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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/28/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 5/28/2026.
Claims 2, 8, 10-12, 14-15 and 17 are amended.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Regarding rejections under §112(b)
Applicant Argues
Claims have been amended to address the §112(b) issue.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s response has been considered and is persuasive. The rejection under §112(b) is withdrawn. However, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is set forth below.
Regarding rejections under §103
Applicant Argues
Applied references do not teach the features of claim 1.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive regarding the specific combination of applied references. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The preamble of claim 16 appears to have an inadvertent duplicate of “chimney safety”; the preamble recites “… when a chimney safety system is not operating properly chimney safety, the method comprising: …”.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “historical open/shut information of chimneys” and lacks clear support in the specification as to what “open/shut information” encompasses, how it is obtained, or how it is represented (beyond the mere label in the training data list), such that the scope of the limitation cannot be determined with reasonable certainty by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 15 recites “historical chimney dimensional data” is not defined with sufficient clarity in the specification to inform, with reasonable certainty, what specific dimensional information is required, particularly in view of the description that such data “may indicate historical dimensions of the historical chimneys” (note plural chimneys).
Claim 21 recites “historical/open shut information of chimneys” and is rejected as per claim 15.
Claim 21 recites to input “sound data generated via the sound sensor”. However, “the sound sensor” lacks antecedent basis.
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, 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, 4, 8, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORGALSBØEN (US20230091398A1) in view of COLSTON (US20210196078A1) (hereinafter – “TORGALSBØEN-COLSTON”).
Regarding claim 1
TORGALSBØEN teaches a system comprising:
at least one temperature sensor configured to measure temperature associated with a portion of a chimney ([0036]: temperature sensor may measure a temperature of a component of the chimney); and
one or more processors ([0108]: processor 32 of remote analysis unit 18 receives chimney health data) configured to:
determine a temperature based upon a temperature signal received from the at least one temperature sensor ([0035], [0036]: sensor unit comprises temperature sensor to measure temperature of chimney or chimney components); and
determine that a chimney overheat condition does not exist based upon the determined temperature ([0072]: “sensor network system is arranged to generate an emergency alarm signal when the parameter of the chimney exceeds a threshold. For example, where a temperature is determined, an alarm may be generated when the temperature exceeds a threshold”, system is arranged to generate an emergency alarm signal when the parameter of the chimney (i.e., the temperature) exceeds a threshold, i.e., the system is arranged to determine that a chimney overheat condition either exists or does not exist based on the temperature exceeding a threshold).
In summary, TORGALSBØEN teaches a chimney monitoring system that identifies if a chimney overheat condition exists or not by using data collected by a temperature sensor that collects chimney temperature data, as outlined above. TORGALSBØEN also teaches a remote analysis unit that estimates the chimney’s health, estimates a fire risk level of the chimney, and determines a need for maintenance ([0014], [0015], [0081]). TORGALSBØEN is not relied on to: determine that a fire is occurring based upon a sound signal or imagery data; in response to the determination that a fire is occurring, determine if the determined temperature is above a system check temperature threshold; and to notify a user if the determined temperature is not above the temperature threshold. However, COLSTON in analogous art teaches a computer-implemented subroutine configured to determine if a temperature sensor is faulty, comprising:
determining that a first is occurring based upon imagery data ([0177]: “if a temperature reading is low, the controller 106 may determine if there is flame by checking the flame sensor” [0080]: “flame sensor 139 may be operably coupled to the controller 106 of the grill device 100 and may provide information to the controller 106 regarding flames or lack thereof to the controller 106 […] controller 106 may utilize flame recognition technology to confirm the presence of flames by analyzing image data captured by the flame sensor 139”);
in response to the determination that a fire is occurring, determine if the determined temperature is above a system check temperature threshold ([0177]: “controller 106 may determine if a sensor is returning an improper reading […] the improper reading may be a faulty sensor […] if a temperature reading is low, the controller 106 may determine if there is flame by checking the flame sensor […] Based on the other sensor readings, the controller may determine if the low temperature reading is a result of a faulty temperature sensor”, a low temperature reading implies a threshold upon which to make the determination that the temperature is low); and
if the determined temperature is not above the system check temperature threshold, send an error message to a mobile device of the user ([0178]: “controller 106 may be configured to notify the user of the problem. For example, the controller 106 may display a fault code on the display 111 or on a mobile device of the user”).
TORGALSBØEN is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the field of chimney safety systems. COLSTON is analogous art because COLSTON teaches a method of identifying a faulty temperature sensor, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem address by the claimed invention. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of TORGALSBØEN such that COLSTON’s subroutine to identify a faulty sensor and alert a user would have been implemented by the remote analysis unit of TORGALSBØEN. TORGALSBØEN teaches a remote analysis unit that estimates and/or determines a chimney’s: health, fire risk, and maintenance schedule. TORGALSBØEN also teaches that the remote analysis unit is capable of communicating with mobile device ([0100]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate COLSTON’s faulty sensor determination subroutine in TORGALSBØEN’s remote analysis unit such that a faulty sensor could be identified for the purpose of making a more accurate determination of the chimney’s health, fire risk, and maintenance schedule. Using COLSTON’s known technique of identifying a fault sensor would have been a predictable way to improve the reliability of TORGALSBØEN’s chimney health system without changing its principle of operation.
Regarding claim 4
TORGALSBØEN-COLSTON teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
COLSTON also teaches an RTD temperature sensor ([0191]).
Regarding claim 8
REF1-REF2 teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
REF1 also teaches or at least suggests to receive historical temperature data of the chimney, train an overheat condition determining AI model using the historical temperature data, and determine a chimney overheat condition using the measured temperature in the AI model ([0109]: processor may also receive historic temperature profile data, [0110]: processor combines the various data sources, for example using an artificial intelligence (Al) algorithm, analysis of this data may help to form a conclusion as to the current state of the chimney).
Regarding claims 16 and 18
REF1 teaches a method of operating a chimney health system ([0017]). The remaining limitations of claim 16 are substantially the same as claim 1 and are rejected as per such.
REF1 teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions to be executed by a processor (i.e., a computer system) ([0025]). The remaining limitations of claim 18 are substantially the same as claim 1 and are rejected as per such.
Regarding claim 20
REF1-REF2 teaches the elements of claim 18 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 20 are substantially the same as claim 4 and are rejected as per such.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORGALSBØEN-COLSTON in view of FORDE (US20140069474A1) (hereinafter – “TORGALSBØEN-COLSTON-FORDE”).
Regarding claim 2
TORGALSBØEN-COLSTON teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. The combination is not relied on to determine that an overheat condition exists based on the temperature being above the threshold for a predetermined time period.
However, FORDE in analogous art teaches to a computer implemented method to “count a length of time […] when the temperature goes above a preset threshold” ([0051]). FORDE is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the field of chimney safety systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of FORDE to the teachings of TORGALSBØEN-COLSTON such that REF’3s subroutine of measuring a length of time that a temperature is above a threshold would have been implemented in the remote analysis unit of TORGALSBØEN-COLSTON for the purposes of making a more accurate determination that chimney overheat condition exists. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that signal noise and transient fluctuations are typical aspects of data acquisition and processing that are accounted for in a data processing system, and that those aspects could be mitigated by determining that the temperature was above the threshold for a predetermined amount of time.
Regarding claim 17
REF1-REF2 teaches the elements of claim 16 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 17 are substantially the same as claim 2 and are rejected as per such.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORGALSBØEN-COLSTON-FORDE in view of MALM (US20170211806A1).
Regarding claim 3
TORGALSBØEN-COLSTON-FORDE teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above. The combination is not relied on to receive an indication of material comprised in the chimney.
However, MALM in an analogous art teaches to adjust a temperature threshold based on an indication of the material comprised in the chimney ([0055]: “maximum temperature is determined by the material properties of the stack”, i.e., temperature threshold is dependent on material comprised in chimney).
MALM is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of monitoring and responding to overheat conditions produced by a heat source. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of MALM to the teachings of TORGALSBØEN-COLSTON-FORDE such that the remote analysis unit of TORGALSBØEN-COLSTON-FORDE would receive an indication of the material comprised in the chimney such that the temperature threshold and time threshold would be adjusted based on the material. TORGALSBØEN teaches to estimate chimney health using measured chimney data and a chimney profile ([0014]) and that the system can comprise an ultrasonic sensor used to determine a type of material ([0043]). Using MALM’s known technique of adjusting a threshold based on material properties would have been a predictable way to improve the reliability of TORGALSBØEN’s chimney health system without changing its principle of operation.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REF1-REF2 in view of MUHAMMAD (US20210299494A1) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter – “AAPA”).
Regarding claim 5
REF1-REF2 teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. REF1-REF2 are not relied on to measure temperature at connection sections of the chimney. REF1-REF2 are not relied on for a rotatable infrared temperature sensor.
However, MUHAMMAD in an analogous art teaches a surface mountable device that is rotatable comprising an infrared temperature sensor that rotates with the unit ([0081]: spray head unit comprises rotatable spray head assembly, rotatable spray head assembly comprises a set of one or more sensors; [0083]: sensors can include thermal sensor such as infrared pyrometer).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of MUHAMMAD to the teachings of REF1-REF2 such that MUHAMMAD’s rotatable temperature sensor would have been used to measure temperature of REF1-REF2’s system for the purpose of measuring temperature at the connection sections of the chimney. AAPA teaches that connections sections of chimneys are particularly susceptible to damage. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, recognizing that connection sections are an area of concern of a chimney, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the system of REF1-REF2 such that the areas of concern could be monitored. Additionally, in order to make the system more retrofittable to an existing home and chimney, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to design the system such that only one sensor unit would need to be surface mounted. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try to use the wall-mountable, rotatable, pyrometer style sensor device taught by MUHAMMAD according to known methods with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REF1-REF2 in view of GANTOS (US20190351267A1) in view of WIKIPEDIA (“Duct tape”, last edited 5/10/2023, retrieved on 6/17/2026, retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duct_tape&oldid=1143808844)1 (hereinafter – “REF1-REF2-GANTOS-WIKIPEDIA”).
Regarding claim 6
REF1-REF2 teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. REF1 also teaches to measure a temperature of the chimney wall ([0036]).
REF1-REF2 are not relied on for the at least one temperature sensor being a thermocouple attached to the chimney via heat resistant tape. However, GANTOS in analogous art teaches to use thermocouple style temperature sensor for a chimney monitoring system ([0002], [0022]). GANTOS is not relied on to attach the thermocouple to the chimney via heat resistant tape. However, WIKIPEDIA a heat-resistant foil tape used for high temperature applications because standard foil tape fails in such applications (First paragraph). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try to use the thermocouple temperature sensor taught by GANTOS to measure the temperature of the chimney wall with a reasonable expectation of success. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that thermocouples are a contact-style temperature sensing device and it would have been obvious to try to use WIKIPEDIA’s heat resistant tape to affix the thermocouple sensor to the chimney wall with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REF1-REF2-GANTOS-WIKIPEDIA in view of AAPA.
Regarding claim 7
REF1-REF2-GANTOS-WIKIPEDIA teach the elements of claim 6 as outlined above.
REF1-REF2-GANTOS-WIKIPEDIA are not relied on to attach the temperature sensor at a connection point of the chimney. However, AAPA teaches that the connection points of the chimney are particular areas of concern. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach a temperature sensor to the connecting sections of the chimney in order to monitoring the areas of concern that are more susceptible to damage such that the chimney health profile could be more accurately determined.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REF1-REF2 in view of ChimneyTek (“How to Avoid Animals That Get Trapped in Your Chimney", published 07/15/2021, https:/ /www.chimneytek.com/how-to-avoid-animals-that-get-trapped-in-your-chimney/. Accessed 09/23/2025).
Regarding claim 9
REF1-REF2 teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
REF1-REF2 are not relied on for an animal repellent device configured to emit ultrasonic waves into and/or in proximity to the chimney to repel animals. However, ChimneyTek in analogous art teaches to use an animal repellent device configured to emit ultrasonic waves to repel animals from a chimney (Pg. 2, Section “How can I keep animals from going into my chimney?”, second bullet). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine ChimneyTek with REF1-REF2 to produce the claimed invention according to known methods with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REF1-REF2 in view of GANTOS (US20190351267A1) in view of MCAWARD (US20060105280A1).
Regarding claim 10
REF1-REF2 teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. REF1 teaches to alert a user to a determined chimney overheat condition ([0072]), REF2 teaches to alert the user via a mobile device ([0169]).
REF1-REF2 are not relied on for the processor and the temperature sensor comprising a chimney safety device. REF1-REF2 are also not relied on for the chimney safety device being disposed within a chimney box. However, GANTOS in analogous art teaches that the components of the chimney monitoring system can be disposed within the same housing ([0002], Fig. 2 teaches the processor/analysis unit/controller 16, temperature sensor 52, and communication module/output device 62 contained in a single device 20). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of GANTOS to the teachings of REF1-REF2 such that REF1-REF2’s chimney monitoring system could be implemented as the single chimney safety device taught by GANTOS for the purposes of designing an all-in-one product to be used in a residential building with only one chimney.
PNG
media_image1.png
543
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
GANTOS, Fig. 2
The REF1-REF2-GANTOS combination is not relied on to dispose the chimney safety device within a chimney box surrounding at least a portion of a flue of the chimney. However, MCAWARD in analogous art teaches to place a temperature sensor within a chimney box (Abstract, [0022]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to dispose the temperature sensing and health monitoring chimney safety device of REF1-REF2-GANTOS within a chimney box surrounding at least a portion of the flue of the chimney as taught by MCAWARD such that the chimney safety device is able to sense the temperature of the chimney it is monitoring.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REF1-REF2 in view of MATOWITZ (US20230118181A1).
Regarding claim 11
REF1-REF2 teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. REF1 teaches to alert a user to a determined chimney overheat condition ([0072]), REF2 teaches to alert the user via a mobile device ([0169]). REF1-REF2 are not relied on for the one or more processors are disposed within a smart home hub disposed outside of the chimney. However, MATOWITZ in analogous art teaches to a smart home monitoring device configured to collect data and make determinations about the home it is monitoring ([0031]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of MATOWITZ to the teachings of REF1-REF2 such that the remote analysis unit of REF1 could be implemented as a software module in MATOWITZ’s smart home device according to known methods with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REF1-REF2 in view of MUHAMMAD (US20210299494A1).
Regarding claim 12
REF1-REF2 teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. REF1 teaches to determine a chimney overheat condition as outlined above.
REF1-REF2 are not relied on for a sound monitoring device. However, MUHAMMAD in analogous art teaches to monitor sound for the presence of fire and that sound recognition software is readily available for integration of the sound sensor into an existing system ([0005], [0083], [0087]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of MUHAMMAD to the teachings of REF1-REF2 such that REF1-REF2’s system would include the sound monitoring device taught by MUHAMMAD’s, according to known methods with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purposes of providing additional data to the analysis unit about the state of the chimney system such that the analysis unit could make a more accurate determination of the chimney’s state to determine if the chimney is an overheat condition.
Regarding claim 13
REF1-REF2 teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
REF1-REF2 are not relied on for a sound monitoring device. However, MUHAMMAD in an analogous art teaches to monitor sound for the presence of fire and that sound recognition software is readily available for integration of the sound sensor into an existing system ([0005], [0083], [0087]). MUHAMMAD also teaches to determine that a fire is not occurring based upon the sound signal generated by the sound monitoring device ([0087]: microphone can be used to identify the presence of fire, i.e., if a fire is not identified based on the sound signal, then it is determined that the fire is not occurring). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of MUHAMMAD to the teachings of REF1-REF2 such that REF1-REF2’s system would include the sound monitoring device taught by MUHAMMAD’s, according to known methods with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purposes of verifying the presence of the fire acoustically where the camera is unavailable or fails to provide an image.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REF1-REF2 in view of REINHILD (CH700519A2).
Regarding claim 14
REF1-REF2 teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. REF1 teaches to determine the chimney overheat conditions exists as outlined above.
REF1-REF2 are not relied on for to send a signal to a fireplace gas controller to shut off gas to a fireplace. However, REINHILD in an analogous art teaches that commercially available chimney monitoring devices commonly include a feature to shut off a gas flow if a temperature is above a threshold ([0003]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teaching of REINHILD to the teachings of REF1-REF2 such that REF1-REF2’s processor could trigger a signal to a fireplace controller to shut off a gas flow when the chimney is in an overheat condition according to known methods with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REF1-REF2 in view of SMITH (US20200066257A1).
Regarding claim 15
REF1-REF2 teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
REF1-REF2 are not relied on for the system comprising a sound sensor to detect the presence of animal. However, SMITH in analogous art teaches a method of rodent detection using audio signals ([0021], [0040]), that a machine learning algorithm trained on historical sound can be used to determine such an event ([0027]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine SMITH’s computer-implemented method of rodent detection using a trained machine learning algorithm with REF1-REF2’s chimney monitoring system to produce the claimed invention according to known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale for doing so is that animal intrusion and detection is a well-known problem in the art.
Regarding claim 21
REF1-REF2 teaches the elements of claim 16 as outlined above.
In view of the indefiniteness issues outlined above regarding claim 21, the claim recites substantially the same limitations as claim 15 and is rejected as per such.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
AL-SHAIJI (US20220373176A1) teaches a fire sensor to be used to confirm that a temperature sensor is giving faulty readings ([0074-0075]).
ROLF (US20190064391A1) teaches a remote monitoring system including providing an alert to a user when a sensor at the remote location malfunctions ([0101], Fig. 18D).
TAYLOR (US4666189A) teaches fire and exhaust hazards at chimney connecting sections (Background).
SCANLON (US20170045224A1) teaches a damper safety switch that can communicate a position change ([0048]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 A historical version of the “Duct tape” page was accessed. The link provided directs to the historical page cited. A copy of the historical version is included with this Office action.
Prosecution Insights