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
This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 11/03/2025.
Claim(s) 1-19 and 24 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 17 have been amended.
Claim(s) 20-23 and 25-28 have been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1
For proper form, given that photovoltaic cells are recited in plural, it is suggested that the limitation “a plurality of photovoltaic cells, wherein the plurality of photovoltaic cells is to form a module” be amended to read “a plurality of photovoltaic cells, wherein the plurality of photovoltaic cells
Regarding claim 16
For proper form, given that back contacts are recited in plural, it is suggested that the limitation “wherein the plurality of back contacts is to electrically connect with external back contacts of a second photovoltaic cell to provide a target power” be amended to read “wherein the plurality of back contacts is are to electrically connect with external back contacts of a second photovoltaic cell to provide a target power”, or “wherein the plurality of back contacts .
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 17 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110605794 A, Yang et al. (hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 17
Yang teaches a method comprising:
forming a photovoltaic cell on a silicon wafer (corresponding to a silicon wafer used as a silicon substrate) [Figs. 3-4, paras. 0010 and 0067-0069];
cutting the silicon wafer along a {100} plane to provide a substantially square wafer (a diamond wire is used to cut a <100> crystal rod to obtain a square silicon wafer) [Figs. 3-4 and paras. 0067-0068];
cleaving the substantially square wafer along a preferred cleavage plane into separate pieces to form photovoltaic cells to tessellate with additional photovoltaic cells to form a module (the silicon wafer is split into the desired number of cells by cleaving) [Fig. 4, paras. 0008, 0038, 0065 and 0103]; and
arranging a plurality of photovoltaic cells to form the module [Figs. 4, 6 and 7, paras. 0008, 0038, 0065 and 0103].
Regarding claim 24
Yang teaches the method as set forth above, further comprising connecting the plurality of photovoltaic cells with an electro-conductive backsheet (the solar cells can be a back contact solar cell) [para. 0072].
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) 1-5, 7 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0166598 A1, Okandan et al. (hereinafter “Okandan”) in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 1
Okandan teaches an apparatus (corresponding to a photovoltaic module) [Figs. 1(a)-1(d) and para. 0022] comprising:
a plurality of photovoltaic cells, wherein the plurality of photovoltaic cells is to form a module (see tessellate arrangement of cells in Figs. 1(a)-1(d); see also para. 0022); and
an electro-conductive backsheet (corresponding to polyimide layer having a metallization pattern) to connect the plurality of photovoltaic cells [Figs. 2-6, paras. 0022 and 0024-0025], wherein the electro-conductive backsheet is to collect current from the plurality of photovoltaic cells [para. 0025].
Although disclosed in the art, the limitations “to connect the plurality of photovoltaic cells” and “to collect current from the plurality of photovoltaic cells” are considered functional limitations and are 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).
The limitations “wherein each photovoltaic cell of the plurality of photovoltaic cells is formed on a silicon wafer by: cutting along a {100} plane to provide a substantially square wafer; and cleaving the substantially square wafer along a preferred cleavage plane into separate pieces to form each photovoltaic cell”, are considered product-by-process limitations.
As long as the prior art discloses separated cells having a desired shape and forming a module, the limitations of the claims are met.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113].
Nevertheless, it is noted that said process limitations are disclosed by Yang as set forth below.
Yang teaches a back-contact photovoltaic cell [Figs. 3-4, paras. 0008, 0072, 0072, 0076 and 0081] comprising:
a silicon wafer base (corresponding to a silicon wafer used as a silicon substrate) [Figs. 3-4, paras. 0067-0069];
a first edge cut along a first {100} plane of the silicon wafer base (a diamond wire is used to cut a <100> crystal rod to obtain a square silicon wafer) [Figs. 3-4 and paras. 0067-0068];
a second edge cut along a second {100} plane of the silicon wafer base (see edges of the obtained square silicon wafer, the edges formed by cutting a crystal rod with a diamond wire) [Figs. 3-4 and paras. 0067-0068]; and
a third edge cleaved along a preferred cleavage plane to separate the silicon wafer base into separate pieces (the silicon wafer is split into the desired number of cells by cleaving) [Fig. 4, paras. 0038 and 0103].
Okandan and Yang are analogous inventions in the field of apparatuses comprising back contact solar cells produced form square silicon wafers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have produced the individual cells of Okandan using the method disclosed in Yang as such is a known method for separating square photovoltaic wafers into smaller segments without causing defects [Yang, paras. 0006, 0008 and 0038].
Regarding claim 2
Modified Okandan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the individual cells are mechanically separated according to the desired cell shape, the individual cell shapes including hexagons, triangles or other shapes [Okandan. Para. 0023].
Accordingly, cleaving in a preferred cleave plane {110} is within the ambit of Okandan.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the cleave plane is a result-effective variable.
Modified Okandan discloses that, in the separation step, the individual cells can be cut/separated into arbitrary shapes, sizes, and orientations according to the desired final module or array configuration [Okandan, para. 0022].
Modified Okandan further discloses that the particular shape of the separated cells can be selected in order to provide the desired mechanical and electrical resilience. For example, the individual cell shapes, such as hexagons, triangles, or other shapes (including combinations of different shapes) enable the assembly of cells and/or other electronic components to bend and flex in multiple directions, and optionally also in preferred locations, which prevents the array from being mechanically damaged when it is flexed [Okandan, paras. 0023-0024].
Therefore, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the cleave plane (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 achieve the desired final module and array configuration while synergistically improving mechanical flexibility and enhancing mechanical and electrical reliability at the same or better efficiency [Okandan, paras. 0023-0024]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 3
Modified Okandan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the individual cells are mechanically separated according to the desired cell shape, the individual cell shapes including hexagons, triangles or other shapes [Okandan. Para. 0023].
Accordingly, cleaving in a preferred cleave plane {111} is within the ambit of Okandan.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the cleave plane is a result-effective variable.
Modified Okandan discloses that, in the separation step, the individual cells can be cut/separated into arbitrary shapes, sizes, and orientations according to the desired final module or array configuration [Okandan, para. 0022].
Modified Okandan further discloses that the particular shape of the separated cells can be selected in order to provide the desired mechanical and electrical resilience. For example, the individual cell shapes, such as hexagons, triangles, or other shapes (including combinations of different shapes) enable the assembly of cells and/or other electronic components to bend and flex in multiple directions, and optionally also in preferred locations, which prevents the array from being mechanically damaged when it is flexed [Okandan, paras. 0023-0024].
Therefore, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the cleave plane (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 achieve the desired final module and array configuration while synergistically improving mechanical flexibility and enhancing mechanical and electrical reliability at the same or better efficiency [Okandan, paras. 0023-0024].
It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 4
Modified Okandan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein each photovoltaic cell of the plurality of photovoltaic cells is substantially triangular [Okandan, Fig. 1(c) and paras. 0023-0024].
Regarding claim 5
Modified Okandan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the electro-conductive backsheet is flexible (the backsheet comprises a polyimide material which provides both mechanical support and flexibility) [Okandan, Figs. 2-3 and paras. 0026-0028].
Regarding claim 7
Modified Okandan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein each photovoltaic cell of the plurality of photovoltaic cells is a back-contact cell [Okandan, Figs. 2-6 and para. 0025].
Regarding claim 9
Modified Okandan teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the module is substantially rectangular [Okandan, Fig. 7].
Regarding claim 10
Okandan teaches a photovoltaic cell comprising:
a silicon wafer base (corresponding to starting wafer) [Fig. 6 and para. 0030];
a first edge (see element noted as A in Fig. 1(c) below) cut along a first {100} plane of the silicon wafer base (the starting wafer is a solar PV square) [Figs. 1(c)-1(d) and 6, para. 0030];
a second edge (see element noted as B in Fig. 1(c) below) cut along a second {100} plane of the silicon wafer base (see starting solar PV square) [Figs. 1(c)-1(d) and 6, para. 0030]; and
a third edge (see element noted as C in Fig. 1(c) below) along a preferred plane to separate the silicon wafer base into separate pieces (individual cells are separated, wherein the individual cells can be triangular in shape) [Figs. 1(c)-1(d) and 6, paras. 0022-0023 and 0030],
wherein the first edge (A), the second edge (B), and the third edge (C) to provide a shape to tessellate with additional photovoltaic cells to form a module (the separated cells are connected to form an array) [Figs. 1(a)-(d) and 7, paras. 0023-0024].
PNG
media_image1.png
436
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Okandan, Fig. 1(c)
The limitations “cut” and “cleaved” are considered product-by-process limitations. Nevertheless, the limitations are disclosed by Okandan as set forth below.
Yang teaches a photovoltaic cell comprising:
a silicon wafer base (corresponding to a silicon wafer used as a silicon substrate) [Figs. 3-4 and para. 0067-0069];
a first edge cut along a first {100} plane of the silicon wafer base (a diamond wire is used to cut a <100> crystal rod to obtain a square silicon wafer) [Figs. 3-4 and paras. 0067-0068];
a second edge cut along a second {100} plane of the silicon wafer base (see edges of the obtained square silicon wafer, the edges formed by cutting a crystal rod with a diamond wire) [Figs. 3-4 and paras. 0067-0068]; and
a third edge cleaved along a preferred cleavage plane to separate the silicon wafer base into separate pieces (the silicon wafer is split into the desired number of cells by cleaving) [Fig. 4, paras. 0038 and 0103].
Okandan and Yang are analogous inventions in the field of back contact solar cells produced form square silicon wafers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have produced the photovoltaic cell of Okandan using the method disclosed in Yang as such is a known method for separating square photovoltaic wafers into smaller segments without causing defects [Yang, paras. 0006, 0008 and 0038].
Regarding claim 11
Modified Okandan teaches the photovoltaic cell as set forth above, wherein the individual cells are mechanically separated according to the desired cell shape, the individual cell shapes including hexagons, triangles or other shapes [Okandan, para. 0023].
Accordingly, cleaving in a preferred cleave plane {110} is within the ambit of Okandan.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the cleave plane is a result-effective variable.
Modified Okandan discloses that, in the separation step, the individual cells can be cut/separated into arbitrary shapes, sizes, and orientations according to the desired final module or array configuration [Okandan, para. 0022].
Modified Okandan further discloses that the particular shape of the separated cells can be selected in order to provide the desired mechanical and electrical resilience. For example, the individual cell shapes, such as hexagons, triangles, or other shapes (including combinations of different shapes) enable the assembly of cells and/or other electronic components to bend and flex in multiple directions, and optionally also in preferred locations, which prevents the array from being mechanically damaged when it is flexed [Okandan, paras. 0023-0024].
Therefore, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the cleave plane (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 achieve the desired final module and array configuration while synergistically improving mechanical flexibility and enhancing mechanical and electrical reliability at the same or better efficiency [Okandan, paras. 0023-0024]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 12
Modified Okandan teaches the photovoltaic cell as set forth above, wherein the individual cells are mechanically separated according to the desired cell shape, the individual cell shapes including hexagons, triangles or other shapes [Okandan. Para. 0023].
Accordingly, cleaving in a preferred cleave plane {111} is within the ambit of Okandan.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the cleave plane is a result-effective variable.
Modified Okandan discloses that, in the separation step, the individual cells can be cut/separated into arbitrary shapes, sizes, and orientations according to the desired final module or array configuration [Okandan, para. 0022].
Modified Okandan further discloses that the particular shape of the separated cells can be selected in order to provide the desired mechanical and electrical resilience. For example, the individual cell shapes, such as hexagons, triangles, or other shapes (including combinations of different shapes) enable the assembly of cells and/or other electronic components to bend and flex in multiple directions, and optionally also in preferred locations, which prevents the array from being mechanically damaged when it is flexed [Okandan, paras. 0023-0024].
Therefore, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the cleave plane (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 achieve the desired final module and array configuration while synergistically improving mechanical flexibility and enhancing mechanical and electrical reliability at the same or better efficiency [Okandan, paras. 0023-0024].
It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 13
Modified Okandan teaches the photovoltaic cell as set forth above, wherein each photovoltaic cell of the plurality of photovoltaic cells is substantially triangular [Okandan, Fig. 1(c) and paras. 0023-0024].
Regarding claim 14
Modified Okandan teaches the photovoltaic cell as set forth above, further comprising a via (contact holes/openings) to connect a frontside of the silicon wafer base to a backside of the silicon wafer base (openings in the polyimide layer also allow solder, conductive epoxy or other electrical connections to be formed with the system in which these cells and arrays are integrated) [Okandan, Figs. 4-6, paras. 0019, 0025-0026, 0028, 0030].
Regarding claim 15
Modified Okandan teaches the photovoltaic cell as set forth above, further comprising a plurality of back contacts to connect with an electro-conductive backsheet [Okandan, Figs. 4-6, paras. 0019, 0025-0026, 0028, 0030].
Regarding claim 16
The limitation “wherein the plurality of back contacts is to electrically connect with external back contacts of a second photovoltaic cell to provide a target power” is considered a functional limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. Since the structure of the prior art is the same as the one claimed, the same is considered capable of performing the functional limitations.
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).
Examiner notes to para. [0024] of Okandan wherein it is disclosed that a combination of triangular elements can be connected in series to reach a common voltage (for example 1V or 6V).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okandan in view of Yang, as applied to claims 1-5, 7 and 9-16, and further in view of US 2012/0111407, Rummens.
Regarding claim 6
Modified Okandan does not teach the electro-conductive backsheet being a foil.
Rummens teaches a FPP foil that is suitable as a backsheet for photovoltaic modules [Abstract and paras. 0022-0024], the FPP foil providing a unique combination of useful properties like barrier properties, enough dimensional stability, mechanical properties retention (integrity) and limited heat distortion (flow) at usual vacuum lamination process, excellent aging, excellent electrical properties, excellent cold temperature mechanical properties and weldability to junction boxes [para. 0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the backsheet of modified Okandan to comprise a FPP foil, as in Rummens, as such provides a unique combination of useful properties like barrier properties, enough dimensional stability, mechanical properties retention (integrity) and limited heat distortion (flow) at usual vacuum lamination process, excellent aging, excellent electrical properties, excellent cold temperature mechanical properties and weldability to junction boxes [para. 0024].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okandan in view of Yang, as applied to claims 1-5, 7 and 9-16, and further in view of US 2012/0080074 A1, Hardikar et al.
Regarding claim 8
Modified Okandan teaches mounting the PV module in a residential rooftop, a commercial rooftop, etc. [Okandan, para. 0025]. However, Modified Okandan does not specifically disclose the apparatus comprising a rail, wherein the module is to be mounted on the rail.
Hardikar discloses a rail system for mounting a photovoltaic module onto a support structure such as a roof, wherein the module is to be mounted on the rail [Fig. 2B and para. 0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of modified Okandan to comprise a rail on which the module is to be mounted, as in Hardikar, for the purpose of installing/mounting the module onto the supporting structure (e.g., roof).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, as applied to claims 1-5, 7 and 9-16, and further in view of Okandan.
Regarding claim 18
Yang does not teach that cleaving along the preferred cleavage plane comprises cleaving along a {110} plane.
Okandan teaches a method wherein the individual cells are mechanically separated according to the desired cell shape, the individual cell shapes including hexagons, triangles or other shapes [Okandan. Para. 0023].
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the cleave plane is a result-effective variable.
Specifically, Okandan discloses that, in the separation step, the individual cells can be cut/separated into arbitrary shapes, sizes, and orientations according to the desired final module or array configuration [para. 0022].
Okandan further discloses that the particular shape of the separated cells can be selected in order to provide the desired mechanical and electrical resilience. For example, the individual cell shapes, such as hexagons, triangles, or other shapes (including combinations of different shapes) enable the assembly of cells and/or other electronic components to bend and flex in multiple directions, and optionally also in preferred locations, which prevents the array from being mechanically damaged when it is flexed [paras. 0023-0024].
Therefore, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the cleave plane (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 achieve the desired final module and array configuration while synergistically improving mechanical flexibility and enhancing mechanical and electrical reliability at the same or better efficiency [Okandan, paras. 0023-0024]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 19
Yang does not teach that cleaving along the preferred cleavage plane comprises cleaving along a {111} plane.
Okandan teaches a method wherein the individual cells are mechanically separated according to the desired cell shape, the individual cell shapes including hexagons, triangles or other shapes [Okandan. Para. 0023].
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the cleave plane is a result-effective variable.
Specifically, Okandan discloses that, in the separation step, the individual cells can be cut/separated into arbitrary shapes, sizes, and orientations according to the desired final module or array configuration [para. 0022].
Okandan further discloses that the particular shape of the separated cells can be selected in order to provide the desired mechanical and electrical resilience. For example, the individual cell shapes, such as hexagons, triangles, or other shapes (including combinations of different shapes) enable the assembly of cells and/or other electronic components to bend and flex in multiple directions, and optionally also in preferred locations, which prevents the array from being mechanically damaged when it is flexed [paras. 0023-0024].
Therefore, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the cleave plane (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 achieve the desired final module and array configuration while synergistically improving mechanical flexibility and enhancing mechanical and electrical reliability at the same or better efficiency [Okandan, paras. 0023-0024]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 and 24 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.
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