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
Claim(s) 1-17 are currently pending.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2004/0219801 A1, Oswald et al. (hereinafter “Oswald”).
Regarding claim 17
Oswald teaches a method of preventing power loss in a photovoltaic module (110) due to an isolated electrical shunt (removal of the back contact and reduces shunting) [para. 0042], the method comprising:
providing a photovoltaic module (110) comprising a plurality of closely-spaced lines of laser ablation (corresponding to scribe lines 128) formed by removing parts of the photovoltaic component layers using a laser beam) [Figs. 5 and 7, paras. 0041-0042, 0053 and 0055], wherein the lines of laser ablation (128) are disposed on the module in a pattern that prevents or inhibits electrical current from flowing from one line to adjacent lines (removal of the back contact and reduces shunting) [para. 0042].
Examiner notes that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See in re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2015/126918A1, Carter et al. (hereinafter “Carter”) in view of US 2004/0219801 A1, Oswald et al. (hereinafter “Oswald”).
Regarding claim 1
Carter teaches a semitransparent photovoltaic module (corresponding to a semitransparent module for a window) [Figs. 2 and 8-15; paras. 0054, 0073, 0077 and 0095] comprising:
at least one submodule (10, the RTR manufacturing line can include the process of encapsulating the PV submodule to form a completed PV module) having an outer surface and an inner surface and comprising a first glass layer (corresponding to outer pane of glass, lite 1) [Figs. 2 and 8-15, paras. 0043, 0089, 0095 and 0100],
a transparent conducting oxide layer (corresponding to TCO layer 14b) [Fig. 2, paras. 0021 and 0046],
a semiconductor layer (corresponding to active semiconductor layers, CdS 16 and CdTe 18) [Fig. 2 and paras. 0053-0054], and
a metal back contact layer [Fig. 2, paras. 0053 and 0080],
wherein the submodule further comprises a plurality of interconnection scribes (corresponding to scribes P2 through layers 14a, 16 and 18, and scribes P3, through the back contact) extending in a first direction across the submodule (10) [Fig. 2 and para. 0064].
Carter teaches a plurality of light transmission lines (P1 scribes) [Fig. 2 and para. 0064] but is silent to the plurality of light transmission scribes being disposed perpendicularly to the plurality of interconnection scribes in a second direction that is substantially perpendicular to the first direction, and through at least part of the semiconductor layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
238
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Carter, Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
360
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Carter, Fig. 9
Oswald teaches a photovoltaic module (110) comprising a plurality of interconnection scribes (corresponding to grooves 124, 126 and 128) extending in a first direction and a plurality of light transmission scribes (140) disposed perpendicularly to the plurality of interconnection scribes (corresponding to grooves 124, 126 and 128) in a second direction that is substantially perpendicular to the first direction [Fig. 5, paras. 0041 and 0055], wherein to the plurality of light transmission scribes (140) are disposed through at least part of the semiconductor layer (120) [Fig. 5, paras. 0039 and 0055].
By providing a plurality of transmission scribes in a direction that is perpendicular to the interconnection scribed, the transparency of the photovoltaic cell is improved [paras. 0041 and 0055].
Oswald further teaches optimizing the number, shape and size of such transmission scribes in order to provide for the desired level of transparency [paras. 0041 and 0055].
Carter and Oswald are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the light transmission scribes of Carter such hat they extend perpendicularly to the plurality of interconnection scribes and through the semiconductor layer, as in Oswald, for the purpose of improving the transparency of the module.
Further, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the particular number, shape and size of the light transmission scribes through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired level of transparency [Oswald, para. 0055]. 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 2
Modified Carter teaches the semitransparent photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein the module (10) further comprises a first lamination layer (corresponding to encapsulating material/adhesive) disposed on the inner surface of the at least one submodule (10) [Carter, annotated Fig. 9 above, paras. 0087, 0094-0095 and claims 13-15] and a glass backing layer (corresponding to inner pane of glass, lite 2) disposed on an inner surface of the first lamination layer (encapsulating material/adhesive) disposed on an inner surface of the first lamination layer [Carter, annotated Fig. 9 above, paras. 0094-0095 and claims 13-15].
Regarding claim 3
Modified Carter teaches the semitransparent photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein the semiconductor layer is made of CdTe, CdSeTe, CdSe, CdZnTe, CdMgTe, CdHgTe, Zn Te, GaAs, AlGaAs, GaAsP, a-Si, CIGS, perskovite, or combinations thereof (semiconductor layers may be made of CdS/CdTe via magnetron sputtering; paragraph) [Carter, para. 0048].
Regarding claim 4
Modified Carter teaches the semitransparent photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein the semiconductor layer comprises CdTe (the semiconductor may comprise layers of CdTe applied via sputtering) [Carter, para. 0054].
Regarding claim 6
Modified Carter teaches the semitransparent photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein the light transmission scribes are about 0.05 mm to about 1 mm wide (about 0.01 to 0.5 mm) [Oswald, para. 0041 and claim 5].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 7
Modified Carter teaches the semitransparent photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein the plurality of light transmission scribes are disposed about 0.25 mm to about 5.0 mm apart (the spacing of the scribe lines is about 0.5 to about 5 mm) [[Oswald, para. 0041 and claim 5].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Oswald as applied to claims 1-4, 6 and 7 above, and further in view of US 2014/0030841 A1, Armstrong et al.
Regarding claim 5
Modified Carter teaches the semitransparent photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein the module has a visible light transmission of about 7% to about 70% (the PV module has a light transmission of about 8% or greater) [Carter, para. 0092].
Modified Carter is silent to the module being capable of generating about 60 W to about 120 W of power.
However, because the semitransparent photovoltaic module of modified Carter is identical to the one claimed, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. 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).
If the above is found insufficient, Armstrong discloses that a photovoltaic module is realistically capable of generating a minimum of 70 W or power (P = V x I, where V is a minimum of 7V and I is 10A), according to application [paras. 0029-0030].
Modified Carter and Armstrong are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention for the photovoltaic module of Carter to be capable of generating from about 60 W to about 120 W of power as Armstrong shows that such is a realistic marketable power range for photovoltaic modules.
The range disclosed in modified Carter overlaps with the claimed range of about 60 W to about 120 W of power. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 8
Modified Carter teaches the semitransparent photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein the module comprises a second lamination layer (encapsulating material/adhesive) and a glass outer layer (corresponding to flexible glass layer) [Carter, Fig. 9, paras. 0094-0095 and Claims 13-15), wherein the submodule is positioned between an outer surface of the first lamination layer and an inner surface of the second lamination layer (See annotated Fig. 9 of Carter above).
Modified Carter does not teach the module comprising a plurality of submodules positioned in sequence between the outer surface of the first lamination layer and the inner surface of the second lamination layer.
Armstrong discloses a module (1010) comprising a plurality of submodules (the photovoltaic submodule assembly 1010 has, for example, submodules like submodule 200 or submodules like those of one of photovoltaic modules 300, 400, 500, 502, 600, 602, 604, 700, 702, 704, 800, 804, 808, 900, 902, 904, and 906) that are positioned in sequence between an outer surface of a first lamination layer and an inner surface of a second lamination layer (see pottant layers 1008 and 1012) [Fig. 10, paras. 0061 and 0065].
Armstrong discloses the plurality submodules electrically connected in series or parallel such that the desired maximum current capability and open circuit voltage is achieved, wherein the open circuit output voltage will be the sum of the open circuit output voltage of each photovoltaic cell and/or photovoltaic submodule electrically connected in series [para. 0065].
Modified Carter and Armstrong are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the module of modified Carter to comprise a plurality of submodules, as in Armstrong, for the purpose of increasing the maximum current capability and open circuit voltage of the system.
Claim(s) 9-12, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2015/126918A1, Carter et al. (hereinafter “Carter”) in view of US 2004/0219801 A1, Oswald et al. (hereinafter “Oswald”) and US 2016/0087579 A1, Moslehi.
Regarding claim 9
Carter teaches a method of making a semitransparent photovoltaic module (corresponding to a semitransparent module for a window) [Figs. 2 and 8-15; paras. 0054, 0073, 0077 and 0095], the method comprising:
providing at least one submodule (10, the RTR manufacturing line can include the process of encapsulating the PV submodule to form a completed PV module) having an outer surface and an inner surface [Figs. 2 and 9, paras. 0043, 0089, 0095 and 0100], the submodule (10) comprising a first glass layer (corresponding to outer pane of glass, lite 1) [Figs. 2 and 9, paras. 0094-0095], a transparent conducting oxide layer (corresponding to TCO layer 14b) [Fig. 2, paras. 0021 and 0046], a semiconductor layer (corresponding to active semiconductor layers, CdS 16 and CdTe 18) [Fig. 2 and paras. 0053-0054], and a metal back contact layer [Fig. 2, paras. 0053 and 0080],
wherein the submodule further comprises a plurality of interconnection scribes (corresponding to scribes P2 through layers 14a, 16 and 18, and scribes P3, through the back contact) extending in a first direction across the submodule (10) [Fig. 2 and para. 0064].
Carter teaches a plurality of light transmission lines (P1 scribes) [Fig. 2 and para. 0064].
Carter does not teach the plurality of light transmission scribes being disposed perpendicularly to the plurality of interconnection scribes in a second direction that is substantially perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the plurality of light transmission scribes are created using a pulsed laser ablation process with a wavelength of about 1064 nm, and wherein the plurality of light transmission scribes are disposed through at least part of the semiconductor layer.
Oswald teaches a photovoltaic module (110) comprising a plurality of interconnection scribes (corresponding to grooves 124, 126 and 128) extending in a first direction and a plurality of light transmission scribes (140) disposed perpendicularly to the plurality of interconnection scribes (corresponding to grooves 124, 126 and 128) in a second direction that is substantially perpendicular to the first direction [Fig. 5, paras. 0041 and 0055], wherein the plurality of light transmission scribes (140) are created using a pulsed laser ablation process [para. 0054], and wherein the plurality of light transmission scribes (140) are disposed through at least part of the semiconductor layer (120) [Fig. 5, paras. 0039 and 0055].
By providing a plurality of transmission scribes in a direction that is perpendicular to the interconnection scribes according to the method of Oswald, the transparency of the photovoltaic cell is improved [paras. 0041 and 0055].
Oswald further teaches optimizing the number, shape and size of such transmission scribes in order to provide for the desired level of transparency [para. 0055].
Carter and Oswald are analogous inventions in the field of methods of making photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Carter to comprise the step of forming light transmission scribes according to Oswald, for the purpose of improving the transparency of the module.
Further, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the particular number, shape and size of the light transmission scribes through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired level of transparency [Oswald, para. 0055]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Modified Carter teaches the pulsed laser having a wavelength of about 530 nm (0.53 mm; 1 mm = 1000 nm). Modified Carter does not teach the pulse laser having a wavelength of about 1064 nm.
Moslehi teaches a photovoltaic module comprising a plurality of transmission lines formed by a pulsed laser process, wherein such scribing process may include pulsed nanoseconds laser ablation using a suitable laser wavelength such as UV, green, IR, etc.). Moslehi further teaches selecting the wavelength of the laser such that the laser ablates through the desired material with good selectivity, and further to achieve the desired width of the scribes [paras. 0216 and 0248]. Particularly, the width of the scribes is selected such that the desired isolation/transmission is achieved while minimizing the solar cell area loss [paras. 0216].
Accordingly, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize wavelength of the pulsed laser through routine experimentation in order to ablate through the desired materials with the desired selectivity and further to provide the desired transparency while minimizing the solar cell area loss [Moslehi, paras. 0216 and 0248]. 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 10
Modified Carter teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the method further comprises applying a first lamination layer (corresponding to encapsulating material/adhesive) disposed on the inner surface of the at least one submodule (10) [Carter, annotated Fig. 9 above, paras. 0087, 0094-0095 and claims 13-15] and a glass backing layer (corresponding to inner pane of glass, lite 2) disposed on an inner surface of the first lamination layer (encapsulating material/adhesive) disposed on an inner surface of the first lamination layer [Carter, annotated Fig. 9 above, paras. 0094-0095 and claims 13-15].
Regarding claim 11
Modified Carter teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the semiconductor layer is made of CdTe, CdSeTe, CdSe, CdZnTe, CdMgTe, CdHgTe, Zn Te, GaAs, AlGaAs, GaAsP, a-Si, CIGS, perskovite, or combinations thereof (semiconductor layers may be made of CdS/CdTe via magnetron sputtering; paragraph) [Carter, para. 0048].
Regarding claim 12
Modified Carter teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the semiconductor layer comprises CdTe (the semiconductor may comprise layers of CdTe applied via sputtering) [Carter, para. 0054].
Regarding claim 15
Modified Carter teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the light transmission scribes are about 0.05 mm to about 1 mm wide (about 0.01 to 0.5 mm) [Oswald, para. 0041 and claim 5]
With regards to the light transmission lines having a pitch of about 1 mm to about 5 mm, modified Carter teaches optimizing the number, shape and size of such transmission scribes in order to provide for the desired level of transparency [Oswald, paras. 0041 and 0055].
Accordingly, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the pitch of the light transmission scribes through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired level of transparency [Oswald, para. 0055]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Examiner further notes that modified Carter discloses a pitch of about 1 mm to about 5 mm (the fine-pitch pattern of the scribes is about 200 microns to 2 mm) [Moslehi, para. 0232]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 16
Modified Carter teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the plurality of light transmission scribes are disposed about 0.25 mm to about 5.0 mm apart (the spacing of the scribe lines is about 0.5 to about 5 mm) [[Oswald, para. 0041 and claim 5].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Oswald and Moslehi as applied to claims 9-12, 15 and 16 above, and further in view of US 2014/0030841 A1, Armstrong et al.
Regarding claim 13
Modified Carter teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the method further comprises providing a second lamination layer (encapsulating material/adhesive) and a glass outer layer (corresponding to flexible glass layer) [Carter, Fig. 9, paras. 0094-0095 and Claims 13-15), wherein the submodule is positioned between an outer surface of the first lamination layer and an inner surface of the second lamination layer (See encapsulating/adhesive layers in annotated Fig. 9 of Carter above).
Modified Carter does not teach the module comprising a plurality of submodules positioned in sequence between the outer surface of the first lamination layer and the inner surface of the second lamination layer.
Armstrong discloses a module (1010) comprising a plurality of submodules (the photovoltaic submodule assembly 1010 has, for example, submodules like submodule 200 or submodules like those of one of photovoltaic modules 300, 400, 500, 502, 600, 602, 604, 700, 702, 704, 800, 804, 808, 900, 902, 904, and 906) that are positioned in sequence between an outer surface of a first lamination layer and an inner surface of a second lamination layer (see pottant layers 1008 and 1012) [Fig. 10, paras. 0061 and 0065].
Armstrong discloses the plurality submodules electrically connected in series or parallel such that the desired maximum current capability and open circuit voltage is achieved, wherein the open circuit output voltage will be the sum of the open circuit output voltage of each photovoltaic cell and/or photovoltaic submodule electrically connected in series [para. 0065].
Modified Carter and Armstrong are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of modified Carter to comprise providing a plurality of submodules, as in Armstrong, for the purpose of increasing the maximum current capability and open circuit voltage of the system.
Regarding claim 14
Modified Carter teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the module has a visible light transmission of about 7% to about 70% (the PV module has a light transmission of about 8% or greater) [Carter, para. 0092].
Modified Carter is silent to the module being capable of generating about 60 W to about 120 W of power.
However, because the semitransparent photovoltaic module of modified Carter is identical to the one claimed, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. 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).
If the above is found insufficient, Armstrong discloses that a photovoltaic module is realistically capable of generating a minimum of 70 W or power (P = V x I, where V is a minimum of 7V and I is 10A), according to application [paras. 0029-0030].
Modified Carter and Armstrong are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention for the photovoltaic module of modified Carter to be capable of generating from about 60 W to about 120 W of power as Armstrong shows that such is a realistic marketable power range for photovoltaic modules.
The range disclosed in modified Carter overlaps with the claimed range of about 60 W to about 120 W of power. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/305166 A1, Compaan et al. discloses a method of preventing power loss in a photovoltaic module due to an isolated electrical shunt (the second electrode layer 54 may also be preceded by a shunt passivation step that electrically blocks pinholes and weak layers) [para. 0041], the method comprising:
providing a photovoltaic module comprising a plurality of closely-spaced lines of laser ablation (removing lines of the substrate via laser ablation) [para. 0043], wherein the lines of laser ablation are disposed on the module in a pattern that prevents or inhibits electrical current from flowing from one line to adjacent lines (removing such [lined patterns] may enable the PV cell to inhibit electrical activity) [para. 0043].
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