DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/11/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous art rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New analysis follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 15, 21, 22, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 15 recite that the coverslide includes at least one of sapphire, aluminum oxide, gallium nitride, aluminum nitride, yttrium aluminum garnet, or calcium fluoride. Claims 1 and 10, from which the claims respectively depend, recite that the coverslide includes silicon carbide. It is unclear how the coverslide can include silicon carbide and another material. The instant specification recites “In some examples, the coverslide includes at least one of sapphire, aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, gallium nitride, aluminum nitride, yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) (e.g., undoped YAG, or calcium fluoride (or any other appropriate material).” in paragraph [0016], and similar phrases in paragraph [0025], [0048], and [0055], but recites no additional language regarding how the coverslide can include both silicon carbide and another material. Another element that comprises silicon carbide is mentioned in paragraph [0026], but that is clearly in regard to a substrate, not a coverslide.
Claims 21 and 22 recite that the coverslide is at least partially composed of ceria, and that the coverslide includes silicon oxide that is doped with ceria dioxide. Indeed this seems to refer to the specific embodiment of instant Figure 2. A skilled artisan would not understand how to form a coverslide which includes silicon carbide and also is at least partially composed of ceria, or which includes silicon carbide and includes silicon oxide that is doped with ceria dioxide.
Claim 24 recites “the coverslide has a transparency depth in a range between 0.3 micrometers and 1.8 micrometers”. A person having ordinary skill in the art, even when reading the claims in light of the incident disclosure, would not understand what a “transparency depth” is. Paragraph [0022] recites “material of the coverslide 302 has sufficient transparency (e.g., transparent between 0.3 μm and 1.8 μm) for multijunction solar cells along with relatively smooth optical surface.” A skilled artisan would understand this to mean that the coverslide is transparent to wavelengths of light ranging from 0.3 to 1.8 μm. It is unclear if this property is what the language of the claim is intended to mean.
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, 4, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,293,732 to Rancourt (of record), and further in view of US 2013/0257264 to Tamaki. Supporting information is provided by “Silicon carbide” (retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_carbide on 8/28/2026).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 24, Rancourt teaches a structure for use with a solar panel (C4/L19-21), the structure comprising
An at least partially transparent coverslide 16 (Fig. 1, C2/L50-54)
An anti-reflective coating 21 on a first side 18 of the coverslide 16 (C3/L13-20)
An ultraviolet reflective coating 19 on a second side 17 of the coverslide 16 that is opposite the first side 18 (C2/L54-61, C3/L24).
The separation distance of the anti-reflective coating 21 and the ultraviolet reflective coating 19 is as low as 150 micrometers (C2/L52-53). This distance is just outside the claimed “distance of less than 150 micrometers”. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect a structure in which the two coatings are separated by less than 150 micrometers to be very similar to a structure in which the two coatings are separated by 150 micrometers as taught in the prior art. [A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”. MPEP §2144.05.I.
Rancourt teaches that the coverslide includes glass, but does not specifically teach that the coverslide includes silicon carbide. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the at least partially transparent coverslide to include silicon carbide, since such a material is a known alternative material to glass (¶0265). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
While the references do not explicitly teach the crystal structure of the material, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand a solid material to be one of amorphous or crystalline. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the coverslide to include a crystalline material, since it is one of a small number of options for forming a solid material. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Silicon carbide has a thermal conductivity in excess of 300 W/m/K (p. 2 of “Silicon carbide”). The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification – the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. See, e.g., In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149-50, 104 USPQ2d 1337, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2012). MPEP §2111.01.III. While the instant specification does not explicitly define the limits of “thermally conductive”, paragraph [0022] does recite “the material of the coverslide 302 can have a thermal conductivity greater than the 1 Watt (W)/ meter (m) Kelvin (K) of standard glass…”; therefore the claimed thermally conductive structure can include a silicon carbide coverslide. Since the anti-reflective coating and ultraviolet reflective coating are orders of magnitude thinner than the coverslide (C3/L13-20), a skilled artisan would interpret the structure to be a thermally conductive structure within the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Per claim 4, modified-Rancourt teaches the limitations of claim 1. The structure further includes an at least partially transparent adhesive 22 to couple the ultraviolet reflective coating 19 to a cell 11 (C2/L61-68).
Per claim 24, modified-Rancourt teaches the limitations of claim 1. A skilled artisan would understand that the coverslide of Rancourt, made of fused silica, has some degree of transparency between 0.3 μm and at least 0.5 μm (Fig. 4 shows that the ultraviolet reflector “turns on” after 350 nm wavelength, C5/L29-46). While the references do not specifically teach at what wavelengths the coverslide of modified-Rancourt, it is expected that the coverslide has the claimed transparency because it includes the claimed materials. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2112.01.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rancourt and Tamaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0006079 to Voarino (of record).
Regarding claims 5-7 and 25, modified-Rancourt teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach a bond adhesive coupling the thermally conductive structure to an insulator of a solar panel. Voarino teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a bond adhesive (4 of Fig. 1) to couple a structure including a similar coverslide (1) to an insulator (11) of a solar panel, so that the structure may be part of a module of electrically connected elements (¶0061-0064). Further, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the bond adhesive as a grid pattern, as such a pattern allows for the separation and replacement of incorrectly functioning cells (¶0094-0099; elements 4a of Figs. 5C, 5E, 6, 7 represent spatially and chemically distinct portions of adhesive, ¶0101-0107).
While Voarino does not explicitly teach that the pattern includes a checkerboard pattern, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the bond adhesive as a checkerboard pattern because it would have merely required changing its shape. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rancourt and Tamaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,053,327 to Meulenberg (of record). Supporting information regarding physical properties is provided by “Sapphire” (retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapphire on 11/12/2025, previously made of record).
Regarding claim 8, modified-Rancourt teaches the limitations of claim 1, and teaches that the coverslide includes fused silica in in several portions (C3/L50-C5/L28). While Rancourt does not teach that the coverslide includes sapphire, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the coverslide of sapphire, as Meulenberg teaches such a material is a suitable alternative to fused silica (C12/L20-26). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Sapphire is known by a person having ordinary skill in the art to be a crystalline material (see at least first page of “Sapphire”). Further, as the coverslide is formed of sapphire, it is expected that it necessarily has thermal conductivity properties. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2112.01.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rancourt and Tamaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2011/0232733 to Noemayr (of record).
Regarding claim 9, modified-Rancourt teaches the limitations of claim 1. Rancourt’s coverslide is as low as 150 micrometers thick (Ibid.). It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to conventionally form the coverslide with a thickness of 100 micrometers (¶0009 of Noemayr). The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). MPEP §2144.05.I.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rancourt and Tamaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,909,856 to Ralph (of record).
Regarding claim 21, modified-Rancourt teaches the limitations of claim 1. Rancourt does not specifically teach that the coverslide is at least partially composed of ceria. Ralph teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to dope the material of the coverslide with ceria in order to protect against high energy particles (C3/L58-64).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rancourt and Tamaki as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 4,909,856 to Ralph (of record).
Regarding claim 23, modified-Rancourt teaches the limitations of claim 4. Rancourt does not specifically teach that the at least partially transparent adhesive is coupled to a metal grid extending from the cell. Ralph teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form a metal grid (24 of Fig. 1) to extend from a cell (12) and couple to an adhesive (50) of a similar structure to function as a front electrode (C2/L48-C3/L10).
Claim(s) 10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rancourt, and further in view of Tamaki and Voarino.
Regarding claims 10 and 12-14, Rancourt teaches a structure comprising
An at least partially transparent coverslide 16 (Fig. 1, C2/L50-54)
An anti-reflective coating 21 on a first side 18 of the coverslide 16 (C3/L13-20)
An ultraviolet reflective coating 19 on a second side 17 of the coverslide 16 that is opposite the first side 18 (C2/L54-61, C3/L24)
An at least partially transparent adhesive 22 (C2/L61-68)
A cell 11 coupled to the at least partially transparent adhesive 22 (C2/L38-44).
The separation distance of the anti-reflective coating 21 and the ultraviolet reflective coating 19 is as low as 150 micrometers (C2/L52-53). This distance is just outside the claimed “distance of less than 150 micrometers”. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect a structure in which the two coatings are separated by less than 150 micrometers to be very similar to a structure in which the two coatings are separated by 150 micrometers as taught in the prior art. [A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”. MPEP §2144.05.I.
Rancourt teaches that the coverslide includes glass, but does not specifically teach that the coverslide includes silicon carbide. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the at least partially transparent coverslide to include silicon carbide, since such a material is a known alternative material to glass (¶0265). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
While the references do not explicitly teach the crystal structure of the material, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand a solid material to be one of amorphous or crystalline. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the coverslide to include a crystalline material, since it is one of a small number of options for forming a solid material. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
The structure is not described as a coverglass interconnect cell (CIC). Voarino teaches to form such a structure as a CIC so that it may be incorporated into a protected photovoltaic module (¶0004, 0005, 0008, 0059-0062).
Regarding claims 12-14, modified-Rancourt teaches the limitations of claim 10. Voarino teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a bond adhesive (4 of Fig. 1) to couple a structure including a similar coverslide (1) to an insulator (11) of a solar panel, so that the structure may be part of a module of electrically connected elements (¶0061-0064). Further, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the bond adhesive as a grid pattern, as such a pattern allows for the separation and replacement of incorrectly functioning cells (¶0094-0099; elements 4a of Figs. 5C, 5E, 6, 7 represent spatially and chemically distinct portions of adhesive, ¶0101-0107). The patterned layer of bond adhesive of modified-Rancourt defines gaps between the cell and the insulator of the solar panel.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rancourt, and further in view of Tamaki, Voarino, and Noemayr.
Regarding claims 18-20, Rancourt teaches a method of producing a structure, the method comprising
Coupling an anti-reflective coating 21 to a first side 18 of an at least partially transparent coverslide 16 (Fig. 1, C3/L13-20), (C2/L50-54)
Coupling an ultraviolet reflective coating 19 to a second side 17 of the coverslide 16 that is opposite the first side 18 (C2/L54-61, C3/L24)
Per claim 19, applying an at least partially transparent adhesive 22 (C2/L61-68) to the ultraviolet reflective coating 19 to couple a cell 11 to the ultraviolet reflective coating 19 (C2/L38-44).
The structure is not described as a coverglass interconnect cell (CIC). Voarino teaches to form such a structure as a CIC so that it may be incorporated into a protected photovoltaic module (¶0004, 0005, 0008, 0059-0062).
Rancourt teaches that the coverslide includes glass, but does not specifically teach that the coverslide includes silicon carbide. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the at least partially transparent coverslide to include silicon carbide, since such a material is a known alternative material to glass (¶0265). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
While the references do not explicitly teach the crystal structure of the material, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand a solid material to be one of amorphous or crystalline. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the coverslide to include a crystalline material, since it is one of a small number of options for forming a solid material. The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Rancourt’s coverslide is as low as 150 micrometers thick (Ibid.). It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to conventionally form the coverslide with a thickness of 100 micrometers (¶0009 of Noemayr). The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). MPEP §2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 20, modified-Rancourt teaches the limitations of claim 18. Voarino teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a bonding adhesive (4 of Fig. 1) to bond a CIC to an insulator (11) of a solar panel, so that the structure may be part of a module of electrically connected elements (¶0061-0064).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rancourt, Tamaki, and Voarino as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Meulenberg. Supporting information regarding physical properties is provided by “Sapphire”.
Regarding claim 15, modified-Rancourt teaches the limitations of claim 10, and teaches that the coverslide includes fused silica (ibid.). While Rancourt does not teach that the coverslide includes sapphire, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the coverslide of sapphire, as Meulenberg teaches such a material is a suitable alternative to fused silica (C12/L20-26). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Sapphire is known by a person having ordinary skill in the art to be a crystalline material (see at least first page of “Sapphire”). Further, as the coverslide is formed of sapphire, it is expected that it necessarily has thermal conductivity properties. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2112.01.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rancourt, Tamaki, and Voarino as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Noemayr.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, modified-Rancourt teaches the limitations of claim 10. Rancourt does not detail the cell, but does teach that the cell of that invention is applied in space applications (C1/L11-12). Noemayr teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the cell to include a germanium subcell defining a p-n junction (3 of Fig. 3) because such cells are commonly used in space environments (¶0008-0012, 0040).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-10, and 12-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Although the references relied upon in the rejections above were previously made of record, the reasoning is new.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights