DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/825,810, filed 9/5/2024, which is a continuation of 16/764,769, filed 5/15/2020, which is a national stage entry of PCT/US2018/061188, filed 11/15/2018, which claims priority to provisional application 62/586,955, filed 11/16/2017.
Claims 1 and 17-29 are pending; Claims 17-29 are considered herein.
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group II, Claims 17-29, in the reply filed on 2/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
Liu, et al., J. Mater. Chem. C, 2015, 3, 4227: This reference teaches an ITO/ZnO/CdSe/CdTe/Au solar cell (Fig. 1).
Xie, et al., J. Mater. Chem. C, 2016, 4, 6483: This reference teaches an ITO/ZnO/CdSe/CdTe solar cell (section 3).
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 17, 24, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damjanovic, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0126395 A1), in view of Stubbs (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0306470 A1).
In reference to Claim 17, Damjanovic teaches a method of forming a solar cell (Fig. 2, with the cell shown in Fig. 4).
The method of Damjanovic comprises providing a transparent conductive oxide layer comprising indium tin oxide (step 802, paragraphs [0042], [0035]).
Damjanovic is silent regarding the ratio of indium to tin in the transparent conductive oxide layer. Therefore, he does not teach that the ratio of indium to tin in the transparent conductive oxide layer is between 3:2 and 99:1.
To solve the same problem of providing indium tin oxide layers for photovoltaic devices, Stubbs teaches an indium tin oxide layer comprising about 90 wt% indium oxide (In2O3) and 10 wt% tin oxide (SnO2) (Stubbs, Abstract). Stubbs further teaches that an indium tin oxide layer with this ratio of indium to tin has a low carrier concentration, which results in increased transmission in the near-IR region, and high carrier mobility, which results in good conductivity (Stubbs, Abstract).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the indium tin oxide layer of Damjanovic to have the composition of the indium tin oxide layer of Stubbs (i.e. 90 wt% In2O3 and 10 wt% SnO2), because Stubbs teaches that an indium tin oxide layer with this composition has a low carrier concentration, which results in increased transmission in the near-IR region, and high carrier mobility, which results in good conductivity.
The indium tin oxide layer of Stubbs has an indium to tin molar ratio of 9.77:1 and an indium to tin weight ratio of 9.45:1.
Therefore, forming the indium tin oxide layer of Damjanovic to have the composition of the indium tin oxide layer of Stubbs teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein a ratio of indium to tin in the transparent conductive oxide layer is in a range between 3:2 and 99:1.
The method of Damjanovic does not teach that the method of his invention necessarily comprises a step of forming a layer of tin dioxide over the transparent conductive oxide layer.
However, he teaches that the method of his invention may suitably comprise forming a barrier layer of tin oxide (i.e. SnO2) between the TCO layer of the device and the window layer of the device, to reduce recombination of holes and electrons at the interface between the TCO layer and the window layer of the device (paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed a layer of tin oxide/tin dioxide/SnO2 over the transparent conductive oxide layer, because Damjanovic teaches that this is a suitable modification to the method of his invention.
Forming a layer of tin oxide/tin dioxide/SnO2 over the transparent conductive oxide layer teaches the limitations of Claim 17, wherein the method includes forming a layer of tin dioxide over the transparent conductive oxide layer.
The method of Damjanovic comprises forming a window layer over the tin dioxide layer (step 804, paragraph [0042]).
Damjanovic does not teach that the window layer is necessarily a zinc magnesium oxide.
However, he teaches that a suitable window material for the device of his invention is ZnMgO (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the window layer of the device of Damjanovic to be ZnMgO, because Damjanovic teaches that this is a suitable window layer for the device of his invention.
Forming the window layer of the device from ZnMgO teaches the limitations of Claim 17, wherein the method comprises forming a layer of zinc magnesium oxide over the layer of tin dioxide, whereby the layer of tin dioxide is between the transparent conductive oxide layer and the layer of zinc magnesium oxide.
The method of Damjanovic comprises depositing a plurality of semiconductor layers over the layer of zinc magnesium oxide, corresponding to the deposition of the graded CdSeTe layers (paragraph [0056], corresponding to step 802 of Fig. 2).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 17, wherein the plurality of semiconductor layers comprise cadmium, tellurium, and selenium, and wherein the layer of tin dioxide and the layer of zinc magnesium oxide are between the transparent conductive oxide layer and the plurality of semiconductor layers.
The method of Damjanovic comprises performing a chloride heat treatment by annealing the plurality of semiconductor layers with chlorine at 350-475 °C, thereby forming the absorber layer (paragraph [0044]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 17, wherein the method comprises performing a chloride heat treatment by annealing the plurality of semiconductor layers with chlorine at a temperature in a range of 400 °C to °500 C; thereby forming the absorber layer.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “400 °C to °500 C” overlaps with the taught range of “350-475 °C.”
It is the Examiner’s position that, because modified Damjanovic teaches the limitations of Claim 17, his method also meets the limitations of “controlling indium levels in an absorber layer of a photovoltaic device having a transparent conductive oxide layer comprising indium tin oxide.”
In reference to Claim 24, Damjanovic teaches that the tin dioxide is intrinsic tin dioxide (paragraph [0039]).
He further teaches that a suitable thickness for a SnO2 layer deposited in this relative position is 20-60 nm (paragraph [0072]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the SnO2 layer in the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of 20-60 nm, because he teaches that this is a suitable thickness for this layer.
Forming the SnO2 layer in the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of 20-60 nm teaches the limitations of Claim 24, wherein a thickness of the layer of tin dioxide is less than about 150 nm.
In reference to Claim 29, modified Damjanovic teaches that the layer of tin dioxide is adjacent to the indium tin oxide of the transparent conductive oxide layer (Damjanovic, paragraph [0039])..
Claims 18, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damjanovic, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0126395 A1), in view of Stubbs (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0306470 A1), and further in view of Sites, et al. (2016 IEEE 43rd Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 5-10 June, 2016).
In reference to Claim 18, modified Damjanovic is silent regarding the Zn:Mg ratio in the material of his invention.
Therefore, he does not teach that the layer of zinc magnesium oxide has a composition of Zn1-xMgxO with x having a value in a range from 0.005 to 0.25.
To solve the same problem of providing window layers for CdTe-containing photovoltaic cells, Sites teaches a photovoltaic layer structure comprising a CdTe-containing absorber layer, an Mg0.23Zn0.77O window layer having a thickness of 100 nm, and an overlying TCO-containing glass substrate (Fig. 1, column 2, page 3632).
Sites further teaches that Mg0.23Zn0.77O has a good collection of short wavelength photons (column 2, paragraph 3, page 3632).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of 100 nm and a composition of Mg0.23Zn0.77O, like the window layer taught by Sites, because Sites teaches that this is a suitable thickness and composition for a Zn-Mg-O type window layer, and provides good collection of short-wavelength photons.
Forming the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of 100 nm and a composition of Mg0.23Zn0.77O, like the window layer taught by Sites, teaches the limitations of Claim 18, wherein the layer of zinc magnesium oxide has a composition of Zn1-xMgxO with x having a value in a range from 0.005 to 0.25 (i.e. 0.23).
In reference to Claim 20, modified Damjanovic is silent regarding the Zn:Mg ratio in the material of his invention.
Therefore, he does not teach that the layer of zinc magnesium oxide comprises more zinc oxide than magnesium oxide.
To solve the same problem of providing window layers for CdTe-containing photovoltaic cells, Sites teaches a photovoltaic layer structure comprising a CdTe-containing absorber layer, an Mg0.23Zn0.77O window layer having a thickness of 100 nm, and an overlying TCO-containing glass substrate (Fig. 1, column 2, page 3632).
Sites further teaches that Mg0.23Zn0.77O has a good collection of short wavelength photons (column 2, paragraph 3, page 3632).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of 100 nm and a composition of Mg0.23Zn0.77O, like the window layer taught by Sites, because Sites teaches that this is a suitable thickness and composition for a Zn-Mg-O type window layer, and provides good collection of short-wavelength photons.
Forming the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of 100 nm and a composition of Mg0.23Zn0.77O, like the window layer taught by Sites, teaches the limitations of Claim 20, wherein the layer of zinc magnesium oxide comprises more zinc oxide than magnesium oxide.
In reference to Claim 25, modified Damjanovic is silent regarding the thickness of the ZnMgO layer of his invention.
Therefore, he does not teach that the layer of zinc magnesium oxide has a thickness of less than about 100 nm.
To solve the same problem of providing window layers for CdTe-containing photovoltaic cells, Sites teaches a photovoltaic layer structure comprising a CdTe-containing absorber layer, an Mg0.23Zn0.77O window layer having a thickness of 100 nm, and an overlying TCO-containing glass substrate (Fig. 1, column 2, page 3632).
Sites further teaches that Mg0.23Zn0.77O has a good collection of short wavelength photons (column 2, paragraph 3, page 3632).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of 100 nm and a composition of Mg0.23Zn0.77O, like the window layer taught by Sites, because Sites teaches that this is a suitable thickness and composition for a Zn-Mg-O type window layer, and provides good collection of short-wavelength photons.
Forming the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of 100 nm and a composition of Mg0.23Zn0.77O, like the window layer taught by Sites, teaches the limitations of Claim 25, wherein a thickness of the layer of zinc magnesium oxide is less than about 100 nm, because it is the Examiner’s position that “about 100 nm” encompasses slightly more than 100 nm, so that 100 nm lies within the claimed range of “less than about 100 nm.”
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damjanovic, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0126395 A1), in view of Stubbs (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0306470 A1), and further in view of Sites, et al. (2016 IEEE 43rd Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 5-10 June, 2016), and further in view of Liu, et al. (Nanotechnology 22 (2011) 145304).
In reference to Claim 19, modified Damjanovic is silent regarding the amount of diffused indium in the absorber layer. Therefore, modified Damjanovic does not teach that the absorber layer comprises a diffused amount of indium with an average atomic concentration in the absorber layer in a range from about 1 x 1014 atom/cm3 to about 5 x 1017 atom/cm3.
To solve the same problem of providing a photovoltaic device comprising Cd and Te in the absorber layer, and an ITO/SnO2 contact layer, Liu teaches that intrinsic SnO2 disposed on an ITO layer (as in modified Damjanovic) provides the benefit of preventing indium diffusion into the absorber layer from the ITO layer (page 3, column 2, final paragraph). Therefore, Liu teaches that it is desirable to prevent indium diffusion into the absorber layer.
Consequently, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have designed the processing parameters and structure of the device of modified Damjanovic to minimize the amount of diffused indium in the absorber layer.
It is the Examiner’s position that this optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed amount of diffused indium in the absorber layer recited in Claim 19, without undue experimentation.
Claims 18, 20-23, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damjanovic, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0126395 A1), in view of Stubbs (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0306470 A1), and further in view of Li, et al. (2009 34th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2009, pp. 000305-000308).
In reference to Claim 18, modified Damjanovic is silent regarding the Zn:Mg ratio in the material of his invention.
Therefore, he does not teach that the layer of zinc magnesium oxide has a composition of Zn1-xMgxO with x having a value in a range from 0.005 to 0.25.
To solve the same problem of providing window layers for Cd-containing photovoltaic cells, Li teaches that Mg0.25Zn0.75O window layers with thicknesses below 40 nm have desirable resistance values (Fig. 3a, described in column 1, paragraph 3, column 1, page 306).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of below 40 nm and a composition of Mg0.25Zn0.75O, like the window layer taught by Li, because Li teaches that this is a suitable thickness and composition for a Zn-Mg-O type window layer, and provides good sheet resistance.
Forming the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of below 40 nm and a composition of Mg0.25Zn0.75O, like the window layer taught by Li, teaches the limitations of Claim 18, wherein the layer of zinc magnesium oxide has a composition of Zn1-xMgxO with x having a value in a range from 0.005 to 0.25 (i.e. 0.25).
In reference to Claim 20, modified Damjanovic is silent regarding the Zn:Mg ratio in the material of his invention.
Therefore, he does not teach that the layer of zinc magnesium oxide comprises more zinc oxide than magnesium oxide.
To solve the same problem of providing window layers for Cd-containing photovoltaic cells, Li teaches that Mg0.25Zn0.75O window layers with thicknesses below 40 nm have desirable resistance values (Fig. 3a, described in column 1, paragraph 3, column 1, page 306).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of below 40 nm and a composition of Mg0.25Zn0.75O, like the window layer taught by Li, because Li teaches that this is a suitable thickness and composition for a Zn-Mg-O type window layer, and provides good sheet resistance.
Forming the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of below 40 nm and a composition of Mg0.25Zn0.75O, like the window layer taught by Li, teaches the limitations of Claim 20, wherein the layer of zinc magnesium oxide comprises more zinc oxide than magnesium oxide.
In reference to Claim 21, modified Damjanovic is silent regarding the thickness and Zn:Mg ratio in the material of his invention.
Therefore, he does not teach that the layer of zinc magnesium oxide has a composition of Zn1-xMgxO with x is less than or equal to 0.4, or that the thickness of the zinc magnesium oxide is in a range of 5 nm to 25 nm.
To solve the same problem of providing window layers for Cd-containing photovoltaic cells, Li teaches that Mg0.25Zn0.75O window layers with thicknesses below 40 nm have desirable resistance values (Fig. 3a, described in column 1, paragraph 3, column 1, page 306).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of below 40 nm and a composition of Mg0.25Zn0.75O, like the window layer taught by Li, because Li teaches that this is a suitable thickness and composition for a Zn-Mg-O type window layer, and provides good sheet resistance.
Forming the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of below 40 nm and a composition of Mg0.25Zn0.75O, like the window layer taught by Li, teaches the limitations of Claim 21, wherein the layer of zinc magnesium oxide has a composition of Zn1-xMgxO wherein x is less than or equal to 0.4 (i.e. 0.25).
Forming the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of below 40 nm and a composition of Mg0.25Zn0.75O, like the window layer taught by Li, teaches the limitations of Claim 21, wherein a thickness of the layer of zinc magnesium oxide is in a range of 5 nm to 25 nm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “5 nm to 25 nm” overlaps with the taught range of “below 40 nm.”
Forming the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of below 40 nm and a composition of Mg0.25Zn0.75O, like the window layer taught by Li, teaches the limitations of Claim 22, wherein x is between 0.005 and 0.25 (i.e. 0.25).
Forming the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of below 40 nm and a composition of Mg0.25Zn0.75O, like the window layer taught by Li, teaches the limitations of Claim 23, wherein a ratio of zinc oxide to magnesium oxide in the alloy is greater than 2:1 (i.e. 3:1).
In reference to Claim 25, modified Damjanovic is silent regarding the thickness of the ZnMgO layer of his invention.
Therefore, he does not teach that the layer of zinc magnesium oxide has a thickness of less than about 100 nm.
To solve the same problem of providing window layers for Cd-containing photovoltaic cells, Li teaches that Mg0.25Zn0.75O window layers with thicknesses below 40 nm have desirable resistance values (Fig. 3a, described in column 1, paragraph 3, column 1, page 306).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of below 40 nm and a composition of Mg0.25Zn0.75O, like the window layer taught by Li, because Li teaches that this is a suitable thickness and composition for a Zn-Mg-O type window layer, and provides good sheet resistance.
Forming the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of below 40 nm and a composition of Mg0.25Zn0.75O, like the window layer taught by Li, teaches the limitations of Claim 25, wherein a thickness of the layer of zinc magnesium oxide is less than about 100 nm, i.e. less than 40 nm.
Forming the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of below 40 nm and a composition of Mg0.25Zn0.75O, like the window layer taught by Li, teaches the limitations of Claim 26, wherein a thickness of the layer of tin dioxide (i.e. 20-60 nm, Damjanovic, [0072]) is greater than or equal to the thickness of the layer of zinc magnesium oxide (i.e. below 40 nm).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “a thickness of the layer of tin dioxide is greater than or equal to the thickness of the layer of zinc magnesium oxide” overlaps with the taught range of the thickness of the layer of tin dioxide being 20-60 nm and the taught range of the thickness of the Zn-Mg-O layer being below 40 nm.
Forming the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of below 40 nm and a composition of Mg0.25Zn0.75O, like the window layer taught by Li, teaches the limitations of Claim 27, wherein a ratio of the thickness of the layer of tin dioxide to the thickness of the layer of zinc magnesium oxide is between about 1 and about 15.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “a ratio of the thickness of the layer of tin dioxide to the thickness of the layer of zinc magnesium oxide is between about 1 and about 15” overlaps with the taught range of the thickness of the layer of tin dioxide being 20-60 nm and the taught range of the thickness of the Zn-Mg-O layer being below 40 nm, i.e. a ratio of thickness from 0.5-60+.
Forming the ZnMgO window layer of the device of modified Damjanovic to have a thickness of below 40 nm and a composition of Mg0.25Zn0.75O, like the window layer taught by Li, teaches the limitations of Claim 28, wherein a sum of the thickness of the layer of tin dioxide (i.e. 20-60 nm) and the thickness of the layer of zinc magnesium oxide (less than 40 nm) is less than or equal to about 200 nm (i.e. 20-100 nm).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights