Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/572,276

BUILDING VENTING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 20, 2023
Examiner
FIGUEROA, LUZ ADRIANA
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Masonry Technology, INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
741 granted / 1080 resolved
+16.6% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
1093
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
49.4%
+9.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1080 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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, 7, 13, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fishburn (CA 1175628). Regarding claim 1, Fishburn discloses a building venting system for use proximate a juncture of vertical and horizontal surfaces, comprising: a first support 22 configured and arranged to be positioned on a portion of the horizontal surface proximate the vertical surface; (Fig 1) at least one spacer 30 configured and arranged to be positioned on a portion of the first support 22 and on a portion of the vertical surface (Fig 1); and a second support (horizontal portion of insulation 40) configured and arranged to be positioned on a portion of the at least one spacer 30 proximate the vertical surface (Fig 1). Regarding claim 7, Fishburn discloses wherein the vertical and horizontal surfaces are proximate a roof perimeter (Fig 1). Regarding claim 13, Fishburn discloses a method of installing a building venting system proximate a juncture of vertical and horizontal surfaces, comprising: positioning a first support 22 on a portion of the horizontal surface proximate the vertical surface; positioning a first leg 31 of a first spacer 30 proximate the vertical surface and a second leg 32 of the first spacer proximate the first support 22 (Fig 1); and positioning a second support (horizontal portion of insulation 40) on the second leg proximate the vertical surface (Fig 1). Regarding claim 16, Fishburn discloses further comprising positioning a second spacer 28 on the first support 22 and then positioning the first leg 31 of the first spacer 30 proximate the vertical surface and the second leg 32 of the first spacer proximate the second spacer (Fig 1). Regarding claim 17, Fishburn discloses positioning a second spacer 28 on the second leg 32 (Fig 1). 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. Claim(s) 2, 3, 8, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishburn (CA 1175628) in view of Edwards (GB 1083845). Regarding claim 2, Fishburn discloses as discussed in claim 1, but does not disclose the at least one spacer includes a corrugated member forming channels configured and arranged to allow air and moisture vapor ventilation. However, Edwards discloses a roofing system including a spacer 12 including a corrugated member forming channels, (Fig 2), (Page 3, Lines 106-114). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacer of Fishburn to include a corrugated member as taught by Edwards in order to form a vent for vapor emerging from beneath the roofing elements. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 3, Fishburn modified by Edwards discloses as discussed in claim 2, as modified, the corrugated member includes a first leg 31 configured and arranged to be positioned proximate the vertical surface and a second leg 32 configured and arranged to be positioned proximate the first support (Fig 1 of Fishburn). Regarding claims 8 and 12, Fishburn modified by Edwards discloses the claimed building venting system. The limitations of claims 8 and 12 can be seen above in the rejections of claims 1-3 and 7. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishburn (CA 1175628) in view of Fromentin (EP 3473781). Regarding claim 14, Fishburn discloses as discussed in claim 13, but does not disclose positioning a vapor retarder on the horizontal surface proximate the vertical surface, wherein the first support is positioned on the vapor retarder. However, Fromentin discloses a method of positioning a vapor retarder 16 on a horizontal surface proximate a vertical surface (Fig 1, 2). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fishburn to include a vapor retarder as taught by Fromentin, in order to provide moisture damage to the building. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As modified, the vapor retarder would be positioned between the truss 21 and the first support thus the first support would be positioned on the vapor retarder. Regarding claim 15, Fishburn discloses positioning insulation within some of the ribs of truss 21 (Fig 1) but does not disclose the insulation positioned on all the ribs of the truss 21. However, it would have been an obvious engineering design to have insulation on all the ribs of the truss in order to provide a better insulation. As modified, the vapor retarder would be positioned adjacent a distal end of the first support. Allowable Subject Matter 9. Claims 4-6, 9-11, 18-20 are 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. Conclusion 10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-8281. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM MONDAY-FRIDAY. 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, BRIAN GLESSNER can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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. /ADRIANA FIGUEROA/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3633 09/06/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 20, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 04, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595028
PROTECTIVE COVER FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590460
REINFORCING BAR CAGE CONNECTORS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTING REINFORCING BAR CAGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590469
CARPORT PERGOLA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577779
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571511
INTEGRATED CEILING AND LIGHT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
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
69%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+21.5%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1080 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month