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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mao et al. (CN 218585994 U – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 21, Mao discloses a solar cell (Fig. 4) comprising: a
semiconductor substrate ([n0037]) including a first surface and a second surface that are opposite to each other (100 in Fig. 4), the semiconductor substrate including a plurality of passivation regions and a plurality of passivated contact regions (shown in annotated Fig. 4 below), the plurality of passivation regions and the plurality of passivated contact regions being alternately arranged along a first direction, the first direction being perpendicular to a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate (shown in annotated Fig. 4 below); a plurality of passivating contact structures disposed on the second surface and correspondingly distributed on the plurality of passivated contact regions (110 and 120 in annotated Fig. 4 below), each passivating contact structure including an electrically conductive passivation layer (110 or 120 in annotated Fig. 4 below satisfy the limitation “an electrically conductive passivation layer”); a dielectric layer at least covering the second surface in the passivation regions (170 in annotated Fig. 4 below; [n0060]; it is noted that the limitation “covering” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components); and a plurality of first electrodes disposed on the passivating contact structures and located at a side of the passivating contact structure away from the semiconductor substrate, each passivating contact structure being provided with at least one first electrode (160 in annotated Fig. 4 below); wherein the second surface of the semiconductor substrate includes first sub-surfaces, second sub-surfaces, and connecting surfaces; the first sub-surfaces are located in the passivation regions (shown in annotated Fig. 4 below), the second sub-surfaces are located in the passivated contact regions (shown in annotated Fig. 4 below), and the first sub-surfaces and the second sub-surfaces are connected by connecting surfaces adjacent thereto (shown in annotated Fig. 4 below); wherein each second sub-surface includes a sub-contact surface (top surface of 150 (it is noted that 150 is part of the substrate) in annotated Fig. 4 below) and two non-contact surfaces (second sub-surface of 100 under portion of 170 which is adjacent to 110 and 120 in annotated Fig. 4 below), and the two non-contact surfaces are located at opposite sides of the sub-contact surface in the first direction (second sub-surface of 100 under portion of 170 which is adjacent to 110 and 120 in annotated Fig. 4 below in relation to top surface of 150); the passivating contact structure is in contact with the sub-contact surface (110 and 120 in relation to top surface of 150 in annotated Fig. 4 below), and is not in contact with the two non-contact surfaces (110 and 120 are not in contact with the second sub-surface of 100 under portion of 170 shown in annotated Fig. 4 below).
[AltContent: textbox (second sub-surface)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (passivation regions)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (connecting surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (first sub-surface)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (passivation region)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (passivated contact regions)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
338
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-9, 11-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2024/0105873) in view of Mao et al. (CN 218585994 U – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Jin discloses a solar cell (Fig. 7) comprising: a semiconductor substrate ([0049]) including a first surface and a second surface that are opposite to each other (100 in Fig. 7), the semiconductor substrate including a plurality of passivation regions (regions of 100 corresponding to 113 in Fig. 7) and a plurality of passivated contact regions (regions of 100 corresponding to 111 in Fig. 7), the plurality of passivation regions and the plurality of passivated contact regions being alternately arranged along a first direction (regions of 100 corresponding to 111 and 113 in Fig. 7), the first direction being perpendicular to a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate (direction in relation to a thickness direction of 100 in Fig. 7); a plurality of passivating contact structures disposed on the second surface and correspondingly distributed on the plurality of passivated contact regions (102 in Fig. 7), each passivating contact structure including an electrically conductive passivation layer ([0048]; 102 in Fig. 7); a dielectric layer at least covering the second surface located in the passivation regions ([0089]; 107 in Fig. 7); and a plurality of first electrodes disposed on the passivating contact structures and located at a side of the passivating contact structures away from the semiconductor substrate ([0075]; 103 in Fig. 7), each passivating contact structure being provided with at least one first electrode ([0075]; 103 in relation to 102 in Fig. 7).
Jin does not explicitly disclose wherein along a direction from the second surface to the first surface, a dimension of the passivating contact structures in the first direction gradually decreases.
Mao discloses a solar cell (Fig. 4) and further discloses that along a direction from the second surface to the first surface, a dimension of the passivating contact structures in the first direction gradually decreases (surface of 170 shown in annotated Fig. 4 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the passivating contact structure of Jin such that along a direction from the second surface to the first surface, a dimension of the passivating contact structures in the first direction gradually decreases, as disclosed by Mao, because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
338
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Jin further discloses wherein a first distance is defined as a distance between the second surface and the first surface in the passivation regions, and a second distance is defined as a distance between the second surface and the first surface in the passivated contact regions; and the second distance is greater than the first distance (distance between second surface and first surface of 100 under 101 is greater than the distance between second surface and first surface of 100 under the interface of 107 and 113 in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Jin does not explicitly disclose a difference between the second distance and the first distance is greater than 1 micron, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first distance such that the distance between the second distance and the first distance is greater than 1 micron because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Jin further discloses a plurality of first diffusion layers located within the semiconductor substrate ([0054], [0055]; 111 in Fig. 7), wherein the first diffusion layers are correspondingly distributed in the passivated contact regions (111 in Fig. 7), and each first diffusion layer is in contact with the second surface (111 in relation to second surface of 100 in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Jin does not explicitly disclose a difference between the second distance and the first distance is greater than or equal to a size of each first diffusion layer in the thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first distance such that a difference between the second distance and the first distance is greater than or equal to a size of each first diffusion layer in the thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Jin further discloses the second surface is a back surface ([0051],[0095]; it is noted that the limitation “back surface” is dependent on the spatial orientation of the device).
Regarding claim 7, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Jin does not explicitly disclose a roughness of the second surface in the
passivation regions is less than a roughness of the second surface in the passivated contact regions.
Mao discloses a solar cell (Fig. 4) and further discloses a roughness of a second surface of a semiconductor substrate in passivation regions is less than a roughness of the second surface in passivated contact regions ([n0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the second surface of modified Jin such that a roughness of the second surface in passivation regions is less than a roughness of the second surface in passivated contact regions, as disclosed by Mao, because as taught by Mao, contact resistance is reduced ([n0054] – [n0056]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Jin does not explicitly disclose a plurality of recesses are defined in the
second surface, the plurality of recesses including a first recess and a second recess, the first recess is a deepest recess in the passivation regions, and the second recess is a deepest recess in the passivated contact regions; the first recess is shallower than the second recess.
Mao discloses a solar cell (Fig. 4) and a plurality of recesses are defined in the second surface ([n0054], [n0055]; 11 and 12 in Fig. 4), the plurality of recesses including a first recess (12 in Fig. 4) and a second recess (11 in Fig. 4), the first recess is a deepest recess in the passivation regions (12 in Fig. 4), and the second recess is a deepest recess in the passivated contact regions (11 in Fig. 4); the first recess is shallower than the second recess (12 in relation to 11 in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a plurality of recesses, as disclosed by Mao, in the second surface of modified Jin, because as taught by Mao, contact resistance is reduced ([n0054] – [n0056]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Jin further discloses an inner size of the first recess is greater than an inner size of the second recess (Mao – inner size of 12 in relation to inner size of 11 in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Jin does disclose each passivating contact structure further includes a tunnel layer disposed between the electrically conductive passivation layer and the semiconductor substrate (Jin – 101 in Fig. 7; [0048]); modified Jin does not explicitly disclose wherein along the direction from the second surface to the first surface, a dimension of the electrically conductive passivation layer in the first direction gradually decreases.
Mao discloses a solar cell (Fig. 4) and further discloses that along a direction from a second surface to a first surface, a dimension of an electrically conductive passivation layer (120 in Fig. 4; [n0035]) in the first direction gradually decreases (120 shown in annotated Fig. 4 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the electrically conductive passivation layer of modified Jin such that along the direction from the second surface to the first surface, a dimension of the electrically conductive passivation layer in the first direction gradually decreases, as disclosed by Mao, because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Jin does disclose each passivating contact structure is provided with one first electrode (Jin – 103 in Fig. 7); the electrically conductive passivation layer includes a first face adjacent to the tunnel layer and a second face away from the tunnel layer (Jin – lower and upper faces of 102 in Fig. 7); modified Jin does not explicitly disclose a dimension of the first face along the first direction, a dimension of the second face along the first direction, and a dimension of the first electrode along the first direction satisfy the relationship W2>W1>W3 wherein W1 is the dimension of the first face in the first direction, W2 is the dimension of the second face in the first direction, and W3 is the dimension of the first electrode in the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each passivating contact structure of modified Jin such that a dimension of the first face along the first direction, a dimension of the second face along the first direction, and a dimension of the first electrode along the first direction satisfy the relationship W2>W1>W3, because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 13, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Jin further discloses the dielectric layer further covers surfaces of the passivated contact structures away from the semiconductor substrate (107 in relation to top surfaces of 102 in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Jin further discloses the second surface of the semiconductor substrate includes first sub-surfaces, second sub-surfaces, and connecting surfaces (shown in annotated Fig. 7 below); the first sub-surfaces are located in the passivation regions, the second sub-surfaces are located in the passivated contact regions (shown in annotated Fig. 7 below), and the first sub-surfaces and the second sub-surfaces are connected by the connecting surfaces adjacent thereto (shown in annotated Fig. 7 below); and the dielectric layer further covers the connecting surfaces (107 in annotated Fig. 7 below).
Regarding claim 15, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Jin further discloses each second subsurface includes a sub-contact surface and two non-contact surfaces (shown in annotated Fig. 7 below), and the two non-contact surfaces are located at opposite sides of the sub-contact surface in the first direction (shown in annotated Fig. 7 below); the passivation contact structure is in contact with the sub-contact surface (shown in annotated Fig. 7 below); and the dielectric layer further covers the two non-contact surfaces (107 in annotated Fig. 7 below).
[AltContent: textbox (sub-contact surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (non-contact surface)][AltContent: textbox (connecting surface)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first sub-surfaces)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (non-contact surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second sub-surface)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
218
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Jin further discloses a material of the dielectric layer includes silicon nitride ([0089]; 107 in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 17, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Jin further discloses the electrically conductive passivation layer includes a doped polysilicon layer ([0071]) doped with an n-type doping element or a p-type doping element ([0081]; the disclosed doping element type is necessarily either n-type or p-type).
Regarding claim 20, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Jin further discloses a photovoltaic module comprising the solar cell ([0026]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2024/0105873) in view of Mao et al. (CN 218585994 U – see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao et al. (CN 113594304 A – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Jin does not explicitly disclose a roughness of the second surface in the
passivation regions is less than a roughness of the second surface in the passivated contact regions.
Gao discloses a solar cell (Fig. 6) and further discloses a roughness of a second surface of a semiconductor substrate in passivation regions is less than a roughness of the second surface in passivated contact regions ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the second surface in the passivation regions of modified Jin such that a roughness of the second surface in the passivation regions is less than a roughness of the second surface in the passivated contact regions, as disclosed by Gao, because as taught by Gao, the contact area is increased and the contact resistance is reduced ([0023]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2024/0105873) in view of Mao et al. (CN 218585994 U – see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Stodolny et al. (US 2020/0287066).
Regarding claim 18, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Jin does not explicitly disclose the doped polysilicon layer is further doped with one or more of carbon, nitrogen, or oxygen.
Stodolny discloses a solar cell (Fig. 1A) and further discloses a doped polysilicon layer ([0013]) containing carbon ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the doped polysilicon layer of modified Jin with carbon, as disclosed by Stodolny, because as evidenced by Stodolny, the use of a doped polysilicon layer containing carbon as a passivating layer in a solar cell amounts to the use of a known material/component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when including carbon in the doped polysilicon layer of modified Jin based on the teaching of Stodolny.
It is noted that the limitation “doped” is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2024/0105873) in view of Mao et al. (CN 218585994 U – see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (CN 217425526U – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 19, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Jin does not explicitly disclose the electrically conductive passivation
layer further includes a silicon carbide layer disposed at a side of the doped polysilicon layer away from the semiconductor substrate.
Lin discloses a solar cell ([n0001]) and further discloses an electrically conductive passivation layer including a silicon carbide layer and a polysilicon layer ([n0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the electrically conductive passivation layer of modified Jin with a silicon carbide layer and a polysilicon layer, as disclosed by Lin, because as evidenced by Lin, the use of a doped layer comprised of a silicon carbide layer and a polysilicon layer in a TOPCon passivated contact structure amounts to the use of known materials in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the electrically conductive passivation layer of modified Jin with a silicon carbide layer and a polysilicon layer based on the teaching of Lin.
It is noted that with regard to the limitation requiring the silicon carbide layer to be disposed at a side of the doped polysilicon layer away from the semiconductor substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to place the silicon carbide layer of modified Jin on a side of the doped polysilicon layer away from the semiconductor substrate because such a modification amounts to a matter of design choice, with the claimed configuration being one of two limited possibilities for the arrangement of the polysilicon layer and the silicon carbide layer with respect to the semiconductor substrate. Absent a showing of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the electrically conductive passivation layer with either of the two possible configurations based on the teaching of Lin.
Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Mao discloses that the first surface includes a first pyramid structure 11 and a second pyramid structure 12 and that the first tunneling layer 110 and the first doped conductive layer 120 are sequentially disposed on the first surface, and in contrast, amended claim 1 requires the passivating contact structures being disposed on the second surface. Applicant asserts the upper surface of the substrate 100 in Fig. 4 of Mao corresponds to the second surface of the claimed invention, and that the dimension of the pyramid structure increases rather than decreases in the direction required by the claim.
In response, Applicant’s argument on page 10, which states the dimension of the
pyramid structure increases rather than decreases, is not commensurate in scope with the claim limitation “wherein along a direction from the second surface to the first surface, a dimension of the passivating contact structures in the first direction gradually decreases.” The claim limitation requires a dimension in the first direction gradually decreases along a direction from the second surface to the first surface. In annotated Fig. 4 of Mao on page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks, 110, 120, and 170 all have dimensions in the first direction which gradually decrease along a direction from the second surface to the first surface. It is noted that the dimension recited in the limitation is not specific to a particular dimension in the first direction, and any dimension in the first direction which gradually decreases from the second surface to the first surface satisfies the limitation as recited.
It is noted that Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Jin reference for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726