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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/18/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10-11 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,385,262 to Heath. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent teaches a collar mount, the collar mount comprising: a plurality of pressure members, each of the plurality of pressure members comprising an upper pressure plate and a lower pressure plate each having a forward edge configured to engage a base station monopole at a pressure point; a dispersement plate connected to each upper pressure plate and each lower pressure plate via a connection mechanism, each dispersement plate configured to be positioned at the pressure point between the forward edge of the respective pressure plate and the base station monopole; and wherein each connection mechanism is configured to hold the respective dispersement plate in non-rigidly fixed position relative to the respective pressure plate, thereby allowing the collar mount to be in a tilted position relative to the base station monopole while each dispersement plate is in a flush and parallel position with an outer surface of the base station monopole wherein the connection mechanism comprises a first flange and a second flange opposed to the first flange and a threaded member. The patent further teaches a collar mount, the collar mount comprising: at least three pressure members, wherein adjacent pressure members are connected together via one or more threaded members; each of the plurality of pressure members comprise an upper pressure plate and a lower pressure plate extending parallel to each other and coupled together via a support plate, the upper and lower pressure plates each having a forward edge configured to engage a base station monopole at a respective pressure point; and a plurality of dispersement plates, each dispersement plate positioned at the respective pressure points between the forward edges of the upper and lower pressure plates and the base station monopole, wherein each dispersement plate is non-rigidly connected to the respective upper and lower pressure plates.
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) 1, 4, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beyersmith (U.S. 5,467,955).
Regarding claim 1, Beyersmith teaches a collar mount, the collar mount comprising: a plurality of pressure members (48); a plurality of threaded members (78) connecting the plurality of pressure members (48, see fig 1), wherein at least one of the plurality of threaded members (78) is connected between each two adjacent pressure members (48) of the plurality of pressure members (48, see fig 1); and at least one dispersement member (60) connected to each pressure member (48, see fig 4), each dispersement member (60) configured to be positioned at a pressure point between a radially inward edge of the respective pressure member (48) and a base station monopole (12, as described in column 3 lines 50-57).
Regarding claim 4, Beyersmith teaches the collar mount of claim 1. Beyersmith further teaches wherein when mounted on the base station monopole, each dispersement member (60) extends generally parallel to an outer surface of the base station monopole (12, as seen in figs 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 8, Beyersmith teaches the collar mount of claim 1. Beyersmith further teaches wherein the plurality of pressure members (48) are spaced substantially evenly about the collar mount (as seen in fig 1, 3 pressure members are spaced around the collar mount).
Regarding claim 9, Beyersmith teaches the collar mount of claim 1. Beyersmith further teaches wherein two of the plurality of threaded members (78) are connected between each two adjacent pressure members (48) of the plurality of pressure members (as seen in fig 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 5-7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art is Ianello (U.S. 6,563,475), Mehrkens (U.S. 6,342,870), and Beyersmith (U.S. 5,467,955). While Ianello teaches a plurality of pressure members connected together via one or more threaded members, the pressure members comprising an upper pressure plate and a lower pressure plate extending parallel to one another, Ianello is silent as to a dispersement member non-rigidly connected to the pressure member configured to be positioned at the pressure point between the radially inward edge of the pressure member and a base station monopole. Ianello teaches a dispersement member in 78, however it is not located between the inward edge of the pressure member and the base station monopole. Mehrkens teaches a dispersement plate 130 positioned at the pressure point between the radially inward edge of a pressure member and a base station monopole, however, the pressure member of Mehrkens is not comprised of an upper pressure plate and a lower pressure plate extending parallel to one another. Beyersmith teaches a plurality of pressure members with a dispersement member configured to be positioned at the pressure point between a radially inward edge of the pressure member and a base station monopole, however the pressure member of Beyersmith is not comprised of an upper pressure plate and a lower pressure plate extending parallel to one another. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified the prior art to include limitations required by the claims, as it would fundamentally change the function of the prior art. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the prior art of record to arrive at the claimed invention, absent hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,462,813, US 2011/0279347, US 7,113,145 (all of which teach elements of the claimed invention).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
