DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 09/22/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 45 and 51 have been amended, claim(s) 1-44 and 50, have been cancelled, and claim(s) 54-64 have been withdrawn. Therefore, claims 45-49 and 51-64 are now pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's argument.
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 45 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 45, at line 9, the recitation “at least on third”, is understood to mean -- at least one third --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 45, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 45, at line 12, the recitation “the spaced relation” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of this office action, it is best understood that the claim recitation is understood to mean –the spaced locations--.
Regarding claim 45, at line 14, the recitation “the column” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis or creates ambiguity as to whether it is referring to a single column or each column. For the purpose of this office action, it is best understood that the claim recitation is understood to mean –each column--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 45, 47-49, and 51, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brunozzi et al. (US 20020170261 A1).
Regarding claim 45, Brunozzi et al. teaches a reinforcement assembly for a monopole (abstract), the reinforcement assembly comprising three or more columns (102) secured in spaced relation away from an outer surface of the monopole (figures 14 and 15), each of the columns having a cross-section that defines a square or rectangular hollow section (figure 15) and being arranged to extend between a first and second distal end (upper and lower ends; figure 14), the first distal end of each of the columns being secured to a foundation of the monopole (at 106), the second distal end of each of the columns being located at a height that is at least on third of a total height of the monopole (figure 14), each of the columns being secured to the outer surface of the monopole at a plurality of spaced locations along the column (figure 14) by respective mounting brackets (114), the mounting brackets retaining the columns in the spaced relation away from the outer surface of the monopole (figure 15) such that, along at least a majority of a length of each column, a horizontal clearance is maintained between the column and the outer surface of the monopole (as illustrated, the segments 18 space the columns 102 from an outer surface of the pole such that, along at least a majority of a length of each column, a horizontal clearance is maintained between the column and the outer surface of the monopole; figures 14 and 15) and the columns being arranged such that, in use, a load applied to the monopole is distributed between the monopole and each of the three or more columns (it is understood that a load applied to the monopole would be distributed between the monopole and each of the three or more columns).
Regarding claim 47, Brunozzi et al. teaches each of the columns comprises a plurality of segments (see annotated figure 14 below), each of the plurality of segments being coupled together (annotated figure 14) so as to enable continuous transfer of the load between an adjacent two segments of the plurality of segments (it is understood that the coupled segments would enable continuous transfer of the load between an adjacent two segments of the plurality of segments).
Regarding claim 48, Brunozzi et al. teaches a connecting bracket (annotated figure 14) is fixed to one or more side of each segment of the adjacent two segments proximal an end thereof (annotated figure 14) so as to couple the adjacent two segments together (annotated figure 14).
Regarding claim 49, Brunozzi et al. teaches each of the three or more columns are secured to the outer surface of the monopole at intervals therealong (figure 14).
Regarding claim 51, Brunozzi et al. teaches the plurality of mounting brackets are each collar mounted to the outer surface of the monopole (figure 14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 46, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunozzi et al. (US 20020170261 A1).
Regarding claim 46, Brunozzi et al. does not specifically disclose between approximately 40% to 70% of the load is distributed from the monopole to the three or more columns.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein between approximately 40% to 70% of the load is distributed from the monopole to the three or more columns, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein between approximately 40% to 70% of the load is distributed from the monopole to the three or more columns, in order to provide an optimal reinforcement with more stable force distribution, to protect against strong winds and prevent failure.
Claim(s) 52 and 53, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunozzi et al. (US 20020170261 A1) in view of Doocy (U.S. Patent No. 3,571,991).
Regarding claim 52, although Brunozzi et al. does not specifically disclose the first distal end of each of the columns is secured to the foundation using a cast-in or chemical anchor.
Doocy discloses a base structure for a pole (abstract) wherein the first distal end of each of the columns is secured to the foundation using a cast-in anchor (at 33, 35, 45).
Therefore, from the teaching of Doocy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anchoring assembly of Brunozzi et al. such that the first distal end of each of the columns is secured to the foundation using a cast-in anchor, as taught by Doocy, in order to further secure the pole to the foundation by providing additional points of contact connecting the columns to the foundation for a more robust securement.
Regarding claim 53, Doocy in the combination discloses a base structure for a pole (abstract) including a stub assembly (33, 35, 45) is arranged at the first distal end of each column (B6), the cast-in anchor being configured to fix the stub assembly to the foundation (figure 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
New reference Brunozzi et al. (US 20020170261 A1) has been added to overcome the newly added limitations. Applicant’s argument regarding the limitations “at least on third of a total height of the monopole, each of the columns being secured to the outer surface of the monopole at a plurality of spaced locations along the column by respective mounting brackets, the mounting brackets retaining the columns in the spaced relation away from the outer surface of the monopole such that, along at least a majority of a length of each column, a horizontal clearance is maintained between the column and the outer surface of the monopole” not being taught by, Soucy et al. were found persuasive. The new limitations overcome the previous rejection in view of Soucy et al. and the rejection has been withdrawn. The current claim limitations are overcome in light of new reference Brunozzi et al.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
