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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 10 of claim 17 appears to be the result of a typographical error because the limitation of line 10 is the same limitation recited in line 8 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 and 10-21 are 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. Specifically, claims 1, 10, and 17 each include limitations requiring “a first plurality of doped regions of a first doping type over the substrate portion,” “a second plurality of doped regions of a second doping type over the substrate portion,” and “the first plurality of doped regions and the second plurality of doped regions are formed in the substrate portion,” however, the manner in which the respective plurality of doped regions are over the substrate portion and formed in the substrate portion is unclear. Claims 2-8, 11-16, and 18-21 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claims 1, 10, and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 8, 10-12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roizin et al. (US 8,829,332).
Regarding claim 1, Roizin discloses a device (abstract – photovoltaic device) comprising: a semiconductor structure constituting at least a first diode of the device (Figures 3A-3I), the semiconductor structure comprising: a substrate portion (113 in Figures 3A-3I); a first plurality of doped regions of a first doping type over the substrate portion (C7/L32-33; 124-1, 124-2, 124-3 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I); wherein the substrate portion is of the first doping type (C7/L27); and a second plurality of doped regions of a second doping type over the substrate portion (C7/L33-34; 126-1, 126-2, 126-3 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I), wherein: the first plurality of doped regions and the second plurality of doped regions are arranged in an alternating manner along a lateral direction (124-1, 124-2, and 124-3 in relation to 126-1, 126-2, and 126-3 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I), and the first plurality of doped regions and the second plurality of doped regions are formed in the substrate portion (C7/L49-67; 124-1, 124-2, 124-3, 126-1, 126-2, 126-3 in relation to 113 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I).
With regard to the limitation “an ambient light energy harvesting device,” statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 8, Roizin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Roizin further discloses a buried isolation layer below the substrate portion (C6/L31-32; 115 in relation to 113 in Figures 1 and 3G-3I), wherein a depth of an upper surface of the buried isolation layer is 4 micrometers (C8/L33).
Regarding claim 10, Roizin discloses a method of manufacturing an ambient light energy harvesting device (abstract – photovoltaic device; C7/L27-67; Figures 3A-3I) comprising: forming a semiconductor structure constituting at least a first diode of the ambient light energy harvesting device (Figures 3A-3I), comprising: forming a first plurality of doped regions of a first doping type (C7/L32-33; 124-1, 124-2, 124-3 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I) over a substrate portion (113 in Figures 3A-3I). wherein the substrate portion is of the first doping type (C7/L27); and forming a second plurality of doped regions of a second doping type over the substrate portion (C7/L33-34; 126-1, 126-2, 126-3 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I), wherein: the first plurality of doped regions and the second plurality of doped regions are arranged in an alternating manner along a lateral direction (124-1, 124-2, and 124-3 in relation to 126-1, 126-2, and 126-3 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I), and the first plurality of doped regions and the second plurality of doped regions are formed in the substrate portion (C7/L49-67; 124-1, 124-2, 124-3, 126-1, 126-2, 126-3 in relation to 113 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I).
With regard to the limitation “an ambient light energy harvesting device,” statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 11, Roizin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Roizin further discloses a buried doped structure (111; C4/L63-66) formed prior to the forming of the first plurality of doped regions and prior to the forming of the second plurality of doped regions (C4/L63-66; 210 in Fig. 2 discloses the formation of the epitaxial layer prior to the formation of the doped regions).
Regarding claim 12, Roizin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Roizin further discloses the buried doped structure corresponds to a buried doped layer on and in contact with the substrate portion (111 in relation to 113 in Figures 1 and 3C-3I), and the first plurality of doped regions and the second plurality of doped regions are on and in contact with the buried doped layer (124-1, 124-2, 124-3, 126-1, 126-2, and 126-3 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I in relation to 111; it is noted that the limitation “on and in contact with” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components; it is further noted that the limitation “on” does not require a specific spatial orientation between components).
Regarding claim 16, Roizin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Roizin further discloses forming a buried isolation layer below the substrate portion (C6/L31-32; 115 in relation to 113 in Figures 1 and 3G-3I), wherein a depth of an upper surface of the buried isolation layer is 4 micrometers (C8/L33).
Regarding claim 17, Roizin discloses an electronic device (abstract) comprising: an integrated circuit die (abstract L15) that includes processing circuitry (abstract L15) and a first device (C12/L1-15), wherein the first device comprises a semiconductor structure constituting at least a first diode of the device (Figures 3A-3I), the semiconductor structure comprises: a substrate portion (113 in Figures 3A-3I); a first plurality of doped regions of a first doping type over the substrate portion (C7/L32-33; 124-1, 124-2, 124-3 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I); wherein the substrate portion is of the first doping type (C7/L27); and a second plurality of doped regions of a second doping type over the substrate portion (C7/L33-34; 126-1, 126-2, 126-3 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I), wherein: the first plurality of doped regions and the second plurality of doped regions are arranged in an alternating manner along a lateral direction (124-1, 124-2, and 124-3 in relation to 126-1, 126-2, and 126-3 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I), and the first plurality of doped regions and the second plurality of doped regions are formed in the substrate portion (C7/L49-67; 124-1, 124-2, 124-3, 126-1, 126-2, 126-3 in relation to 113 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I).
While Roizin does disclose the photovoltaic device supplies power to the process circuitry (C12/L1-15), it is noted that with regard to the limitations “ambient light energy harvesting” and “configured to supply power to the process circuitry,” the limitations are directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 18, Roizin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Roizin further discloses a second ambient light energy harvesting device electrically coupled to the first ambient light energy harvesting device in series (Fig. 9; C12/L59).
Regarding claim 19, Roizin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Roizin further discloses a deep trench isolation structure at an edge of the first diode (C6/L31; T1 in Fig. 3G).
Regarding claim 20, Roizin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Roizin further discloses the electronic device comprises different portable consumer products (C1/L14).
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roizin et al. (US 8,829,332) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bedell et al. (US 2012/0118383).
Regarding claim 2, Roizin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Roizin does disclose a generic CMOS circuit in the device (C12/L8; 310 in
Fig. 6), Roizin does not explicitly disclose the device further comprising a buried structure of the second doping type.
Bedell discloses a device comprising a photovoltaic cell powering a CMOS circuit ([0020]), and further discloses the CMOS circuit comprising an n-type buried structure ([0030]; 802A-D in Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the CMOS circuit of Roizin with an n-type buried structure, as disclosed by Bedell, because as evidenced by Bedell, forming a CMOS circuit of an IC device with an n-type buried structure amounts to the use of a known component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the CMOS circuit of Roizin with an n-type buried structure based on the teaching of Bedell.
While modified Roizin does disclose each doped region is implanted to a depth (e.g., less than 100 nm) from upper surface 106 of epitaxial layer 103 (Roizin – C7/L64-65), and modified Roizin further discloses the drive-in of p+ and n+ implants are performed after the trench etch with a target to reach the surface of porous silicon (Roizin - C7/L67 – C8/L2); modified Roizin does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the first plurality of doped regions and the second plurality of doped regions ranges from 0.2 to 0.4 micrometers.
Roizin discloses, in the embodiment depicted in Fig. 9, p+ and n+ regions that are more shallow than in previous embodiments thus not needing high thermal budgets to drive-in the n+ and p+ implants through the whole thickness of the epitaxial layer (C12/L62-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the doped regions of modified Roizin such that the doped regions are more shallow, as disclosed in the embodiment of Fig. 9 of Roizin, because as taught by Roizin, doped regions which are more shallow do not need high thermal budgets to drive-in the n+ and p+ implants through the whole thickness of the epitaxial layer (C12/L62-66).
While modified Roizin does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the first plurality of doped regions and the second plurality of doped regions ranges from 0.2 to 0.4 micrometers, as the manufacturing cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said thickness of the doped regions, with said manufacturing cost and efficiency of operation both increasing as the thickness of the doped regions is increased, the precise thickness of the doped regions would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed doped region thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the doped regions in the device of modified Roizin to obtain the desired balance between the manufacturing cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Modified Roizin does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the buried doped structure ranges from 0.4 to 0.6 microns.
As the manufacturing cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said thickness of the buried doped structure, the precise thickness of the buried doped structure would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed buried doped structure thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the buried doped structure in the device of modified Roizin to obtain the desired balance between the manufacturing cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 21, Roizin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Roizin does disclose a generic CMOS circuit in the device (C12/L8; 310 in
Fig. 6), Roizin does not explicitly disclose the device further comprising a buried structure of the second doping type.
Bedell discloses a device comprising a photovoltaic cell powering a CMOS circuit ([0020]), and further discloses the CMOS circuit comprising an n-type buried structure ([0030]; 802A-D in Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the CMOS circuit of Roizin with an n-type buried structure, as disclosed by Bedell, because as evidenced by Bedell, forming a CMOS circuit of an IC device with an n-type buried structure amounts to the use of a known component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the CMOS circuit of Roizin with an n-type buried structure based on the teaching of Bedell.
Modified Roizin discloses the buried doped structure corresponds to a buried doped layer (Bedell - 802A-D in Fig. 8) on and in contact with the substrate portion (Roizin – 100C in relation to 310 in Fig. 6; 113 in Figures 3A-3I; it is noted that the limitation “on and in contact with” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components; it is further noted that the limitation “on” does not require a specific spatial orientation between components), and the first plurality of doped regions (Roizin - C7/L32-33; 124-1, 124-2, 124-3 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I) and the second plurality of doped regions are on and in contact with the buried doped layer (Roizin - C7/L33-34; 126-1, 126-2, 126-3 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I) are on and in contact with the buried doped layer (Roizin – 100C in relation to 310 in Fig. 6; Bedell - 802A-D in Fig. 8; it is noted that the limitation “on and in contact with” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components; it is further noted that the limitation “on” does not require a specific spatial orientation between components).
Claims 3, 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roizin et al. (US 8,829,332) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above.
Regarding claim 3, Roizin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Roizin further discloses an entirety of lower surface of the first plurality of doped regions and lower surfaces of the second plurality of doped regions is in contact with the substrate portion (C7/L32-34; lower surfaces of 124-1, 124-2, 124-3, 126-1, 126-2, and 126-3 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I in relation to 113; it is noted that the limitation “in contact” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components).
While Roizin does disclose each doped region is implanted to a depth (e.g., less than 100 nm) from upper surface 106 of epitaxial layer 103 (C7/L64-65), and Roizin further discloses the drive-in of p+ and n+ implants are performed after the trench etch with a target to reach the surface of porous silicon (C7/L67 – C8/L2); Roizin does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the first plurality of doped regions and the second plurality of doped regions ranges from 0.4 to 0.8 micrometers.
Roizin discloses, in the embodiment depicted in Fig. 9, p+ and n+ regions that are more shallow than in previous embodiments thus not needing high thermal budgets to drive-in the n+ and p+ implants through the whole thickness of the epitaxial layer (C12/L62-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the doped regions of Roizin such that the doped regions are more shallow, as disclosed in the embodiment of Fig. 9 of Roizin, because as taught by Roizin, doped regions which are more shallow do not need high thermal budgets to drive-in the n+ and p+ implants through the whole thickness of the epitaxial layer (C12/L62-66).
While modified Roizin does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the first plurality of doped regions and the second plurality of doped regions ranges from 0.4 to 0.8 micrometers, as the manufacturing cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said thickness of the doped regions, with said manufacturing cost and efficiency of operation both increasing as the thickness of the doped regions is increased, the precise thickness of the doped regions would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed doped region thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the doped regions in the device of modified Roizin to obtain the desired balance between the manufacturing cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 7, Roizin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Roizin further discloses a deep trench isolation structure at an edge of the first diode (C6/L31; T1 in Fig. 3G).
While Roizin does disclose a depth of the deep trench isolation structure is 4 microns (C8/L33), Roizin does not explicitly disclose a depth of the deep trench isolation structure ranges from 7 to 9 micrometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the deep trench isolation structure of Roizin with a depth ranging from 7 to 9 microns because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.).
Regarding claim 15, Roizin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Roizin further discloses forming a deep trench isolation structure at an edge of the first diode (C6/L31; T1 in Fig. 3G).
While Roizin does disclose a depth of the deep trench isolation structure is 4 microns (C8/L33), Roizin does not explicitly disclose a depth of the deep trench isolation structure ranges from 7 to 9 micrometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the deep trench isolation structure of Roizin with a depth ranging from 7 to 9 microns because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 6, 13, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Roizin does not disclose the first plurality of doped regions and the second plurality of doped regions are formed in the substrate portion. In response to Applicant’s argument, lines 49-67 of column 7 of Roizin discloses the limitation as depicted in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I (124-1, 124-2, 124-3, 126-1, 126-2, 126-3 in relation to 113). It is noted that the recited limitations do not preclude an interpretation in which 113 in Figures 3A, 3H, and 3I satisfy the limitation “substrate portion.”
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 10-21 have been considered but are not directed to the current rejection(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights