DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/864,195, which is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2022/000057, filed 6/21/2022, which claims priority to CN202210239253.9, filed 3/11/2022.
Claims 1-5, 11-21, 23-24, and 29-30 are pending; Claims 1-5, 11-21, and 23-24 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
Claims 29-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/6/2026.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0041911 A1: This reference teaches a multi-layered electrode produced using a seed layer (Fig. 1, paragraph [0050]).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0265870 A1: This reference teaches a multi-layered electrode produced using an aluminum silicide seed layer (paragraph [0048]).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “and a wavelength range..” in lines 9-10. It is the Examiner’s position that this limitation should read “at a wavelength range..” Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 11-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,929,441 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-8 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,929,441 B2 anticipate all the limitations of instant claims 1-5 and 11-21.
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 1-5, 11-21, and 23-24 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.
Claim 1 recites “at least one improved component” in line 8. The metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear, because it is unclear what the component is “improved,” relative to. For the purposes of examination, the “improved component” will be interpreted to include the components recited for the improved component in Claim 1.
Claims 2-5, 11-21, and 23-24 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 19 recites “the conductive layer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because there is no prior recitation of “a conductive layer” in Claim 1. The Examiner recommends amending Claim 19 to depend from Claim 12, which recites a conductive layer.
Claims 20-21 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 1.
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 1-5, 11-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moors, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0006171 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Moors teaches a conductive contact structure for a solar cell (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0023]-[0033]).
The conductive contact structure of Moors comprises a substrate 310 (Fig. 3, paragraph [0023]), a semiconductor region 304, being disposed on the substrate 310 (Fig. 3, paragraph [0023]).
The conductive contact structure of Moors comprises an electrode 314/318 being disposed on the semiconductor region 304 (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0027]-[0030]).
The electrode 314/318 comprises a seed layer 314 in contact with the semiconductor region 304 (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0027]-[0030]).
Moors teaches that the seed layer 314 comprises an aluminum-silicon alloy, comprising at least 97% aluminum and up to 2% silicon (paragraph [0028]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the seed layer comprises an alloy material, and comprises at least one main component (i.e. Al) and at least one improved component (i.e. Si); the at least one main component comprises one or more metals having an average refractive index lower than 2 and a wavelength in a range of 850-1200 nm (i.e. Al, which is recognized as a material with this property in Claim 2 and the instant specification), and the at least one improved component comprises Si.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 2, wherein the at least one main component comprises Al.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the at least one improved component further comprises a non-metallic composition (i.e. Si).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein a content of the at least one main component is greater than 50 wt. % of the seed layer (i.e. at least 97%).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the at least one main component is Al having a content greater than or equal to 70 wt. % of the seed layer (i.e. greater than 97%); the at least one improved component is Si and having a content less than or equal to 30 wt. % of the seed layer (i.e. less than 2%).
In reference to Claim 11, Moors teaches that the seed layer 314 is formed on the substrate by screen printing (paragraph [0028]).
It is noted that Claim 11 is a product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
In reference to Claim 12, Moors teaches that the electrode further comprises a conductive layer 318 disposed above the seed layer 314 (Fig. 3, paragraph [0029]). In reference to Claim 13, Moors teaches that the conductive layer is an aluminum foil (paragraph [0029]).
Therefore, Moors teaches that the conductive layer comprises Al.
In reference to Claim 14, Moors teaches that a passivation film 309 is formed between the seed layer 314 and the semiconductor region 304 (Fig. 3, paragraph [0025]).
Moors teaches that the passivation film 309 has an opening, and the seed layer 314 is in contact with the semiconductor region 304 through the opening (Fig. 3, paragraph [0030]).
In reference to Claim 17, Moors teaches that the semiconductor region comprises a tunnel oxide layer 302 (Fig. 3, paragraph [0024]) and doped polysilicon layer 304 (Fig. 4, paragraph [0025]).
Claims 1-5, 11-12, 18-19, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cudzinovic, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0181450 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Cudzinovic teaches a conductive contact structure of a solar cell (Fig. 1E, paragraphs [0037]-[0054]).
The contact structure of Cudzinovic comprises a substrate 102 (Fig. 1E, paragraph [0037]), a semiconductor region, being disposed on or in the substrate (i.e. the emitter region described in paragraph [0037]), and an electrode 114, being disposed on the semiconductor region.
Cudzinovic teaches that the electrode 114 comprises a seed layer 104 in contact with the semiconductor region (paragraph [0038]).
Cudzinovic teaches that the seed layer 104 comprises an alloy material (i.e. Al/Si, paragraph [0038]), and comprises at least one main component (i.e. 99% Al) and at least one improved component (i.e. 1% Si); the at least one main component comprises one or more metals having an average refractive index lower than 2 and a wavelength in a range of 850-1200 nm (it is noted that Al is a material recognized to have this property in Claim 2 and the instant specification), and the at least one improved component comprises Si (paragraph [0038]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 2, wherein the at least one main component comprises Al.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the at least one improved component further comprises a non-metallic composition (i.e. Si).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein a content of the at least one main component is greater than 50 wt. % of the seed layer (i.e. 99%).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the at least one main component is Al having a content greater than or equal to 70 wt. % of the seed layer (i.e. 99%); the at least one improved component is Si and having a content less than or equal to 30 wt. % of the seed layer (i.e. 1%).
In reference to Claim 11, Cudzinovic teaches that the seed layer 104 is formed on the substrate by sputtering (paragraph [0038]), which is form of PVD.
It is noted that Claim 11 is a product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
In reference to Claim 12, Cudzinovic teaches that the electrode further comprises a conductive layer 116 (i.e. Cu) disposed above the seed layer 104 (paragraph [0053]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 12, wherein the conductive layer comprises Cu.
In reference to Claim 18, Cudzinovic teaches that a method for growing the conductive layer 114 on the seed layer comprises electroplating or sputtering (i.e. physical vapor deposition) (paragraph [0053]).
It is noted that Claim 18 is a product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
In reference to Claim 19, Cudzinovic teaches that a protective layer 116 covers the/a conductive layer 110 (paragraph [0053]).
In reference to Claim 21, Cudzinovic teaches that the protective layer 116 is grown on the conductive layer 110 by electroplating or chemical plating (paragraph [0053]).
It is noted that Claim 21 is a product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
In reference to Claim 23, Cudzinovic teaches that the seed layer is formed by stacking a plurality of sub-seed layers 104, 106, and 110 (Fig. 1E, paragraphs [0038]-[0047]).
In reference to Claim 24, Cudzinovic teaches that contents of main components (i.e. aluminum) in the sub-seed layers decrease along a direction away from the substrate.
Specifically, Cudzinovic teaches that layers 104 and 106 have aluminum main components (paragraph [0043]) and that layer 110 has a nickel main component (paragraph [0047]). Therefore, the amount of aluminum decreases from layers 104/106 (which both comprise aluminum) to an amount of 0% in layer 110 (which is furthest from the substrate), because layer 110 does not comprise nickel.
Alternatively, Cudzinovic teaches that both layers 104 and 106 comprise 99% Al and 1% Si (paragraph [0043]).
Cudzinovic further teaches that layer 110 comprises 93% nickel and 7% vanadium (paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, Cudzinovic teaches that layers 104 and 106 (which are closer to the substrate) both comprise 99% of their respective main components (Al), while layer 110 (which is furthest from the substrate) comprises 97% of its main component (Ni).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cudzinovic, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0181450 A1), in view of Lopatin, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0128268 A1).
In reference to Claim 20, Cudzinovic does not teach that the protective layer 116 is an Sn layer or an Ag layer.
Instead, he teaches that the protective layer 116 is a plated copper layer (paragraph [0053]).
To solve the same problem of forming a solar cell contact with a plated outer layer, Lopatin teaches that Cu, Sn, and Ag are all suitable materials for forming the outer-most electrodeposited layer of a solar cell electrode (paragraph [0087]).
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 protective layer 116 from Ag or Sn, instead of Cu, based on the disclosure of Lopatin.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 20, wherein the protective layer 116 is an Sn layer or an Ag layer.
Claims 1-2 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuko, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0012164 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Masuko teaches conductive contact structure of a solar cell (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0040]-[0056]).
The conductive contact structure of Masuko comprises a substrate 21 (Fig. 6, paragraph [0040]).
The conductive contact structure of Masuko comprises a semiconductor region 25, being disposed on the substrate (Fig. 6, paragraph [0043]).
The conductive contact structure of Masuko comprises an electrode 44, being disposed on the semiconductor region 25 (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0053] and [0071]-[0075]).
Masuko teaches that the electrode 44 comprises a seed layer 3 in contact with (i.e. in electrical contact with) the semiconductor region (paragraphs [0073]-[0075]).
In the embodiment of Fig. 6, Masuko does not teach that the seed layer comprises an alloy. Instead, he teaches that the seed layer is made of copper (paragraphs [0073]-[0075]).
However, he teaches that the seed layer may suitably comprise an alloy of copper and nickel (paragraph [0025]).
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 seed layer 3 to comprise an alloy of copper and nickel, because Masuko teaches that this is a suitable material for this layer.
Forming the seed layer 3 to comprise an alloy of copper and nickel teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the seed layer comprises an alloy material (i.e. an alloy of Cu and Ni), and comprises at least one main component (i.e. Cu) and at least one improved component (i.e. Ni); the at least one main component comprises one or more metals having an average refractive index lower than 2 and a wavelength in a range of 850-1200 nm (i.e. Cu, which is acknowledged as a suitable “main component” in Claim 2 and the instant specification), and the at least one improved component comprises Ni.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 2, wherein the at least one main component comprises Cu.
In reference to Claim 11, Masuko teaches that the seed layer 3 is formed on the substrate by CVD or sputtering (paragraph [0072]), which is form of PVD.
It is noted that Claim 11 is a product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
In reference to Claim 12, Masuko teaches that the electrode further comprises a conductive layer disposed above the seed layer (i.e. the Cu layer electroplated on the seed layer, paragraph [0075]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 13, wherein the conductive layer comprises Cu (paragraph [0075]).
In reference to Claim 14, Masuko teaches that a passivation film 31 (i.e. an insulating layer of silicon nitride) is formed between the seed layer (which is part of layer 44) and the semiconductor region 25 (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0048]-[0049]).
Fig. 6 teaches that the passivation film 31 has an opening, and the seed layer (which is part of layer 44) is in contact with (i.e. is in electrical contact with) the semiconductor region 25 through the opening.
In reference to Claim 15, Fig. 6 of Masuko teaches that a transparent conductive oxide (TCO) thin film 43 is further disposed between the seed layer (which is part of layer 44) and the passivation film 31, and the TCO thin film 43 is in contact with the semiconductor region 25 through the opening on the passivation film 31 (paragraphs [0053]-[0054]).
In reference to Claim 16, Masuko does not teach that the TCO thin film is necessarily an indium tin oxide or a zinc oxide-based thin film.
However, he teaches that ITO and ZnO are both suitable materials for the TCO thin film 43 of his invention (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 TCO layer 43 from either ITO or ZnO, because Masuko teaches that these are suitable materials for this layer.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 16, wherein the TCO thin film is an indium tin oxide or a zinc oxide-based thin film.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moors, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0006171 A1), in view of Masuko, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0012164 A1).
In reference to Claim 15, Moors does not teach that the device of his invention comprises the TCO of Claim 15.
To solve the same problem of providing a back contact solar cell (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0040]-[0056]) in which the rear contact electrodes comprise a seed layer, Masuko teaches that disposing a TCO between a rear electrode metal seed layer (part of layer 44, Fig. 6, paragraph [0053]) and a rear contact layer 25 (Fig. 6, paragraph [0046]) provides the benefit of preventing direct contact and alloying between the semiconductor layers and the metal layers, and to increase reflectivity of incident light (paragraph [0053]).
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 modified the device of Moors to include a TCO between the seed layer and the semiconductor layer within the contact structure of his invention, to achieve the taught benefits described by Masuko.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 15, wherein a transparent conductive oxide (TCO) thin film (shown as item 43 in Masuko, Fig. 6) is further disposed between the seed layer (of Moors) and the passivation film (of Moors), and the TCO thin film is in contact with the semiconductor region 25 through the opening on the passivation film.
In reference to Claim 16, Masuko does not teach that the TCO thin film is necessarily an indium tin oxide or a zinc oxide-based thin film.
However, he teaches that ITO and ZnO are both suitable materials for the TCO thin film 43 of his invention (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 TCO layer 43 from either ITO or ZnO, because Masuko teaches that these are suitable materials for this layer.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 16, wherein the TCO thin film is an indium tin oxide or a zinc oxide-based thin film.
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