DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed February 12, 2026.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed February 12, 2026, the rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously presented in the Office Action sent February 12, 2026 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed February 12, 2026, the rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent February 12, 2026 have been substantially maintained and modified only in response to the Amendments to the Claims.
Claims 1-17 are currently 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) 1-5, 9, 13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baccini et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0333204 A1).
With regard to claims 1, 13, and 17, Baccini et al. discloses a method for laminating solar cells, which method comprises the following steps:
attaching a first side encapsulant to solar cells (such as depicted in Fig. 2b, attaching a first side encapsulant 400 to solar cells 600), which
first side encapsulant is made of a first encapsulant material (as depicted in Fig. 3, the cited first side encapsulant 400/1000 is made of a first encapsulant material, such as the encapsulant material of component layers 270/240/280; see [0071] teaching component layer 240 can include PET and it would have been an obvious selection because Baccini et al. teaches PET as an appropriate material for the component layer 240),
the solar cells having a photosensitive frontside sensitive to light and a backside (as depicted in Fig. 2b, the cited solar cells 600 having a top photosensitive frontside sensitive to light and a bottom backside), and
the first side encapsulant being attached to one of the photosensitive side and the backside of the solar cells (as depicted in Fig. 2b, the cited first side encapsulant 400 being attached to the cited bottom backside of the solar cells 600),
forming at least a part of a stack by, after attaching the first side encapsulant to the solar cells, attaching a second side encapsulant to the other one of the photosensitive side and the backside of the solar cells (as depicted in Fig. 2b, attaching a second side encapsulant 450 to the cited top photosensitive side of the solar cells; while Baccini et al. does not teach attaching a second side encapsulant after attaching the first side encapsulant, it is one in a finite number of immediately recognizable options within the technical grasp of a skilled artesian; thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have tried attaching the second side encapsulant after attaching the first side encapsulant because it is one in a finite number of options; see MPEP 2143 E),
the second side encapsulant being made of a second encapsulant material which is different from the first encapsulant material (see [0073] generally teaching encapsulation materials can include EVA and it would have been an obvious selection for the cited second encapsulation material because of its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case an encapsulation material for a solar cell, see MPEP 2144.07), and wherein
the first encapsulant material has a change of dimensions which is less than a change of dimensions of the second encapsulant material (the cited first encapsulant material, recall material of component layers 270/240/280 which includes PET, is cited to read on the claimed “has a change of dimensions which is less than a change of dimensions of the second encapsulant material” because it includes PET and the cited second encapsulant material includes EVA).
With regard to claim 2, independent claim 1 is obvious over Baccini et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Baccini et al. discloses wherein
the first side encapsulant is a backside encapsulant (as depicted in Fig. 2b, the cited first side encapsulant 400 is a backside encapsulant), and
the second side encapsulant is a frontside encapsulant having a transmissivity for light (as depicted in Fig. 2b, the cited second side encapsulant 450 is a frontside encapsulant having a transmissivity for light, recall EVA material), and wherein
in the step of the attaching the solar cells to the first side encapsulant, the backside of the solar cells is attached to the backside encapsulant (as depicted in Fig. 2b, in the step of the attaching the solar cells 600 to the first side encapsulant 450, the bottom/backside of the solar cells 600 is attached to the backside encapsulant 450), and wherein
the in the step of forming at least a part of a stack, the frontside encapsulant is attached to the photosensitive side of the solar cells (as depicted in Fig. 2b, the in the step of forming at least a part of a stack, the frontside encapsulant 450 is attached to the top photosensitive side of the solar cells 600).
With regard to claim 3, independent claim 1 is obvious over Baccini et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Baccini et al. discloses wherein
in which method a laminator is used which has an evacuable volume for placing a workpiece therein (as depicted in Fig. 5, a laminator is used which has an evacuable volume 40 for placing a workpiece 100 therein),
the volume comprising a heatable plate for heating the workpiece (as depicted in Fig. 5, the cited volume 40 comprising a heatable plate 20 for heating the workpiece 100), and
the volume showing a membrane for pressing against the workpiece when the volume is evacuated (as depicted in Fig. 5, the cited volume 40 showing a membrane 60 for pressing against the workpiece 100 when the volume is evacuated; see [0088]).
With regard to claim 4, dependent claim 2 is obvious over Baccini et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Baccini et al. discloses wherein
the backside encapsulant is heated to a sticking temperature at which the backside encapsulant gets tacky, and wherein the solar cells are attached to the backside encapsulant when the backside encapsulant is at the sticking temperature (such as described in [0086-0089] the backside encapsulant 400 is heated to a sticking temperature/softening/melting temperature at which the backside encapsulant gets tacky to attach to the solar cells), and wherein
after heating the backside encapsulant to the sticking temperature, the frontside encapsulant is heated to a curing temperature and wherein the solar cells are attached to the frontside encapsulant when the frontside encapsulant is at the curing temperature (see [0090] teaching after heating the backside encapsulant to the sticking temperature, the frontside encapsulant 450 is heated in a second phase to a curing temperature to attach to the solar cells).
With regard to claim 5, dependent claim 2 is obvious over Baccini et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Baccini et al. discloses wherein
the solar cells are attached to the backside encapsulant to form a first stack (as depicted in Fig. 2b, the cited solar cells 600 are attached to the backside encapsulant 400/1000 to form a first stack), and wherein
the frontside encapsulant is added to the first stack to form a second stack, the first stack therewith becoming part of the second stack (as depicted in Fig. 2b, the frontside encapsulant 450 is added to the first stack to form a second stack, the first stack therewith becoming part of the second stack), wherein the method further comprises the following steps:
before attaching the frontside encapsulant to the solar cells of the first stack, curing the first stack, after forming the second stack by adding the frontside encapsulant to first stack, curing the second stack (Baccini et al. does not teach wherein the curing of the first stack is before attaching the frontside encapsulant to the solar cells of the first stack and then subsequently curing the second stack; however, curing the first stack before attaching the frontside encapsulant and then subsequently curing the second stack is one in a finite number of options immediately recognizable to a skilled artesian; thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have tried curing the first stack before attaching the frontside encapsulant and then subsequently curing the second stack because it is one in a finite number of options, see MPEP 2143 E).
With regard to claim 9, dependent claim 2 is obvious over Baccini et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Baccini et al. discloses wherein
solar cells are used wherein both the anodes and the cathodes are arranged on the backside of the solar cells (see Fig. 2b and see [0014-0015]), and wherein the method further comprises the step of:
arranging a back contact foil a side of the backside encapsulant facing away from the solar cells (as depicted in Fig. 2b, arranging a back contact foil 200 a side of the backside encapsulant 400 facing away from the solar cells 600 and electrically interconnecting solar cells 600 via the back contact foil 200).
With regard to claim 15, dependent claim 9 is obvious over Baccini et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Baccini et al. discloses in which
the solar cells which are used have anodes and cathodes at the backside (see Fig. 2b and see [0014-0015]), the stack comprises
a back contact foil for electrically interconnecting the solar cells (as depicted in Fig. 2b, a back contact foil 200 for electrically interconnecting the solar cells 600),
the backside encapsulant equipped with holes aligned with the anodes and cathodes at the backside of the solar cells (as depicted in Fig. 2b and Fig. 3, the backside encapsulant 400/1000 equipped with holes 286 aligned with the anodes and cathodes at the backside of the solar cells),
between the back contact foil and the solar cells a conductive material at least partly filling the holes (as depicted in Fig. 2b, between the back contact foil 200 and the solar cells 600 a conductive material 300 at least partly filling the holes 286), and wherein
the conductive material is cured while heating the stack (see [0090]).
With regard to claim 16, dependent claim 2 is obvious over Baccini et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Baccini et al. discloses wherein
a first encapsulant material is used which comprises a first layer and a second layer (as depicted in Fig. 3, the cite first encapsulant material of component layers 270/240/280 comprises a first layer 240 and a second layer 270), wherein
the second layer is made of or comprises a polymer material, which softens and/or melts at a temperature above 20 °C (see [0070] teaching component layer 280 can comprise EVA which would have been an obvious selection because Baccini et al. teaches EVA as an appropriate material for the component layer 280), wherein
the second layer of the backside encapsulant is attached to the backside of the solar cells, and wherein the second layer gets tacky at a sticking temperature when heating the backside encapsulant, and the solar cells are attached to the backside encapsulant when the second layer of the backside encapsulant is as the sticking temperature (as depicted in Fig. 2b and Fig. 3, the cited second layer 280 of the backside encapsulant is attached to the backside of the solar cells 600, and wherein the second layer gets tacky at a sticking temperature when heating the backside encapsulant, and the solar cells are attached to the backside encapsulant when the second layer of the backside encapsulant is as the sticking temperature, see [0111] teaching “lamination process”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baccini et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0333204 A1), and in further view of Gaume et al. (WO 2019/2224458 A1 included in Applicant submitted IDS filed October 17, 2023).
With regard to claim 6, dependent claim 5 is obvious over Baccini et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Baccini et al., as modified above, teaches curing/laminating the first stack before attaching/laminating the frontside encapsulant (recall rejection of claim 5 above) but does not disclose in which a removable protective sheet removable is provide on the frontside of the solar cells, wherein the method further comprises the step of removing the removable sheet before the frontside encapsulant is added to the first stack.
However, Gaume et al. discloses a method for laminating solar cells (see claim 13) and teaches, during lamination, placing the stack between two non-stick damping layers 8 in order to avoid breakage of the solar cells (see Fig. 4).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Baccini et al. to include placing the first stack between two non-stick damping layers, as disclosed by Gaume et al. because it would have avoided breakage of the solar cells during lamination of the first stack.
It would have also been obvious/necessary to have removed the removable sheet before the frontside encapsulant is added to the first stack in the method of Baccini et al., as modified above, in order to add the frontside encapsulant to the solar cells of the cited first stack.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baccini et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0333204 A1), and in further view of Takechi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0130848 A1).
With regard to claim 7, dependent claim 5 is obvious over Baccini et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Baccini et al., as modified above, discloses
before curing the second stack, adding a transparent single or double cover to the second stack such that the frontside encapsulant is between said single cover and the solar cells (800 depicted in Fig. 2b such that the frontside encapsulant 450 is between said single cover 800 and the solar cells 600; see [0111]).
Baccini et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein the single or double cover is a curved cover.
However, Takeshi et al. discloses a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches adding a transparent single curved cover 8 to a stack 1 and arranging the single sided cover such that the frontside encapsulant 6A is between said single cover 8 and the solar cells 2 (see Fig. 4A-B).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the shape of the transparent single cover of Baccini et al., as modified above, for the curved shape exemplified by Takeshi et al. because simple substitution of a known element, in the instant case a shape of a transparent cover of a solar cell, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143 B).
With regard to claim 8, independent claim 1 is obvious over Baccini et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Baccini et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein after curing of the stack, incisions are made in at least part of the stack.
However, Gaume et al. discloses solar cells (see Title and Abstract) and teaches incisions can be made in a laminate/cured stack in order to bond to a transparent curved surface while suppressing twists and wrinkles (see Abstract).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Baccini et al., as modified above, to include the incisions, as suggested by Gaume et al., because it would have allowed for bonding to a transparent curved surface while suppressing twists and wrinkles.
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baccini et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0333204 A1), and in further view of Plessing et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,369,316 B1) and Gaume et al. (WO 2019/2224458 A1 included in Applicant submitted IDS filed October 17, 2023).
With regard to claim 10, dependent claim 2 is obvious over Baccini et al. under 35 U.S.C 103 as discussed above. Baccini et al. discloses a stack comprising
a back contact foil (200, Fig. 2b)
the backside encapsulant, in contact with the back contact foil (400 depicted in Fig. 2b as in contact with the back contact foil 200),
the solar cells, the backside of the solar cells being in contact with the backside encapsulant (600 depicted in Fig. 2b as bottom/backside of the solar cells 600 being in contact with the backside encapsulant 400),
the frontside encapsulant, in contact with the frontside of the solar cells (450 depicted in Fig. 2b as in contact with the top/frontside of the solar cells 600),
arranging the stack thereon in the laminator (see Fig. 5 depicting arranging the stack 100 thereon in the laminator),
with the frontside encapsulant being further removed from a heater of the laminator than the backside encapsulant (see [0087] teaching stack can be oriented like in Fig. 1-4 with the frontside encapsulant 450 being further removed from a heater 20 of the laminator than the backside encapsulant 400),
evacuating the laminator (see [0088] “air is pimped out”),
making a membrane of the laminator press on the top layer of the stack (see [0090] teaching “pushes the membrane 60 towards the module 100”),
increasing a temperature of the stack in such a time and to such a temperature, that the solar cells become attached to the backside encapsulant before the frontside encapsulant starts to cure (see [0089] teaching “melting or a softening”),
keeping the carrier at a temperature during a time which allows the frontside encapsulant cures to a desired level (see [0090] teaching “polymerization of the encapsulating layers”),
stopping heating of the stack, venting the laminator and removing the stack from the laminator (see [0090] removal from laminator after venting with ambient air).
Baccini et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein the stack in placed on a carrier.
However, Plessing et al. discloses a method for laminating solar cells (see Title and Abstract) and teachers a carrier plate can be used to arrange a module stack onto in order to facilitate transport of the stack into the laminator (see line 54-59, column 5).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the stack of Baccini et al. to include arranging the stack on a carrier, as suggested by Plessing et al., because it would have facilitated transport of the stack into the laminator.
Baccini et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein the stack is sandwiched between a first anti-stick layer and a second anti-stick layer.
However, Gaume et al. discloses a method for laminating solar cells (see claim 13) and teaches, during lamination, placing the stack between first and second non-stick damping layers 8 in order to avoid breakage of the solar cells (see Fig. 4).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the stack of Baccini et al. to include placing the stack between first and second non-stick damping layers, as disclosed by Gaume et al. because it would have avoided breakage of the solar cells during lamination of the stack.
It would have also been obvious to have removed the anti-stick layers in the method of Baccini et al., as modified above, in order to obtain the laminated stack.
With regard to claim 11, dependent claim 2 is obvious over Baccini et al. under 35 U.S.C 103 as discussed above. Baccini et al. discloses a first stack comprising:
optionally a release film, solar cells (600, Fig. 2b and see [0087] teaching stack can be oriented like in Fig. 1 to 4),
a backside encapsulant in contact with the solar cells (400 depicted in Fig. 2b as in contact with the solar cells 600),
back contact foil in contact with the backside encapsulant (200 depicted in Fig. 2b as in contact with the backside encapsulant), and
in a laminator bringing the first stack to a temperature at which the solar cells stick to the backside encapsulant (as depicted in Fig. 5 and described in [0089], in a laminator bringing the first stack to a temperature at which the solar cells stick to the backside encapsulant at the “melting or softening” temperature),
stopping the heating of the first stack, evacuating the laminator and venting the evacuated laminator so that the first stack can be removed (see [0090] removal from laminator after venting with ambient air), and forming a stack by
adding the frontside encapsulant film (450, Fig. 2b), and
heating the stack in a laminator to a temperature at which the frontside encapsulant cures (see [0090] teaching “polymerization of the encapsulating layers”).
Baccini et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein the step of adding the frontside encapsulant film and heating the stack in a laminator to a temperature at which the frontside encapsulant cures is performed in a later stage.
However, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.04 IV C).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the step of adding the frontside encapsulant film and heating the stack in a laminator to a temperature at which the frontside encapsulant cures in a later stage because the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious.
Baccini et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein the first stack in placed on a carrier.
However, Plessing et al. discloses a method for laminating solar cells (see Title and Abstract) and teachers a carrier plate can be used to arrange a module stack onto in order to facilitate transport of the stack into the laminator (see line 54-59, column 5).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first stack of Baccini et al. to include arranging the first stack on a carrier, as suggested by Plessing et al., because it would have facilitated transport of the first stack into the laminator.
Baccini et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein the first stack is sandwiched between a first anti-stick layer and a second anti-stick layer.
However, Gaume et al. discloses a method for laminating solar cells (see claim 13) and teaches, during lamination, placing the stack between first and second non-stick damping layers 8 in order to avoid breakage of the solar cells (see Fig. 4).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the stack of Baccini et al. to include placing the first stack between first and second non-stick damping layers, as disclosed by Gaume et al. because it would have avoided breakage of the solar cells during lamination of the first stack.
With regard to claim 14, dependent claim 10 is obvious over Baccini et al. in view of Gaume et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Baccini et al. discloses in which
the carrier which is used is a glass plate, and/or in which between the carrier and the heater of the laminator a breather cloth is placed (see [0006] and [0013] teaching carrier 800 as glass).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baccini et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0333204 A1) in view of Plessing et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,369,316 B1) and Gaume et al. (WO 2019/2224458 A1 included in Applicant submitted IDS filed October 17, 2023), and further in view of Takechi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0130848 A1).
With regard to claim 12, dependent claim 11 is obvious over Baccini et al. in view of Plessing et al. and Gaume et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Baccini et al., as modified above, discloses in which the stack is placed on a single or double transparent cover with the surface in contact with the frontside encapsulant (see Fig. 2b depicting single transparent cover 800 with the surface in contact with the frontside encapsulant 450) but does not teach wherein the single or double transparent cover is a curved cover.
However, Takeshi et al. discloses a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches adding a transparent single curved cover 8 to a stack 1 and arranging the single sided cover such that the frontside encapsulant 6A is between said single cover 8 and the solar cells 2 (see Fig. 4A-B).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the shape of the transparent single cover of Baccini et al., as modified above, for the curved shape exemplified by Takeshi et al. because simple substitution of a known element, in the instant case a shape of a transparent cover of a solar cell, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143 B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Baccini does not disclose an intermediate step in which the solar cells are first attached to a first side encapsulant before lamination. However, claim 1 does not recite or require solar cells are first attached to a first side encapsulant before lamination.
Applicant argues that Baccini only discloses placement of the solar cells. However, this argument is not persuasive.
As cited in the rejections of the claims, Baccini teaches a first phase lamination where the encapsulant 400 is heated to a sticking temperature/softening/melting temperature at which the backside encapsulant gets tacky to attach to the solar cells (recall [0086-0089]).
Baccini also teaches a second phase lamination after heating the backside encapsulant to the sticking temperature, the frontside encapsulant 450 is heated in a second phase to a curing temperature to attach to the solar cells (recall [0090]).
Applicant argues the obviousness of trying the attachment order seems to be based on the assumption that attaching both the first and second side encapsulant is always required and since Baccini teaches a single stage co-lamination, there is no need, disclosure, or suggestion of a preliminary attachment step. However, this argument is not persuasive.
Baccini teaches attaching both the first and second side encapsulant during a first phase lamination prior to the second phase lamination (recall [0086-0090]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 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, 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.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 May 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights