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 .
Election/Restrictions
The amendment to claims on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended, claim 2 is canceled, claims 21-23 are newly added. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 and 3-18 drawn to an apparatus, in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 and newly added claims 21-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention drawn to a method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/23/2026.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as anticipated by Marinopoulos et al. (WO 2014/121826, Cite No. 1 in Foreign Patent Documents in IDS 11/03/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Marinopoulos et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) substrings (see strings 2a to 2n, figs. 1-2), each PV substring comprising one or more PV cell (see PV1 to PVj, figs. 1-2);
a plurality of first direct current to direct current converters (see 4a to 4n), each of the plurality of first DC-DC converters (4a to 4n) having an input and an output, wherein the input (3a to 3n) of each of the plurality of first DC-DC converters is coupled to a corresponding PV substring (2a to 2n, see figs. 1-2);
a second DC-DC converter (see 6, figs. 1-2), wherein the output of each of the plurality of first DC-DC converters (4a to 4n) is coupled to an input of the second DC-DC converter (6, see figs. 1-2); and
a control circuit (9a to 9n and 10, figs. 1-2) configured to maximum-power-point-track each PV substring by providing control signals to each of the plurality of first DC-DC converters (4a to 4n) and provide a control signal to the second DC-DC converter (6, see figs. 1-2; pages 3-4 and 7-9).
Regarding claim 7, Marinopoulos et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 1 above, and teaches the PV substrings are integrated in a PV module (see figs. 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu et al. (US 2023/0071656).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) substrings (see strings 100 and 200 in figs. 7 and 9), each PV substring comprising one or more PV cell (see photovoltaic modules 1-1/1-n and 2-1/2-n in figs. 7 and 9);
a plurality of first direct current to direct current (DC-DC) converters (see converters 1-1/1-n and 2-1/2-n, and [0058]), each of the plurality of first DC-DC converters (1-1/1-n and 2-1/2-n) having an input and an output (see figs. 7 and 9), wherein the input of each of the plurality of first DC-DC converters is coupled to a corresponding PV substring (100 and 200, see figs. 7 and 9);
a second DC-DC converter (see DC/DC circuits 300a in figs. 7 and 9), wherein the output of each of the plurality of first DC-DC converters is coupled to an input of the second DC-DC converter (see figs. 7 and 9); and
a control circuit (500, see figs. 7 and 9).
Liu et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus, shows the control circuit (500) is connected to the first DC-DC converters (or 1-1 to 1-n and 2-1 to 2-n) to control the outputs of the first DC-DC converters (1-1 to 1-n and 2-1 to 2-n, see figs. 7 and 9 and [0128]); and also control the input of the inverter (see [0081-0122]), which is also the output of the second DC-DC (300a, see figs. 7 and 9), by way of maximum power point tracking (MPPT) operation (see [0081-0122]). As such, the control circuit (500) of Liu et al. is configured to maximum power point tracking each substring by providing control signals to each of the plurality of first DC-DC converters and provide a control signal to the second DC-DC converter.
Alternatively, Liu et al. does not express verbatim the “control circuit configured to maximum power point track each PV substring by providing control signals to each of the plurality of first DC-DC converters and provide a control signal to the second DC-DC converter” as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control circuit being configured to maximum power point track each PV substring by providing control signals to each of the plurality of first DC-DC converters and provide a control signal to the second DC-DC converter as claimed, because Liu et al. teach the control circuit (500) controls the outputs of the first DC-DC converters (1-1 to 1-n and 2-1 to 2-n, see figs. 7 and 9 and [0128]) and also control the input of the inverter (see [0081-0122]), which is also the output of the second DC-DC (300a, see figs. 7 and 9), by way of maximum power point tracking (MPPT) operation (see [0081-0122]). Furthermore, such recitations are directed toward intended operational uses of the control circuit. Said recitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. It has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim; so long as the disclosed apparatus is capable of performing the process limitations, the limitations are deemed to have been met. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The apparatus of Liu et al. is fully capable of doing so; because Liu et al. shows the control circuit (500) is connected to the first DC-DC converters (or 1-1 to 1-n and 2-1 to 2-n) to control the outputs of the first DC-DC converters (1-1 to 1-n and 2-1 to 2-n, see figs. 7 and 9 and [0128]); and also control the input of the inverter (see [0081-0122]), which is also the output of the second DC-DC (300a, see figs. 7 and 9), by way of maximum power point tracking (MPPT) operation (see [0081-0122])
Regarding claim 3, Liu et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 1 above, and teaches the plurality of first DC-DC converters comprise boost converters ([0058]).
Regarding claim 4, Liu et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 1 above, and teaches using buck converter as a DC-DC converter ([0058]).
Regarding claim 5, Liu et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus as in claim 1 above, and show the outputs of the first DC-DC converts (1-1 to 1-n and 2-1 to 2-n) are the input of the second DC-DC converter (300b), and the output of the second DC-DC converter is the input of the inverter (300b, see figs. 7 and 9). Liu et al. also teaches controlling the output of the first DC-DC converters and the input of the inverter (see [0081-0122]). In other words, the control circuit (500) is fully capable of being configured to control the second DC-DC converter to down a voltage at the input of the second DC-DC converter to a safety voltage at the output of the second DC-DC converter in a non-production mode of operation. Furthermore, such recitations are directed toward intended operational uses of the control circuit. Said recitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. It has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim; so long as the disclosed apparatus is capable of performing the process limitations, the limitations are deemed to have been met. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The apparatus of Liu et al. is fully capable of doing so; because Liu et al. show the outputs of the first DC-DC converts (1-1 to 1-n and 2-1 to 2-n) are the input of the second DC-DC converter (300b), and the output of the second DC-DC converter is the input of the inverter (300b, see figs. 7 and 9), and teaches controlling the output of the first DC-DC converters and the input of the inverter (see [0081-0122]).
Regarding claim 6, Liu et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus as in claim 1 above, and show the outputs of the first DC-DC converts (1-1 to 1-n and 2-1 to 2-n) are the input of the second DC-DC converter (300b), and the output of the second DC-DC converter is the input of the inverter (300b, see figs. 7 and 9). Liu et al. also teaches controlling the output of the first DC-DC converters and the input of the inverter (see [0081-0122]). In other words, the control circuit (500) is fully capable of being configured to control the second DC-DC converter to increase a voltage at the output of the second DC-DC converter to a threshold voltage, control the second DC-DC converter to transition to a bypass mode based on the output voltage being at or above the threshold voltage, and control each of the plurality of first DC-DC converters to increase the voltage at the corresponding output. Furthermore, such recitations are directed toward intended operational uses of the control circuit. Said recitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. It has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim; so long as the disclosed apparatus is capable of performing the process limitations, the limitations are deemed to have been met. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The apparatus of Liu et al. is fully capable of doing so; because Liu et al. show the outputs of the first DC-DC converts (1-1 to 1-n and 2-1 to 2-n) are the input of the second DC-DC converter (300b), and the output of the second DC-DC converter is the input of the inverter (300b, see figs. 7 and 9), and teaches controlling the output of the first DC-DC converters and the input of the inverter (see [0081-0122]).
Regarding claim 7, Liu et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 1 above, wherein the PV substrings (100 and 200) are integrated in a PV module (see figs. 7 and 9).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinopoulos et al. (WO 2014/121826) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Huang et al. (US 2012/0161526, Cite No. 1 of U.S. Patent Application Publications in IDS 11/03/2025).
Regarding claim 3-4, Marinopoulos et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 1 above.
Marinopoulos et al. does not explicitly disclose the plurality of first DC-DC converters comprising boost converters as claimed in claim 3, nor do they teach the second converter is a buck converter as claimed in claim 4.
Huang et al. teaches using a boost converter to provide a step up on voltage with reducing current (see figs. 8A-8B, [0053-0054]) for a DC-DC converter, or a buck converter to provide step down on voltage with increasing current (see figs. 7A-7B, [0051-0052]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Marinopoulos et al. by using boost converters for the plurality of first DC-DC converters to provide a step up on voltage and a buck converter for the second DC-DC converter to provide a step down on voltage as taught by Huang et al.. Furthermore, such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material/converter for its intended use as DC-DC converters in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinopoulos et al. (WO 2014/121826) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Marinopoulos et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus as in claim 1 above, and teaches controlling the first and second converters. In other words, the control circuit (9 and 10) of Marinopoulos et al. is fully capable of being configured to control the second DC-DC converter to down a voltage at the input of the second DC-DC converter to a safety voltage at the output of the second DC-DC converter in a non-production mode of operation. Furthermore, such recitations are directed toward intended operational uses of the control circuit. Said recitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. It has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim; so long as the disclosed apparatus is capable of performing the process limitations, the limitations are deemed to have been met. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The apparatus of Marinopoulos et al. is fully capable of doing so; because Marinopoulos et al. teaches controlling the first and second DC-DC converters.
Regarding claim 6, Liu et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed apparatus as in claim 1 above, and teaches controlling the DC-DC converters and using bypass mode (see switches 7a to 7n, fig. 1). In other words, the control circuit (9 and 10) of Marinopoulos et al. is fully capable of being configured to control the second DC-DC converter to increase a voltage at the output of the second DC-DC converter to a threshold voltage, control the second DC-DC converter to transition to a bypass mode based on the output voltage being at or above the threshold voltage, and control each of the plurality of first DC-DC converters to increase the voltage at the corresponding output. Furthermore, such recitations are directed toward intended operational uses of the control circuit. Said recitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. It has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim; so long as the disclosed apparatus is capable of performing the process limitations, the limitations are deemed to have been met. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The apparatus of Marinopoulos et al. is fully capable of doing so; because Marinopoulos et al. teaches controlling the DC-DC converters.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinopoulos et al. (WO 2014/121826) or Liu et al. (US 2023/0071656) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jergovic et al. (US Patent 9,837,556).
Regarding claims 8-9, Marinopoulos et al. or Liu et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 7 above.
Marinopoulos et al. or Liu et al. does not disclose the plurality of first DC-DC converters and the second DC-DC converter are integrated in the PV module on a PCB substantially having a width of the PV module, nor do they teach a length of the PCB is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the width of the PCB.
Jergovic et al. discloses forming a circuit (198, fig. 12) from DC-DC converters (col. 7, lines 5-21) and integrating the circuit in the PV module (or row(s) of cell units 102) on a PCB (250, fig. 12); wherein the PCB (104 in fig. 1, 304 in fig. 13, or 354 or 358 in fig. 14) has a width of the PV module (e.g. row(s) of cell units 102, see figs. 1, 13 and 14), and a length (or the shorter side) of the PCB is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the width (or the longer side) of the PCB (see fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Marinopoulos et al. or Liu et al. by integrating the DC-DC converters in the photovoltaic (PV) module on a printed circuit board (PCB) substantially having a width of the photovoltaic (PV) module and the length of the printed circuit board (PCB) being at least an order of magnitude smaller than the width of the printed circuit board (PCB) as taught by Jergovic et al., because Jergovic et al. teaches integration would allow circuit devices to be embedded and hermetic sealed within a photovoltaic panel (see col. 1, line 60 through col. 2, line 40; col. 10, lines 1-56). Furthermore, such modification would involve nothing more than an obvious matter of design choice. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select an appropriate size of the printed circuit board (PCB) based on the desired properties of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 10, modified Marinopoulos et al. or modified Liu et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 8 above, wherein Jergovic et al. teaches the PCB (250) and the PV cells (or PV device units 102) are located on the same substrate (310, see fig. 12).
Regarding claims 11, 13-14, Marinopoulos et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 7 above.
Marinopoulos et al. or Liu et al. does not teach the plurality of PV substrings, the plurality of first DC-DC converters and the second DC-DC converter are disposed in a laminate of the photovoltaic (PV) module as claimed in claim 11, the PV module comprises a layer of potting material adjacent to the PV cells as claimed in claim 13, and the plurality of first DC-DC converters and the second DC-DC converter are encased in the potting material as claimed in claim 14.
Jergovic et al. disclose the PV substrings (see rows of cell units 102) and the circuit (198) formed by integrated DC-DC converters are disposed in a laminate of a photovoltaic module to be incased in a potting material (EVA), wherein a layer of potting material (EVA layer 308) is adjacent to the photovoltaic cells (or PV device units 102, see fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one skilled the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Marinopoulos et al. or Liu et al. by disposing the plurality of photovoltaic substrings and the (first and second) DC-DC converters in a laminate that is encased in a potting material with a potting material layer being adjacent to the photovoltaic cells as taught by Jergovic et al., because Jergovic et al. teaches such disposing and arranging of photovoltaic substrings and DC-DC converters would allow the PV substrings and the electronic circuit comprising DC-DC converters to be hermetic sealed (see col. 10, lines 1-56 of Jergovic et al.).
Regarding claim 15, modified Marinopoulos et al. or modified Liu et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 13 above, wherein the potting material is comprised EVA (see claim 13 above). EVA has some heat-conductive properties, or EVA is a thermally conductive material (see [0041] of evidentiary reference to Safir, EP 2226850).
Claims 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinopoulos et al. (WO 2014/121826) or Liu et al. (US 2023/0071656) as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Croft et al. (US 2009/0283137).
Regarding claim 12, Marinopoulos et al. or Liu et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 7 above.
Marinopoulos et al. does not disclose the PV module comprises glass sheets with cutouts.
Croft et al. discloses a PV module comprising glass sheets (or back glasses such as 1414 shown in fig. 14, also see figs. 12B and 15A-C) with cutouts (1418, fig. 14, also see figs. 12B and 15A-C) to provide external mechanism (1280, fig. 12B, [0117-0120]) to enable collection of current from the plurality of solar cells and to allow interconnection with at least one other external device ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Marinopoulos et al. or Liu et al. by incorporating glass sheets with cutouts to provide external connection mechanisms to enable collection of current from the plurality of solar cells and to allow interconnection with at least one other external device as taught by Croft et al..
Regarding claims 16-17, Marinopoulos et al. or Liu et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 7 above, wherein DC converters are parts of electrical collection circuit (see figs. 1-2 of Marinopoulos et al. and figs. 7 and 9 of Liu et al.).
Marinopoulos et al. or Liu et al. does not teach the circuit of the plurality of first DC-DC converters and the second DC-DC converter are coupled to a junction box of a photovoltaic (PV) module as claimed in claim 16 and the junction box is coupled to a glass of the PV module as claimed in claim 17.
Croft et al. disclose having the circuit of current collection is coupled to a junction box (1230 in fig. 12A or 1522 in figs. 15A-C, [0120] and [0131]) coupled to the back substrate of the photovoltaic module (see figs. 12A and 15A-C), wherein the back substrate (1414) of the photovoltaic module is a back glass ([0105]). In other words, Croft et al. discloses coupling the electrical collection circuit to a junction box which is coupled to a glass of the PV module.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Marinopoulos et al. or Liu et al. by coupling the electrical collection circuit, e.g. first and second DC-DC converters, to a junction box which is coupled to a glass of the PV module as taught by Croft et al., because Croft et al. teaches such coupling would allow interconnection of the photovoltaic modules (or solar cell sub modules) and to other external device (see [0117-0120] and [0128-0133])
Claim(s) 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Marinopoulos et al. (WO 2014/121826) or modified Liu et al. (US 2023/0071656) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Nam et al. (US 2015/0200603).
Regarding claims 16-18, Marinopoulos et al. or Liu et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 7 above.
Marinopoulos et al. or Liu the plurality of first DC-DC converters and the second DC-DC converter are coupled to a junction box of a photovoltaic (PV) module as claimed in claim 16, wherein the junction box is coupled to a glass of the PV module as claimed in claim 17 or coupled to a frame of the PV module as claimed in claim 18.
Nam et al. discloses coupling DC-DC converters to a junction box (30, see figs. 10-11) which is coupled to a glass (e.g. back substrate 18 made of glass, [0040]) or to a frame (20, see fig. 2-6).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Marinopoulos et al. or Liu et al. by coupling the first and second DC-DC converters to a junction box which is coupled to a glass or a frame of the PV module as taught by Nam et al., because Nam et al. teaches such integration would be capable of improving productivity of an assembly process of a photovoltaic module (or solar cell module) and improving structural stability of the photovoltaic module (see [0008] of Nam et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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 T. Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights