Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/951,857

ANCHORING SYSTEMS FOR USE ON TELECOMMUNICATION STRUCTURES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 19, 2024
Examiner
MCDUFFIE, MICHAEL D
Art Unit
3632
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Outdoor Wireless Networks LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
57%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
570 granted / 845 resolved
+15.5% vs TC avg
Minimal -10% lift
Without
With
+-10.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
860
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
52.1%
+12.1% vs TC avg
§102
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
§112
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 845 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application # 18951857, entitled: ANCHORING SYSTEMS FOR USE ON TELECOMMUNICATION STRUCTURES, filed on 11/19/2024. Claims 17-18 and 21-38 are pending. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 17-18 and 21-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterworth et al. (U.S. Pat. 5570546) in view of Calabro (U.S. Pat. 5954305). Regarding claims 17 and 27-28, Butterworth teaches a cable anchoring system for a cable ladder 10, where the cable ladder 10 extends up an antenna mast 24 and having a plurality of cable beams 188 extending therebetween, the cable anchoring system comprising: a main support beam 100 comprising at least two apertures which each align with a respective aperture in one of the plurality of cable beams 188 (as seen in Fig. 8); and at least one eyebolt 148 affixed to the main support beam 100 (via transition assembly 40), where the aligned apertures are configured to receive a respective fastener (see Fig. 9 below) to secure the anchoring system to the cable ladder 10, and where the at least one eyebolt 148 is configured to engage one or more hoisting grips 164 that support cables 75,76 being routed up the antenna mast 24. With regards to claims 17 and 27-28, Butterworth is discussed above and teaches the cable anchoring system. However, Butterworth fails to teach where the system comprises a pair of support beams extending parallel to each other. Calabro teaches an anchoring system comprising a mast 15, a main support beam 54 that is supported by support beams 50,80 that extend parallel to each other. 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 system of Butterworth to have an extension (see channel 55) attached to support beams, in order to provide an adaptable antenna mounting platform for fixed securement to an elongated mast pole which provides an increased level of safety to personnel, as taught to be desirable by Calabro (see discussion in col. 2, lines 25-28). Regarding claims 18, 23, 29, and 36, Butterworth teaches the cable anchoring system, where the anchoring system is configured to support the load weight of the one or more hoisting grips 164 and corresponding cables 75,76 without causing damage to the cable ladder 10 (see Figs. 1A and 5). Regarding claims 21, 30, and 35, Butterworth and Calabro teach the cable anchoring system, where the main support beam is L-shaped (see combination of 100 in Butterworth and 55 in Calabro). Regarding claims 22 and 32, Butterworth teaches the cable anchoring system, where the main support beam 100 comprises one or more additional apertures (as seen in Fig. 3 below) configured to receive the at least one eyebolt 148 therethrough. The Examiner notes that as the cables 75,76 are raised through the mast 24, the eyebolt 148 is elevated to the opening shown in Fig. 3 below. Regarding claim 24, Butterworth is discussed above, and teaches the cable anchoring system, but fails to explicitly teach at least two eyebolts affixed to the main support beam. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional eyebolt with the anchoring system of Butterworth, in order to provide additional support for the hoisting grips. In addition, the Examiner notes that the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2141, III. (D)). Regarding claims 25 and 33, Butterworth teaches the cable anchoring system, where the at least one eyebolt 148 comprises a shank that is configured to be received through a respective aperture in the main support beam and secured via a fastener (as seen in Fig. 5). Regarding claims 26 and 34, Butterworth teaches the cable anchoring system, where the at least one eyebolt 148 comprises a carriage bolt having a flanged hex head screw, the carriage bolt configured to be fixed to an eye by a fastening mechanism (as shown in Fig. 5). Regarding claim 37, Calabro teaches the cable anchoring system, in combination with the cable ladder extending up an antenna mast 15, the cable ladder comprises a pair of vertical support beams 117 extending parallel to each other and a plurality of horizontal beams 105 extending between the vertical support beams 117 (as seen in Fig. 2). Regarding claim 38, Butterworth teaches the cable anchoring system, in combination with the hoisting grip 164, where the hoisting grip 164 is engaged with one of the eyebolts 148 (as seen in Fig. 5). PNG media_image1.png 807 639 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 772 650 media_image2.png Greyscale Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the reference to Butterworth et al. and Calabro above, the Examiner submits the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). The cited prior art discloses mounting systems for antenna masts. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM-4:30PM. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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. /Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 4-Apr-26 /TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 19, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594892
TWEETER FLUSH, SURFACE, AND STARFISH MOUNT INSTALLATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12440073
Tube Holder With Retractable Barrier(s)
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 14, 2025
Patent 12318022
FLAT-PACK LIQUID DISPENSING STATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 03, 2025
Patent 12323088
SOLAR PANEL SUPPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 03, 2025
Patent 12320083
Cable Barrier With Dual-Column Posts
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 03, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
57%
With Interview (-10.4%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 845 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month