DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment of August 3, 2026 is considered herein.
Claims 1, 3, 8-12, 14, 15, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-18 are pending and have been considered on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al (TW201543707A, wherein the machine English translation is cited herein), in view of DUPUIS et al (WO2022/063624A1, wherein US PG PUB 2023/0361717A1 is cited as an English equivalent herein).
Regarding claim 1, HUANG et al teaches a solar module (figure 7) comprising:
a solar panel (components 1-6/111/121/103/130) including at least one solar cell (10a/10b);
a frame (160); and
a damper (“waterproof rubber material” coating on 130, last sentence of the 1st full paragraph of page 5) disposed between the solar panel (1-6/111/121/103) and the frame (160) (disposal orientation see figure 7), said damper (backside coating of 130) forming at least a portion of one or more junction boxes (150) (wherein figure 7 shows the junction box to be disposed on and against the back side of layer 130, forming an edge of the junction box), said junction box(es) (150) housing terminations (112a/122b and the associated polarity components shown as + and – in the box 150) of said solar panel (from 111a/121b).
The rubber coating of said damper (coating on 130), while disclosed to be rubber, teaches the use of thermoplastic material as said layer (final sentence of the 1st full paragraph of page 5), which will not function to absorb mechanical force. This same citation does teach the coating to protect “from mechanical force” but is silent to the layer being adapted to dampen, or otherwise absorb energy from, solar panel vibration and/or deformation.
DUPUIS et al teaches a solar cell comprising a junction box (paragraph [0068]), just as in HUANG et al. Moreover, DUPUIS et al teaches the use of an anti-vibrational device (paragraph [0010]) present relative to the module which can dampen or protect the device from the impact of vibration (paragraph [0004]) comprising an anti-vibration device on a multi-layer backsheet (5, as in that of the backsheet coating of HUANG et al or in addition to). The use of a visco-elastic material allows for dampening the vibration (paragraph [0016]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the anti-vibration viscoelastic layer of DUPUIS et al, on the rear side of the device as in the protective coating of HUANG et al to mitigate and protect the device from mechanical impact and vibration. Moreover, in a different interpretation of DUPUIS et al, it would have also been obvious to utilize the multilayer damper comprising the anti-vibration device of DUPUIS et al in addition to or on the damper/mechanical stress protective layer of HUANG et al, the same beneficial protection is realized with the benefit of force or vibrational absorption. In addition, the use of the anti-vibration layer to dampen the impact of the wind (paragraph [0017] also fulfills the claim, providing a layer capable of dampen or otherwise absorb energy from an impact force. For at least these reasons, the instant structure of modified DUPUIS et al teaches this final limitation.
Regarding claim 2, the anti-vibration layer of modified HUANG et al is made to include viscoelastic materials (paragraph [0016], DUPUIS et al), just as in the instant application’s claim 2. The use of the same material is interpreted to provide the same functionality. Moreover, the fulfillment of the claimed functionality is interpreted to be inherent to the material of use as the characteristics of materials are inseparable from the materials themselves. Therefore, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 4, DUPUIS et al teaches damper constrains flexing of said solar cells below the damage threshold of said solar cells (Paragraph [0053] teaches the presence of vibration on the module. The damper imparts a stiffness as detailed in paragraph [0055]. It is the position of the examiner the damper is capable of and does provide constraint of flexing based on the vibrational impact, which is below the damage threshold, fulfilling the claim as written. Moreover, the use of the same materials (viscoelastic, instant claim 2, paragraph [0016] of DUPUIS et al) in the same use or situation of DUPUIS et al as in the instant will provide the same functionality inherent to the structure and material as these properties are of the material.).
Claim(s) 3, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al, in view of DUPUIS et al and LI (US PG PUB 2011/0114149).
Regarding claim 3, while the junction box of HUANG et al will hold the electrical connections (see figure 7), modified HUANG et al is silent to a termination cable is mechanically coupled to each of said one or more junction boxes and electrically coupled to said terminations by one or more wire-to-wire solder joints.
LI teaches a photovoltaic module comprising a junction box, just as in modified HUANG et al. LI further teaches a wire (241/242, interpreted to read on a termination) from the solar panel (210) soldered to an output cable (wire, interpreted to read on a termination cable) (271/272) via soldering joint (251/252), as detailed in paragraph [0023], forming wire-to-wire solder joints of the solar cell terminations. Moreover, junction box (230) is mechanically coupled to the wire-to-wire solder joint (241/242/251/252/271/272) via the opening in the junction box (228). Paragraph [0009] teaches the use of the junction box orientation to protect the electrical connections therein.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mechanically and electrically couple the junction box to the electrical connections of modified HUANG et al, as in LI, so as to ensure protection to the soldered joints.
Regarding claim 5, while HUANG et al teaches the use of a junction box, modified HUANG et al is silent to the module comprising a rigid insert forming at least another portion of said one or more junction boxes.
LI teaches a photovoltaic module comprising a junction box, just as in HUANG et al. LI further teaches filling the junction box with an epoxy material to further protect the electronic connections in paragraph [0025].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fill the junction box of modified HUANG et al with an epoxy material, as in LI, so as to ensure protection to the soldered joints. It is well established in the art for epoxy to harden, providing the desired protection, rendering a rigid insert forming a portion of the box. To be clear, the claim does not require a particular quantified amount of rigidity, therefore it is the further interpretation of the examiner that some degree of rigidity is obviously and necessarily achieved via the use of the epoxy filling.
Regarding claim 6, while the junction box of HUANG et al will hold the electrical connections (see figure 7), modified HUANG et al is silent to a termination cable is mechanically coupled to each of said one or more junction boxes and electrically coupled to said terminations by one or more wire-to-wire solder joints.
LI teaches a photovoltaic module comprising a junction box, just as in modified HUANG et al. LI further teaches a wire (241/242, interpreted to read on a termination) from the solar panel (210) soldered to an output cable (wire, interpreted to read on a termination cable) (271/272) via soldering joint (251/252), as detailed in paragraph [0023], forming wire-to-wire solder joints of the solar cell terminations. Moreover, junction box (230) is mechanically coupled to the wire-to-wire solder joint (241/242/251/252/271/272) via the opening in the junction box (228). Paragraph [0009] teaches the use of the junction box orientation to protect the electrical connections therein.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mechanically and electrically couple the junction box to the electrical connections of modified HUANG et al, as in LI, so as to ensure protection to the soldered joints.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al, in view of DUPUIS et al and PAO (US PG PUB 2019/0372517).
Regarding claim 7, modified HUANG et al is silent to the use of a potting compound disposed within said one or more junction boxes.
PAO teaches a junction box (12) present on a solar module (100), just as in HUANG et al, as shown in figure 1. PAO further teaches the addition of a pottant material within the inner cavity of the box to provide protection from moisture, corrosive agents and vibration (see paragraph [0032]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to fill the junction box of modified HUANG et al with the pottant material of PAO so as to provide protection from moisture, corrosive agents and vibration.
Claim(s) 8, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al, in view of DUPUIS et al and SHERWOOD et al (US PG PUB 2020/0389119).
Regarding claim 8, HUANG et al teaches a solar module (figure 7) comprising:
a solar panel (components 1-6/111/121/103/130) including at least one solar cell (10a/10b);
a frame (160); and
a damper (“waterproof rubber material” coating on 130, last sentence of the 1st full paragraph of page 5) disposed between the solar panel (1-6/111/121/103) and the frame (160) (disposal orientation see figure 7), said damper (backside coating of 130) forming at least a portion of one or more junction boxes (150) (wherein figure 7 shows the junction box to be disposed on and against the back side of layer 130, forming an edge of the junction box), said junction box(es) (150) housing terminations (112a/122b and the associated polarity components shown as + and – in the box 150) of said solar panel (from 111a/121b).
The rubber coating of said damper (coating on 130), while disclosed to be rubber, teaches the use of thermoplastic material as said layer (final sentence of the 1st full paragraph of page 5), which will not function to absorb mechanical force. This same citation does teach the coating to protect “from mechanical force” but is silent to the layer being adapted to dampen, or otherwise absorb energy from, solar panel vibration and/or deformation.
DUPUIS et al teaches a solar cell comprising a junction box (paragraph [0068]), just as in HUANG et al. Moreover, DUPUIS et al teaches the use of an anti-vibrational device (paragraph [0010]) present relative to the module which can dampen or protect the device from the impact of vibration (paragraph [0004]) comprising an anti-vibration device on a multi-layer backsheet (5, as in that of the backsheet coating of HUANG et al or in addition to). The use of a visco-elastic material allows for dampening the vibration (paragraph [0016]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the anti-vibration viscoelastic layer of DUPUIS et al, on the rear side of the device as in the protective coating of HUANG et al to mitigate and protect the device from mechanical impact and vibration. Moreover, in a different interpretation of DUPUIS et al, it would have also been obvious to utilize the multilayer damper comprising the anti-vibration device of DUPUIS et al in addition to or on the damper/mechanical stress protective layer of HUANG et al, the same beneficial protection is realized with the benefit of force or vibrational absorption. In addition, the use of the anti-vibration layer to dampen the impact of the wind (paragraph [0017]) also fulfills the claim, providing a layer capable of dampen or otherwise absorb energy from an impact force. For at least these reasons, the instant structure of modified DUPUIS et al teaches this final limitation.
While HUANG et al teaches the use of a solar module for power generation successful when subjected to environmental disturbances (last sentence of the first full paragraph of page 5), modified HUANG et al is silent to the panel being part of a vehicle.
SHERWOOD et al teaches the use of a solar panel in figures 2 and 3, just as in HUANG et al. SHERWOOD et al further teaches the use of a panel within a vehicle, including the roof of a vehicle, as shown in figure 1. Paragraph [0018]-[0019] detail the use of solar panels for power generation to power parts of the vehicle.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the panel of HUANG et al within the vehicle of SHERWOOD et al so as to allow for power generation to be used onsite in parts of a vehicle, while still benefiting from the protective features of the panel of HUANG et al.
Regarding claim 9, the anti-vibration layer of modified HUANG et al is made to include viscoelastic materials (paragraph [0016], DUPUIS et al), just as in the instant application’s claim 9. The use of the same material is interpreted to provide the same functionality. Moreover, the fulfillment of the claimed functionality is interpreted to be inherent to the material of use as the characteristics of materials are inseparable from the materials themselves. Therefore, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 11, modified HUANG et al teaches damper constrains flexing of said solar cells below the damage threshold of said solar cells (Paragraph [0053] of DUPUIS et al teaches the presence of vibration on the module. The damper imparts a stiffness as detailed in paragraph [0055]. It is the position of the Examiner that the damper of modified HUANG et al (explicitly the damper of DUPUIS et al) is capable of and does provide constraint of flexing based on the vibrational impact, which is below the damage threshold, fulfilling the claim as written. Moreover, the use of the same materials (viscoelastic, instant claim 9, paragraph [0016] of DUPUIS et al) in the same use or situation as in modified HUANG et al as in the instant will provide the same functionality inherent to the structure and material as these properties are of the material.).
Claim(s) 10, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al, in view of DUPUIS et al, SHERWOOD et al and LI.
Regarding claim 10, while the junction box of HUANG et al will hold the electrical connections (see figure 7), modified HUANG et al is silent to a termination cable is mechanically coupled to each of said one or more junction boxes and electrically coupled to said terminations by one or more wire-to-wire solder joints.
LI teaches a photovoltaic module comprising a junction box, just as in modified HUANG et al. LI further teaches a wire (241/242, interpreted to read on a termination) from the solar panel (210) soldered to an output cable (wire, interpreted to read on a termination cable) (271/272) via soldering joint (251/252), as detailed in paragraph [0023], forming wire-to-wire solder joints of the solar cell terminations. Moreover, junction box (230) is mechanically coupled to the wire-to-wire solder joint (241/242/251/252/271/272) via the opening in the junction box (228). Paragraph [0009] teaches the use of the junction box orientation to protect the electrical connections therein.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mechanically and electrically couple the junction box to the electrical connections of modified HUANG et al, as in LI, so as to ensure protection to the soldered joints.
Regarding claim 12, while HUANG et al teaches the use of a junction box, HUANG et al is silent to the module comprising a rigid insert forming at least another portion of said one or more junction boxes.
LI teaches a photovoltaic module comprising a junction box, just as in HUANG et al. LI further teaches filling the junction box with an epoxy material to further protect the electronic connections in paragraph [0025].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fill the junction box of DUPUIS et al with an epoxy material, as in LI, so as to ensure protection to the soldered joints. It is well established in the art for epoxy to harden, providing the desired protection, rendering a rigid insert forming a portion of the box. To be clear, the claim does not require a particular quantified amount of rigidity, therefore it is the further interpretation of the examiner that some degree of rigidity is obviously and necessarily achieved via the use of the epoxy filling.
Regarding claim 13, while the junction box of HUANG et al will hold the electrical connections (see figure 7), modified HUANG et al is silent to a termination cable is mechanically coupled to each of said one or more junction boxes and electrically coupled to said terminations by one or more wire-to-wire solder joints.
LI teaches a photovoltaic module comprising a junction box, just as in modified HUANG et al. LI further teaches a wire (241/242, interpreted to read on a termination) from the solar panel (210) soldered to an output cable (wire, interpreted to read on a termination cable) (271/272) via soldering joint (251/252), as detailed in paragraph [0023], forming wire-to-wire solder joints of the solar cell terminations. Moreover, junction box (230) is mechanically coupled to the wire-to-wire solder joint (241/242/251/252/271/272) via the opening in the junction box (228). Paragraph [0009] teaches the use of the junction box orientation to protect the electrical connections therein.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mechanically and electrically couple the junction box to the electrical connections of modified HUANG et al, as in LI, so as to ensure protection to the soldered joints.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al, in view of DUPUIS et al, SHERWOOD et al and PAO (US PG PUB 2019/0372517).
Regarding claim 14, modified HUANG et al is silent to the use of a potting compound disposed within said one or more junction boxes.
PAO teaches a junction box (12) present on a solar module (100), just as in modified HUANG et al, as shown in figure 1. PAO further teaches the addition of a pottant material within the inner cavity of the box to provide protection from moisture, corrosive agents and vibration (see paragraph [0032]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to fill the junction box of modified HUANG et al with the pottant material of PAO so as to provide protection from moisture, corrosive agents and vibration.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al, in view of DUPUIS et al and MASUMOTO et al (KR20120021167A, wherein an English machine translation is cited herein).
Regarding claim 15, while the junction box of HUANG et al will hold the electrical connections (see figure 7), modified HUANG et al is silent to a termination cable is mechanically coupled to each of said one or more junction boxes and electrically coupled to said terminations by one or more wire-to-board solder joints.
MASUMOTO et al teaches a junction box for attachment to the terminations of a solar panel (output terminal are interpreted as the terminations, see Technical Field), just as in HUANG et al. MASUMOTO et al further teaches the connection of the terminations (3, output cable (interpreted as wire) to a board (6, terminal board) (see figure 3) via soldering (paragraph 2, Embodiment of the Invention), rendering mechanical connection to the box (see figure 5) and a “wire-to-board solder joint”. Moreover, the terminations are also connected to an external cable (4, power cable/terminal cable of the instant claim) via soldering (paragraph 3, Embodiment of the invention). The use of this electrical connectivity enables extraction from the power generated in the solar cell to an external use (see paragraph 3, Embodiment of the Invention).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the connectivity structure of MASUMOTO et al, within the junction box of modified HUANG et al so as to enable extraction of the power from the solar cell in an effective way.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al, in view of DUPUIS et al, LI and MASUMOTO et al.
Regarding claim 16, while the junction box of HUANG et al will hold the electrical connections (see figure 7), modified HUANG et al is silent to a termination cable is mechanically coupled to each of said one or more junction boxes and electrically coupled to said terminations by one or more wire-to-board solder joints.
MASUMOTO et al teaches a junction box for attachment to the terminations of a solar panel (output terminal are interpreted as the terminations, see Technical Field), just as in HUANG et al. MASUMOTO et al further teaches the connection of the terminations (3, output cable (interpreted as wire) to a board (6, terminal board) (see figure 3) via soldering (paragraph 2, Embodiment of the Invention), rendering mechanical connection to the box (see figure 5) and a “wire-to-board solder joint”. Moreover, the terminations are also connected to an external cable (4, power cable/terminal cable of the instant claim) via soldering (paragraph 3, Embodiment of the invention). The use of this electrical connectivity enables extraction from the power generated in the solar cell to an external use (see paragraph 3, Embodiment of the Invention).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the connectivity structure of MASUMOTO et al, within the junction box of modified HUANG et al so as to enable extraction of the power from the solar cell in an effective way.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al, in view of DUPUIS et al, SHERWOOD et al and MASUMOTO et al.
Regarding claim 17, while the junction box of HUANG et al will hold the electrical connections (see figure 7), modified HUANG et al is silent to a termination cable is mechanically coupled to each of said one or more junction boxes and electrically coupled to said terminations by one or more wire-to-board solder joints.
MASUMOTO et al teaches a junction box for attachment to the terminations of a solar panel (output terminal are interpreted as the terminations, see Technical Field), just as in HUANG et al. MASUMOTO et al further teaches the connection of the terminations (3, output cable (interpreted as wire) to a board (6, terminal board) (see figure 3) via soldering (paragraph 2, Embodiment of the Invention), rendering mechanical connection to the box (see figure 5) and a “wire-to-board solder joint”. Moreover, the terminations are also connected to an external cable (4, power cable/terminal cable of the instant claim) via soldering (paragraph 3, Embodiment of the invention). The use of this electrical connectivity enables extraction from the power generated in the solar cell to an external use (see paragraph 3, Embodiment of the Invention).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the connectivity structure of MASUMOTO et al, within the junction box of modified HUANG et al so as to enable extraction of the power from the solar cell in an effective way.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al, in view of DUPUIS et al, SHERWOOD et al, LI and MASUMOTO et al.
Regarding claim 18, while the junction box of HUANG et al will hold the electrical connections (see figure 7), modified HUANG et al is silent to a termination cable is mechanically coupled to each of said one or more junction boxes and electrically coupled to said terminations by one or more wire-to-board solder joints.
MASUMOTO et al teaches a junction box for attachment to the terminations of a solar panel (output terminal are interpreted as the terminations, see Technical Field), just as in HUANG et al. MASUMOTO et al further teaches the connection of the terminations (3, output cable (interpreted as wire) to a board (6, terminal board) (see figure 3) via soldering (paragraph 2, Embodiment of the Invention), rendering mechanical connection to the box (see figure 5) and a “wire-to-board solder joint”. Moreover, the terminations is also connected to an external cable (4, power cable/terminal cable of the instant claim) via soldering (paragraph 3, Embodiment of the invention). The use of this electrical connectivity enables extraction from the power generated in the solar cell to an external use (see paragraph 3, Embodiment of the Invention).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the connectivity structure of MASUMOTO et al, within the junction box of modified HUANG et al so as to enable extraction of the power from the solar cell in an effective way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the remarks, the Applicant argues substitution of the device of DUPUIS for the layer of HUANG is not the same.
The Examiner does not utilize substitution for the combination. The Examiner details the addition of the multilayer sheet/anti-vibration device (or just viscoelastic backsheet) of DUPUIS to the backsheet or as the backsheet of HUANG to enable mechanical stress protection, the same concept behind the protective layer of HUANG et al. This can be a layer for layer modification or a layer with additional layer combination; however, both are valid.
On page 7 of the remarks, the Applicant argues mechanical force protection and damping are not the same.
This argument is unclear. Mechanical force protection (HUANG et al) and damping vibration (DUPUIS et al) are both protection mechanisms for the rear side of the device. Vibration and mechanical force are interpreted to be analogous, as in the Applicant’s amendment to the language of claims 1 and 8. The unclear how them not being identical would be persuasive here or what purpose this argument is serving.
On page 7, the Applicant argues spreading the mass of the damper of DUPUIS “would render the damper inoperable as its mass would no longer be concentrated at the peak point”.
Firstly, it is unclear where the location is taught to be in DUPUIS. Secondly, DUPUIS also teaches a layer of viscoelastic that provides the damping effect in paragraph [0016], which covers the entirety of the rear side of the device, also reading on the claim. Finally, the interpretation regarding the addition of the anti-vibration device/multilayer of DUPUIS to the backsheet of HUANG would comprise the multilayer (providing damping viscoelastic backsheet in 5 of DUPUIS) and the anti-vibration layer, and it is unclear where the addition of the anti-vibration device to anywhere other than the rear center would be needed as the multilayer/backsheet of the combination would still be present in the claimed location.
On page 8, the Applicant argues it is HUANG nor DUPUIS teaches the damper disposed between the frame and solar panel.
The Examiner disagrees. DUPUIS clearly shows the layer 130 (damper/backsheet) to be present between the frame (160 in bottom L shaped portion) and the solar panel (100) (figures 7 and 8).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 10/13/2026
