DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. The Restriction election received on 05/26/2026 has been acknowledged. Claim 55 has been amended and claim(s) 1-44 have been cancelled. Claims 45-64 are now pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group I and Species 1 (claims 45-53) in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 54-64 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected invention Group II and Species 2-3. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/26/2026.
Applicant's statement that claims 55-64 not depend directly or indirectly from claim 45 of Group 1, has been considered, however, claim 55 remains a process claim that is not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept, as detailed in the restriction requirement.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 50 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 50, at line 2, the recitation “bracket”, is understood to mean --brackets--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “or more” in “three or more columns” of claim 45 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 45-47 and 49-52, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soucy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,057,172).
Regarding claim 45, Soucy et al. teaches a reinforcement assembly for a monopole (abstract), the reinforcement assembly comprising three or more columns (9) secured in spaced relation away from an outer surface of the monopole (figure 1), each of the columns being arranged to extend between a first and second distal end (bottom and top ends of 9), the first distal end of each of the columns being secured to a foundation of the monopole (71; figure 1), and the second distal end of each of the columns being located at a height that is above a height of the first distal end (figure 1), 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 (since the structural limitations of the claim are met, it is understood that in use, a load applied to the monopole would be distributed between the monopole and each of the three or more columns).
Soucy et al. does not specifically disclose the columns having a cross-section that defines a square or rectangular hollow section. However, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shape of the columns to have a cross-section that defines a square or rectangular hollow section, since such a modification would have only involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Absent any persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). It is also common knowledge to choose a shape that has a desired aesthetic or durability and flexibility etc. for the application and intended use of that element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the columns to have a cross-section that defines a square or rectangular hollow section, in order to provide an improved welding surface which provides a greater contact area for a more consistent weld seating.
Regarding claim 46, Soucy 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 a more stable force distribution, to protect against strong winds and prevent failure.
Regarding claim 47, Soucy et al. teaches each of the columns comprises a plurality of segments (at 39, 41), each of the plurality of segments being coupled together (figure 9) so as to enable continuous transfer of the load between an adjacent two segments of the plurality of segments (it is understood that the segments would enable continuous transfer of the load between an adjacent two segments of the plurality of segments).
Regarding claim 49, Soucy et al. teaches each of the three or more columns are secured to the outer surface of the monopole at intervals therealong (figure 1).
Regarding claim 50, Soucy et al. teaches the reinforcement assembly further comprises a plurality of mounting brackets (23) that are configured to secure each of the three or more columns to the outer surface of the monopole (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 51, Soucy et al. teaches the plurality of mounting brackets are each fixed to the outer surface of the monopole via one or more fastener (13) to the outer surface of the monopole (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 52, Soucy et al. teaches the first distal end of each of the columns is secured to the foundation using a cast-in anchor (51).
Claim(s) 48, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Soucy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,057,172) in view of Stevens (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0058550)
Regarding claim 48, Soucy et al. does not specifically disclose a connecting bracket is fixed to one or more side of each segment of the adjacent two segments proximal an end thereof so as to couple the adjacent two segments together.
Stevens discloses a fastening assembly for a pole (abstract; figure 1) including a connecting bracket (4) is fixed to one or more side of each segment of the adjacent two segments proximal an end thereof (figure 1) so as to couple the adjacent two segments together (figure 1).
Therefore, from the teaching of Stevens, 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 Soucy et al. to include a connecting bracket is fixed to one or more side of each segment of the adjacent two segments proximal an end thereof so as to couple the adjacent two segments together, as taught by Stevens, in order to securely connect two components together and provide a means of adjusting the combined length thereof to provide incremental adjustments as required to facilitate installation to the desired length or alignment.
Claim(s) 53, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soucy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,057,172) in view of Doocy (U.S. Patent No. 3,571,991).
Regarding claim 53, Soucy et al. does not specifically disclose a stub assembly is arranged at the first distal end of each column, the cast-in or chemical anchor being configured to fix the stub assembly to the foundation.
Doocy 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).
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 Soucy et al. to include a stub assembly is arranged at the first distal end of each column, the cast-in or chemical anchor being configured to fix the stub assembly to the foundation, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited patents listed on the included form PTO-892 further show the state of the art with respect to tower assemblies in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR 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
Prosecution Insights