinged upper medial break for the upper and lower face members. The shape of species II needs to have an even number of sides, whereas species I could be odd. Even though they are both mounting systems, the species would require different search strategies, the searching of different terms, and a different determination of allowability which would be a serious search and examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-3, they recite “wherein the individual antenna offset mount…” when it should be “wherein the individual antenna offset mounts…”. It is clear in claim 1 that there are a plurality of antenna offset mounts, and each individual antenna mount includes the limitations at the end of claim 1 and claims 2-3. Otherwise, the plurality of mounts would not be offset mounts.
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 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) comprising:
an upper pole attachment mount (top element 12, figures 1-5);
a lower pole attachment mount (top element 12, figures 1-5);
first and second upper arms (top elements 52, figures 1-5), respectively including proximal ends that are respectively couplable to the upper pole attachment mount (as shown in figures 1-5);
first and second lower arms (bottom elements 52, figures 1-5), respectively including proximal ends that are respectively couplable to the lower pole attachment mount (as shown in figures 1-5);
an upper face member (top element 102, figures 1-5), coupled to respective distal ends of the first and second upper arms (as shown in figures 1-5); and
a lower face member (bottom element 102, figures 1-5), coupled to respective distal ends of the first and second lower arms (as shown in figures 1-5); and
a plurality of antenna mounts (elements 106 and their connection to elements 102, figures 1-5), an individual antenna mount including a coupler for removably coupling with the upper or lower face member (as shown in figures 1-5).
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 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. 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 7-9), an individual antenna offset mount including a coupler for removably coupling with the upper or lower face member (elements 360, figures 7-9), 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 7-9).
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, wherein an individual antenna offset mount includes a coupler for removably coupling with 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 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 mount (Haines, elements 314 and their connections to element 312 by elements 360, figures 7-8) is 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 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 following:
wherein the individual antenna offset mount (Haines, elements 314 and their connections to element 312 by elements 360, figures 7-8) includes an elongate member (Haines, element 362, figures 7-9) configured to travel, in a direction substantially perpendicular to the 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), along the antenna offset mount and thereby modify an offset distance of the antenna from the upper or lower face member (Haines, as shown in figures 7-9, paragraph [0053]).
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 upper 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 upper 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),
Conclusion
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