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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 6-8 have been amended.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 9 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RU 2755657 C1, Strebkov et al. (hereinafter “Strebkov”, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1
Strebkov teaches a double-sided photovoltaic (PV) panel (5) comprising:
a central thermal layer (corresponding to double-sided absorber 12 in the form of a coil of pipes 13 for pumping the coolant 14) [Fig. 2, paras. 0014 and 0025]; and
at least two independent solar cell arrays (corresponding to sequentially connected solar cells 10) attached on both sides of the central thermal layer (12/13/14) [Fig. 2 and para. 0014], and
externally facing portions of each of the at least two independent solar cell arrays (10) being covered by a protection layer (corresponding to protective glass layers 8) [Fig. 2 and para. 0014];
wherein the central thermal layer (12/13/14), the at least two independent solar cell arrays (10), and the protection layers (8) are sandwiched together to form the double-sided photovoltaic (PV) panel (module 5) [Fig. 2 and para. 0014].
PNG
media_image1.png
490
252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2
Regarding claim 4
Strebkov teaches the double-sided PV panel as set forth above, wherein the protection layer is a glass layer, anti-reflective and made of tempered low iron glass (the protective coating 8 comprises tempered glass) [para. 0025].
Regarding claim 5
Strebkov teaches the double-sided PV panel as set forth above, wherein a thickness of the glass layer is in between 2 to 3.2 mm (2 mm thick) [para. 0025].
Regarding claim 9
Strebkov teaches the double-sided PV panel as set forth above, wherein the double-sided PV panel further comprises a central support structure (corresponding sealing layers positioned on opposing sides) and a surrounding frame (corresponding to housing 11) for supporting the double-sided PV panel (5) [Fig. 2 and para. 0014].
PNG
media_image2.png
252
703
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12
Strebkov teaches the double-sided PV panel as set forth above, wherein the central support structure (12/13/14) is configured to be installed on a rooftop (solar modules 5, including the central support structure as set forth above, are installed on the surface of a roof 3) [para. 0013].
Regarding claim 13
Strebkov teaches the double-sided PV panel as set forth above, further comprising a cooling pipe (13) located within the central thermal layer [Fig. 2, paras. 0015 and 0025].
Regarding claim 14
Strebkov teaches the double-sided PV panel as set forth above, wherein the surrounding frame (11) further comprises a plurality of connectors (channels) coupled with the cooling pipe (13) [Fig. 2 and paras. 0014 and 0018].
The limitation “to enable water circulation through the cooling pipe, wherein the water circulation enabling cooling down of accumulated heat present on the double-sided PV panel during operation, and thereby eliminating formation of cracks or hotspots on the double-sided PV panel” is considered a functional limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strebkov, as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 9 and 12-14 above, and further in view of US 2010/0154864 A1, Oh et al.
Regarding claim 2
Strebkov teaches the double-sided PV panel as set forth above, wherein the double-sided PV panel is a single structure [Fig. 2].
Strebkov is silent to a thickness of less than 5 mm.
Oh teaches a photovoltaic-thermal hybrid panel wherein the thickness of such panels should be optimized such that the structure exhibits high efficiency and, at the same time, the installation period and assembly cost is minimized [paragraphs 0011-0013 and 0150].
Strebkov and Oh are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic-thermal modules.
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the thickness of the panel (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to maintain the efficiency of the panel and, at the same time, minimize the installation period and assembly cost [Oh, paragraphs 0011-0013 and 0150]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strebkov, as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 9 and 12-14 above, and further in view of US 2014/0099746 A1, Furihata et al. (hereinafter “Furihata”).
Regarding claim 3
Strebkov teaches the first and a second solar cell arrays (10) encapsulated in a layer of silicone gel (9) [Fig. 2 and para. 0014].
Strebkov does not teach ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA).
Furihata teaches a method of manufacturing a photovoltaic module wherein silicone gel and EVA are known functional equivalent materials for encapsulating solar cells [paras. 0004 and 0023].
Strebkov and Furihata are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic modules.
Because Furihata shows that EVA is an equivalent structure known in the art at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute silicone gel for EVA [MPEP 2144.06].
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Furihata teaches that EVA leads to the anticipated success of encapsulating solar cells, said material is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strebkov, as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 9 and 12-14 above, and further in view of CN 102208476 A, Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claims 6 and 7
Strebkov teaches the double-sided PV panel as set forth above, wherein the central thermal layer comprises at least two backing plates (see opposing double-sided absorber layers 12) [Strebkov, Fig. 2 and para. 0014].
Strebkov does not teach the backing plates comprising aluminum sheets.
Li teaches an integrated photovoltaic/photo-thermal module (corresponding to a solar heat absorbing device) comprising a thermal layer (corresponding to a heat absorbing plate) made of copper, aluminum alloy, copper aluminum composite, stainless steel, etc. [Abstract and para. 0011].
Strebkov and Li are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic modules. Because Li teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable materials, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Li teaches that aluminum leads to the anticipated success, said metal material is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
The limitation “for absorbing heat accumulated in the at least two independent solar cell arrays” is considered a functional limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strebkov in view of Li, as applied to claims 1, 4, 5-7, 9 and 12-14 above, and further in view of US 2019/0259894 A1, Cao et al.
Regarding claim 8
Modified Strebkov does not teach the backing plate being coated with a dark shaded paint or an absorption assisting paint.
Cao teaches an integrated photovoltaic/photo-thermal module wherein a backing plate (corresponding to thermal conducting plate 7) comprises back cadmium which is a material providing a good thermal collecting or thermal-conducting function, thereby improving the thermal collecting capacity [Abstract, Fig. 6 and para. 0065].
Modified Strebkov and Cao are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the backing plate of modified Strebkov to comprise a dark shaded paint or an absorption assisting paint in order to improve the thermal collecting capacity.
Regarding claim 10
Strebkov does not teach the central support structure and the surrounding frame are made of aluminum.
Cao teaches an integrated photovoltaic/photo-thermal module wherein a central support structure (corresponding to support structure 6) and a surrounding frame (K) are made of aluminum [Fig. 6, paras. 0064 and 0076]. Said material providing the strength to support a protective layer (glass plate 1) and protecting each element in the integrated device [paras. 0006, 0064 and 0076].
Strebkov and Cao are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the support structure and surrounding frame of Strebkov to comprise aluminum, as in Cao, as said material provides the strength to support a protective layer for the purpose of effective protection of each element in the integrated device.
Regarding claim 15
Strebkov is silent to the cooling pipe being made of copper.
Cao teaches an integrated photovoltaic/photo-thermal module wherein a cooling pipe (8) is made of copper, said material providing adequate thermal conductivity [Fig. 6 and para. 0006].
Strebkov and Cao are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cooling pipe of Strebkov to be made of copper, as in Cao, for the purpose of thermal conductivity.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strebkov, as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 9 and 12-14 above, and further in view of US 2016/0226305 A1, Estes.
Regarding claim 11
Strebkov does not teach the movement or tilt angle of the double-sided PV panel installed on the central support structure and the surrounding frame being controllable in real-time.
Estes teaches a photovoltaic panel to be installed in a rooftop, wherein the movement or tilt angle of the PV panel is controllable in real-time in order to maximize its exposure to solar energy [paras. 0132 and 0162].
Strebkov and Estes are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic modules.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the double-sided PV panel of Strebkov to comprise a tilt mechanism that allows for the movement or tilt angle to be controllable in real-time, as in Estes, in order to maximize its exposure to solar energy [paras. 0132 and 0162].
The limitation “for capturing direct solar rays and / or diffused light at all times and in all seasons” is considered a functional limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strebkov, as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 9 and 12-14 above, and further in view of US 2017/0077343 A1, Morad et al. (hereinafter “Morad”).
Regarding claim 16
Strebkov does not teach the individual solar cells of the at least two independent solar cell arrays being sliced and connected as shingled solar cells partly overlapping each other.
Morad teaches that shingling of strips of cut/slicing individual solar cells increases the area efficiency of an array by reducing the current through the solar cells (because the individual solar cell strips may have smaller than conventional active areas) and by reducing the current path length between adjacent solar cells, both of which tend to reduce resistive loss [paras. 0375, 0396 and 0603].
Strebkov and Morad are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the individual solar cells of the at least two independent solar cell arrays in Strebkov such that they are sliced and connected as shingled solar cells partly overlapping each other, as in Morad, in order to improve the module efficiency.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strebkov in view of Furihata.
Regarding claim 17
Strebkov teaches a method of manufacturing a double-sided photovoltaic (PV) panel (5), the method comprising the steps of comprising:
encapsulating a first and a second solar cell array (10) each in between films of an encapsulating material (silicone gel layers 9) [Fig. 2 and para. 0014];
installing a thermal layer (corresponding to double-sided absorber 12 in the form of a coil of pipes 13 for pumping the coolant 14) on inner portions of the first and second solar cell arrays (10) [Fig. 2, paras. 0014 and 0025];
providing a protection layer (corresponding to protective glass layers 8) on an outer or externally facing portion of the first and second solar cell arrays (10) [Fig. 2 and para. 0014];
wherein the central thermal layer (12/13/14), the at least two independent solar cell arrays (10), and the protection layers (8) are sandwiched together to form the double-sided photovoltaic (PV) panel (module 5) [Fig. 2 and para. 0014].
Strebkov teaches the first and a second solar cell arrays (10) encapsulated in a layer of silicone gel (9) [Fig. 2 and para. 0014].
Strebkov does not teach ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA).
Furihata teaches a method of manufacturing a photovoltaic module wherein silicone gel and EVA are known functional equivalent materials for encapsulating solar cells [paras. 0004 and 0023].
Strebkov and Furihata are analogous inventions in the field of methods of manufacturing a photovoltaic module. Because Furihata shows that EVA is an equivalent structure known in the art at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute silicone gel for EVA [MPEP 2144.06].
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Furihata teaches that EVA leads to the anticipated success of encapsulating solar cells, said material is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
Regarding claim 18
Modified Strebkov teaches the method as set forth above, wherein a vacuum press is used for sandwiching together the first and second solar cell arrays, the backing plate and the glass layers (a vacuum laminator is a known equipment used for encapsulating a solar cell string between silicone gel sheets and a step of encapsulating the silicone gel sheets (with the solar cell element encapsulated therebetween) between a light receiving panel and a light non-receiving panel or back sheet) [Furihata, para. 0023].
Regarding claim 19
Modified Strebkov teaches the method as set forth above, further comprising installing the double-sided PV panel (5) on a central support structure (corresponding sealing layers positioned on opposing sides) and a surrounding frame (corresponding to housing 11) for supporting the double-sided PV panel (5) [Fig. 2 and para. 0014].
PNG
media_image2.png
252
703
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strebkov in view of Furihata, as applied to claims 17-19 above, and further in view of US 2016/0226305 A1, Estes.
Regarding claim 20
Strebkov does not teach the movement or tilt angle of the double-sided PV panel installed on the central support structure and the surrounding frame being controllable in real-time.
Estes teaches a photovoltaic panel to be installed in a rooftop, wherein the movement or tilt angle of the PV panel is controllable in real-time in order to maximize its exposure to solar energy [paras. 0132 and 0162].
Strebkov and Estes are analogous inventions in the field of methods for fabricating photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the double-sided PV panel of Strebkov to comprise a tilt mechanism that allows for the movement or tilt angle to be controllable in real-time, as in Estes, in order to maximize its exposure to solar energy [paras. 0132 and 0162].
The limitation “for capturing direct solar rays and / or diffused light at all times and in all seasons” is considered a functional limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 6-8 overcome the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/18/2025, directed to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant provides the statements of the intended use of the claimed system in response to the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5-7 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (see pages 6-8 of applicant’s remarks received on 12/18/2025. Some of these statements include, for example, the following:
“Most combinations of manufacture for PV panels exist, however, there are unique elements in our system that could only have been derived from very specialist knowledge in terms of invention and application.”
“The system is designed for desert regions and manages very specific challenges in terms of climate, DLI, water, temperature, and humidity.”
“We utilize both a Vertical Farm, which uses LEDs to grow crops, and a net house connected to the Vertical Farm that utilizes sunlight. The PV panel system maximizes efficiency between hybrid elements, depending on the season, generating power for the LEDs when required and allowing diffused sunlight into the net house element of the farm.”
“The system uniquely utilizes a "Pivot connector"... a structural rod running lengthways in the middle of a PV panel connected with bearings, allowing 180 degrees plus minus rotation continuous during the day ....actively programmed to match seasonal sunlight and DLI needed for specific target crops....taking into account required DLI (daily light integral) per crop type per season. The system can be used for LED power generation, sunlight diffusion /capture, in addition to powering chillers and dehumidifiers.”
“1. Vertical farm needs electricity generation for LEDs and hot water production to power chillers and dehumidifiers via attached absorption and adsorption modules. Net house requires appropriate DLI /shading as per crop type and seasonality
2. Pivot system is unobstructed to the rear, allowing 360 degree movement of PV panels with zero shade obstruction from the backside of the system.
3. In other systems, when you face panels directly to the sun, you need to put a significant distance between panels to avoid panel-to-panel shade overlap ...this requires a significant increase in required land area.
In our system, we can place panels flat, and the whole roof is covered if required (such as in cold desert nights.”
“In a conventional panel system as described in all cited prior art...if you shade one edge you drastically reduce the electrical productivity as solar cells are connected in serial sequence .....”
Pages 6-8 include further statements of the intended use of the claimed system.
Examiner notes that applicant’s statements include features (i.e., vertical farm, LEDs, pivot connector, structural rod, bearings, parallel connection, etc.) that are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant’s statements of how the claimed system is intended to be used are not persuasive and fail to differentiate the claimed invention from Strebkov. Furthermore, applicant has not provided any pertinent arguments directed to the cited art.
Applicant argues that unique elements to the present claims include:
Pivot Rod allowing 360-degree movement of panels with zero rear side shade obstruction.
Cable connection: All cited prior art utilize the connection of all solar cells in a solar panel...one cable in, one cable out in series. So, when you shade one row of solar cells, the productivity diminishes drastically.... In our case, all six rows of solar cells are connected in parallel ...six cables in six cables out...so that when you shade one row, only that row's power production is affected ...all other five rows are productive.
Applicant further states that Strebkov does not have an axial rod (pivot rod) connections on bearings without any structural obstruction from the backside…which allows a 360-degree pivot (180 degrees plus or minus.)”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The features upon which applicant relies (i.e., vertical farm, LEDs, pivot connector, structural rod, bearings, parallel connection, etc.) that are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The closest limitations Examiner could find in the claims pertaining to the movement of the panels is claim 11 which recites the following:
11. The double-sided PV panel of claim 9, wherein movement or a tilt angle of the double-sided PV panel installed on the central support structure and the surrounding frame is controllable in real-time, for capturing direct solar rays and / or diffused light at all times and in all seasons.
The rejection relies on Estes to meet with the limitations of claim 11. Estes teaches a photovoltaic panel to be installed in a rooftop, wherein the movement or tilt angle of the PV panel is controllable in real-time in order to maximize its exposure to solar energy [paras. 0132 and 0162]. Regarding the limitation “for capturing direct solar rays and / or diffused light at all times and in all seasons” is considered a functional limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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 MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721