DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action 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 1-4, 11, 13-21, 23-24, and 29-30 are pending; Claims 1-4, 11, 13-21, and 23-24 are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 4/28/2026, the objection to Claim 1 is withdrawn, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are modified, and the prior art rejections under Moors and Cudzinovic are modified, and the rejections under Masuko are withdrawn.
In light of the terminal disclaimer filed 4/28/2026, the double patenting rejections are withdrawn.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent 5,563,449: This reference teaches a conductive contact structure for a silicon wafer, comprising an Al alloy 14, an adhesion layer 16, a graded transition layer 18, and an interconnect layer 20 (Fig. 1).
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 1-4, 11, 13-21, 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the at least one improved component comprises any one or more of Mo…and V,” and the claim also recites “the at least one improved component is one of Ni, W, Ti, Mo, Cr, and Si,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the at least one main component comprises one or more metals… 850-1200 nm,” and the claim also recites “the at least one main component is Al,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1 further recites “the improved element” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because there is no prior recitation of “an improved element,” merely “an improved component.”
Claim 1 further recites “the improved components” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because there is no prior recitation of “improved components,” merely “at least one improved component.”
Claims 2-4, 11, 13-21, and 23-24 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the at least one improved component further comprises a non-metallic composition.” This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 recites that “the at least one improved component is one of Ni, W, Ti, Mo, Cr, and Si.” Therefore, the scope of Claim 3 is indefinite, because it is unclear whether Claim 3 requires that the at least one improved component comprises one of the materials recited in Claim 1, and further comprises a non-metallic component, whether the at least one improved component comprises Si, which is the only non-metallic component recited as a possible “improved component” in Claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-4 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the at least one main component is Al having a content greater than or equal to 70 wt% of the seed layer.” Therefore, the recitation of Claim 2 that the “at least one main component comprises any one or more of Al, Ag, Cu, and Mg” does not further limit Claim 1.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the at least one improved component is one of Ni, W, Ti, Mo, Cr, and Si.” Therefore, Claim 3, which recites “wherein the at least one improved component further comprises a non-metallic composition,” does not appear to further limit Claim 1, which recites metallic compositions for the improved component.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the at least one main component is Al having a content greater than or equal to 70 wt% of the seed layer.” Therefore, the recitation of Claim 4 that “a content of the at least one main component us greater than 50 wt% of the seed layer does not appear to limit Claim 1.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the improved components in the seed layer are unevenly distributed, wherein the content of the improved component of a part close to the substrate is less than the content of the improved component of other parts, which can enhance the reflection of the light, while a part in contact with the metal of the conductive layer contains a relatively more content of the improved component, to improve the bonding force with the metal of the conductive layer.”
Therefore, Claims 23-24 do not further limit Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-4, 11, 13-14, 17, and 23-24 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 Faust, Jr., et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0207562 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 1, wherein the at least one main component is Al having a content greater than or equal to 70 wt% of the seed layer; the at least one improved component is Si and having a content less than or equal to 30% of the seed layer.
It is the Examiner’s position that, because the “improved component” of Moors is one of the materials recited in Claim 1 (i.e. Si), it meets the structural limitations required by the limitation “configured to enhance adhesion between the seed layer and the conductive layer.”
Moors teaches that the electrode further comprises a conductive layer 318 disposed above the seed layer 314 (Fig. 3, paragraph [0029]).
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%).
Moors does not teach that the improved component/silicon is unevenly distributed within the seed layer. Therefore, he does not teach the uneven distribution limitations required by Claim 1.
To solve the same problem of providing an electroplating seed layer comprising silicon and a conductive metal, Faust teaches that a silicon-metal seed layer may be formed with a Si gradient, with an increased Si concentration on a side of the seed layer used to bond to an adjacent metal layer (paragraph [0038]). Faust further teaches that this type of gradient provides the benefit of improving the adhesion of the seed layer to the adjacent metal layer (paragraph [0038]).
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 Al-Si layer of Moors to have an uneven distribution of Si within the seed layer, with less Si near the silicon substrate and more Si near the side of the Al-Si seed layer that adheres to the conductive layer, based on the disclosure of Faust of the benefits of such a gradient.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein “the improved components in the seed layer are unevenly distributed, wherein the content of the improved component of a part close to the substrate is less than the content of the improved component of other parts, which can enhance the reflection of the light, while a part in contact with the metal of the conductive layer contains a relatively more content of the improved component, to improve the bonding force with the metal of the conductive layer.”
It is the Examiner’s position that, because the conductive contact structure of modified Moors has the structure recited in Claim 1, there is reasonable basis to conclude that it has the claimed welding tension recited in Claim 1.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 23, wherein the seed layer is formed by stacking a plurality of sub-seed layers (i.e. forming seed layers with different compositions).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 24, wherein contents of the main components in the sub-seed layers (i.e. the Al content) decrease along a direction away from the substrate.
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 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 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 Faust, Jr., et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0207562 A1), and further 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.
Claims 1-4, 11, 18-19, 21, and 23-24 are 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 Faust, Jr., et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0207562 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]).
Cudzinovic teaches that the electrode further comprises a conductive layer 110 disposed above the seed layer 104 (paragraphs [0046]-[0047]).
It is the Examiner’s position that, because the “improved component” of Cudzinovic is one of the materials recited in Claim 1 (i.e. Si), it meets the structural limitations required by the limitation “configured to enhance adhesion between the seed layer and the conductive layer.”
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, 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%).
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%).
Cudzinovic does not teach that the improved component/silicon is unevenly distributed within the seed layer. Therefore, he does not teach the uneven distribution limitations required by Claim 1.
To solve the same problem of providing an electroplating seed layer comprising silicon and a conductive metal, Faust teaches that a silicon-metal seed layer may be formed with a Si gradient, with an increased Si concentration on a side of the seed layer used to bond to an adjacent metal layer (paragraph [0038]). Faust further teaches that this type of gradient provides the benefit of improving the adhesion of the seed layer to the adjacent metal layer (paragraph [0038]).
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 Al-Si layer of Cudzinovic to have an uneven distribution of Si within the seed layer, with less Si near the silicon substrate and more Si near the side of the Al-Si seed layer that adheres to conductive layer 110, based on the disclosure of Faust of the benefits of such a gradient.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein “the improved components in the seed layer are unevenly distributed, wherein the content of the improved component of a part close to the substrate is less than the content of the improved component of other parts, which can enhance the reflection of the light, while a part in contact with the metal of the conductive layer 110 contains a relatively more content of the improved component, to improve the bonding force with the metal of the conductive layer.”
It is the Examiner’s position that, because the conductive contact structure of modified Moors has the structure recited in Claim 1, there is reasonable basis to conclude that it has the claimed welding tension recited in Claim 1.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 23, wherein the seed layer is formed by stacking a plurality of sub-seed layers (i.e. forming seed layers with different compositions).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 24, wherein contents of the main components in the sub-seed layers (i.e. the Al content) decrease along a direction away from the substrate.
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 18, Cudzinovic teaches that a method for growing the conductive layer 110 on the seed layer comprises sputtering (i.e. physical vapor deposition) (paragraph [0046]).
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).
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 Faust, Jr., et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0207562 A1), and further 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim objection, double patenting rejections, and prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
New rejections are presented herein, in light of the claim amendments.
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 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