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 .
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 1-13, 15-17, and 19-20 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.
Claims 1 and 19 recite the limitation “a surface morphology of the first region is different from a surface morphology of the second region” but later recites the limitation “the surfaces of the first region and the second region each has a textured structure with a same morphology”. It is unclear if Applicant intends to recites the surface morphology of the first region and second region to be the same or different. It is noted that the surface morphology of the first and second regions have been interpreted to be different for the purpose of examination due to the other dependent claims as they were not canceled and are directed to an embodiment in which the surface morphologies of the two regions are different.
Additionally, it is unclear what exactly is the definition of “morphology” being used by Applicant in order to understand how the surface morphology can be the same yet the dimensions of the textured structure on the second region are greater than dimensions of the textured structure on the first region as recited in the newly added clause in claims 1 and 19. It is not clear if Applicant’s definition of “morphology” simply means the shape of the texture being a different shape, such as pyramidal versus circular, as having different dimensions but being the same shape would read upon a “different morphology”, yet the newly added clause states the textured structures to be the same morphology having different dimensions, which suggests Applicant’s definition of “morphology” is having the same shape. If that is the case, it is unclear how the surface morphologies can be different as previously stated in claims 1 and 19. Looking at the specification, it appears the use of “different morphology” is applied to textures having the same shape but different dimensions, such that the textures would not be described as having the “same morphology”.
Clarification is requested.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites “a surface of one of the first region and the second region is a polished surface and a surface of the other one of the first region and the second region is a light trapping surface”. However, claim 1 from which claim 2 depends upon recites “the surfaces of the first region and the second region each has a textured structure with a same morphology, and dimensions of the textured structure on the second region are greater than dimensions of the textured structure on the first region,” such that one of the first region and the second region cannot be a polished surface when they are both recited to have a textured structure.
Further, claim 2 recites in an alternative that “surfaces of the first region and the second region are polished surfaces having tower base-shaped texture structures,” such that the first and second regions cannot be polished surfaces when claim 1 from which claim 2 depends upon recites “a surface morphology of the first region is different from a surface morphology of the second region.”
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-12, 15-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mao et al. (US 2024/0088312).
Regarding claim 1, Mao discloses a solar cell (see Figure 1), comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (100) formed by a single host material and having a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (bottom surface) opposite to the first surface, wherein the first surface has a first region (metal pattern region where the electrode is formed) and a second region (non-metal region) that do not overlap with each other (see Figure 1),
the first region and the second region are alternately arranged (see Figure 1), and a surface morphology of the first region is different from a surface morphology of the second region (it is disclosed the metal pattern region has a larger roughness ([0044]) and greater reflection on incident light ([0058]) while the non-metal region has a greater number of pyramid structures per unit area due to less number of the larger pyramid structures and more of the smaller pyramid structures, which reduces the reflectivity of incident light ([0060] and [0065]));
a first doped semiconductor portion arranged on the first region (first doped conductive layer 120);
a first anti-reflection layer (150 in the first region), wherein the first anti-reflection layer is formed on a surface of the first doped semiconductor portion facing away from the semiconductor substrate (see Figure 1); and
a second anti-reflection layer arranged on the second region (150 in the second region), wherein a difference between a surface reflectivity of a side of the first anti-reflection layer facing away from the semiconductor substrate for an incident light and a surface reflectivity of a side of the second anti-reflection layer facing away from the semiconductor substrate for the incident light, measured under same incident light conditions, is greater than or equal to 0.5% and less than or equal to 40% (it is disclosed the roughness of the front surface in the metal pattern region is greater than the roughness of the rear surface ([0043]), which means the reflectivity of the front surface is less than the rear surface ([0043]), where the rear surface has a reflectivity of 14% to 15% ([0018]). Additionally, it is disclosed the reflectivity of the non-metal region is less than the reflectivity of the metal pattern region ([0058] and [0065]), where the reflectivity of the non-metal region is between 0.8% to 2% ([0018]), such that the difference between the reflectivity of the two regions must be within the claimed range),
wherein the surfaces of the first region and the second region each has a textured structure with a same morphology (pyramid structures; see Figure 1), and dimensions of the textured structure on the second region are greater than dimensions of the textured structure on the first region (it is disclosed the pyramid structures 14 in the non-metal pattern region is larger than the pyramid structures 12 in the metal pattern region; see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a surface reflectivity of the first region on the first surface is greater than a surface reflectivity of the second region on the first surface (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 7, Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses along a height direction of the semiconductor substrate, the first region on the first surface is higher than the second region (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses along an arrangement direction of the first region and the second region, the second region comprises a first sub-region (the area immediately between the first region and the second region) and a second sub-region (the area adjacent the first sub-region farther away from the first region) (see Figure 1),
wherein the first sub-region is located between the second sub-region and the first region (as set forth above),
wherein the first sub-region is recessed toward the semiconductor substrate relative to the first region and the second sub-region respectively (see Figure 1), and
wherein a texture structure is formed on the first sub-region (pyramid structure 15).
Regarding claim 9, Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a ratio of a width of the first sub-region to a width of the second sub-region is less than or equal to 0.3 (the width of the first sub-region can be less than or equals to 0.3 of the second sub-region as there is nothing setting a boundary of the widths in claim 8 or 9), wherein the width is measured along the arrangement direction of the first region and the second region (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 10, Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses surfaces of the first region and the second region comprise pyramid-shaped texture structures (see Figure 5), and a vertex angle of a pyramid-shaped texture structured formed on the first region is greater than a vertex angle of a pyramid-shaped texture structure formed on the second region (it is disclosed the angle theta1 is in a range of 30o to 70o ([0056]), whereas the angle theta3 is in a range of 35o to 65o ([0065]), such that the vertex angle of the first region is greater).
Regarding claim 11, Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a boundary between the first region and the second region is wave-shaped (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the solar cell further comprises a second doped semiconductor portion (140), wherein a conductivity type of the second doped semiconductor portion is opposite to a conductivity type of the first doped semiconductor portion ([0042]), wherein:
the second doped semiconductor portion is arranged on or in the second surface (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the second doped semiconductor portion is arranged on or in the second surface (as set forth above), and wherein:
the first surface of the semiconductor substrate corresponds to a front surface of the solar cell (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 16, Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Note that because claim 15 from which claim 16 depends upon recited an alternative limitation, and Mao teaches the above limitation in claim 15, it is not required that Yang meet the further limitation of the non-selected alternative via subsequent dependent claims.
Regarding claim 17, Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the solar cell further comprises a first interface passivation layer (110; it is disclosed to form a passivation contact structure; [0050]) between the first doped semiconductor portion and the semiconductor substrate (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Mao discloses a photovoltaic module (see Figure 10), comprising a plurality of solar cells (101; see Figure 1) each of the plurality of solar cells comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (100) formed by a single host material and having a first surface (top surface) and a second surface (bottom surface) opposite to the first surface, wherein the first surface has a first region (metal pattern region where the electrode is formed) and a second region (non-metal region) that do not overlap with each other (see Figure 1),
the first region and the second region are alternately arranged (see Figure 1), and a surface morphology of the first region is different from a surface morphology of the second region (it is disclosed the metal pattern region has a larger roughness ([0044]) and greater reflection on incident light ([0058]) while the non-metal region has a greater number of pyramid structures per unit area due to less number of the larger pyramid structures and more of the smaller pyramid structures, which reduces the reflectivity of incident light ([0060] and [0065]));
a first doped semiconductor portion arranged on the first region (first doped conductive layer 120);
a first anti-reflection layer (150 in the first region), wherein the first anti-reflection layer is formed on a surface of the first doped semiconductor portion facing away from the semiconductor substrate (see Figure 1); and
a second anti-reflection layer arranged on the second region (150 in the second region), wherein a difference between a surface reflectivity of a side of the first anti-reflection layer facing away from the semiconductor substrate for an incident light and a surface reflectivity of a side of the second anti-reflection layer facing away from the semiconductor substrate for the incident light, measured under same incident light conditions, is greater than or equal to 0.5% and less than or equal to 40% (it is disclosed the roughness of the front surface in the metal pattern region is greater than the roughness of the rear surface ([0043]), which means the reflectivity of the front surface is less than the rear surface ([0043]), where the rear surface has a reflectivity of 14% to 15% ([0018]). Additionally, it is disclosed the reflectivity of the non-metal region is less than the reflectivity of the metal pattern region ([0058] and [0065]), where the reflectivity of the non-metal region is between 0.8% to 2% ([0018]), such that the difference between the reflectivity of the two regions must be within the claimed range),
wherein the surfaces of the first region and the second region each has a textured structure with a same morphology (pyramid structures; see Figure 1), and dimensions of the textured structure on the second region are greater than dimensions of the textured structure on the first region (it is disclosed the pyramid structures 14 in the non-metal pattern region is larger than the pyramid structures 12 in the metal pattern region; see Figure 5).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mao et al. (US 2024/0088312) as evidenced by Ishii (US 2013/0112234).
Regarding claim 20, Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses each of the plurality of solar cells further comprises a second doped semiconductor portion (140),
wherein a conductivity type of the second doped semiconductor portion is opposite to a conductivity type of the first doped semiconductor portion ([0042]),
wherein the second doped semiconductor portion is arranged on or in the second surface (see Figure 1), and
wherein the solar cells are arranged adjacent to each other (see Figure 10),
the photovoltaic module comprises an inter-string conductive member (104) connecting two adjacent solar cells in series ([0081]; see Figure 10), but the reference does not expressly disclose an orthographic projection, on the first surface, of a partial region of the inter-string conductive member arranged on the first surface of the solar cell is located in the second region.
Ishii discloses it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange a busbar (31) orthogonal to the finger electrodes (30), in which the interconnector (11) overlaps the busbar for connecting a plurality of solar cells in series (see Figure 1), such that the interconnector (or inter-string conductive member) would be located in the second region on the first surface as recited and the inter-string conductive member would have an orthographic projection on the first surface in the second region as recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. (US 2024/0088312).
Regarding claim 2, Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses surfaces of the first region and the second region are light trapping surfaces having textured structures (as set forth above), wherein sizes of textured structures on the surfaces of the first region and the second region are different (as set forth above).
While Mao does not expressly disclose the difference between the surface reflectivity of the side of the first anti-reflection layer facing away from the semiconductor substrate and the surface reflectivity of the side of the second anti-reflection layer facing away from the semiconductor substrate is greater than or equal to 0.5% and less than or equal to 3%, the reference discloses the reflectivity of the first anti-reflection layer is greater than the reflectivity of the second anti-reflection layer, where the reflectivity of the second anti-reflection layer is between 0.8 % and 2 %, and the reflectivity of the front surface is less than the reflectivity of the rear surface of 14% to 15%, as set forth above.
Mao also discloses the reflectivity of the second anti-reflection layer is low so as to increase the absorption of light ([0060]), where it is not desirable to increase the absorption of light in the first anti-reflection layer area due to the first doped conductive layer, and therefore a strong reflection of incident light is desired ([0058]).
Therefore, as the overall conversion efficiency of the solar cell and amount of light loss are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said difference in the reflectivity of the first and second anti-reflection layer, with said overall conversion efficiency increasing and the amount of light loss decreasing as the difference in the reflectivity of the first and second anti-reflection layer is varied, the precise difference in the reflectivity of the first and second anti-reflection layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed difference in the reflectivity of the first and second anti-reflection layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the difference in the reflectivity of the first and second anti-reflection layer in the apparatus of Mao to obtain the desired balance between the overall conversion efficiency and the amount of light loss in the solar cell (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 3, Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the surface reflectivity of the side of the second anti-reflection layer facing away from the semiconductor substrate is between 0.8 and 2% (as set forth above), but the reference does not expressly disclose the surface reflectivity of the side of the second anti-reflection layer facing away from the semiconductor substrate is greater than or equal to 1.2% and less than or equal to 3%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 5, Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the reflectivity of the non-metal region is between 0.8% and 2% and the rear surface has a larger reflectivity of 14 to 15%, such that the reflectivity of the first doped semiconductor portion would be between the two reflectivities, as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose the surface reflectivity of the side of the first doped semiconductor portion facing away from the semiconductor substrate is greater than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 10%.
As the overall conversion efficiency of the solar cell and amount of light loss are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the surface reflectivity of the side of the first doped semiconductor portion facing away from the semiconductor substrate, with said overall conversion efficiency increasing and the amount of light loss decreasing as the surface reflectivity of the side of the first doped semiconductor portion facing away from the semiconductor substrate is varied, the precise the surface reflectivity of the side of the first doped semiconductor portion facing away from the semiconductor substrate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed the surface reflectivity of the side of the first doped semiconductor portion facing away from the semiconductor substrate cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the surface reflectivity of the side of the first doped semiconductor portion facing away from the semiconductor substrate in the apparatus of Mao to obtain the desired balance between the overall conversion efficiency and the amount of light loss in the solar cell (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Mao does not teach or suggest the newly added limitation that “the surfaces of the first region and the second region each has a textured structure with a same morphology, and dimensions of the textured structure on the second region are greater than dimensions of the textured structure on the first region.” However, Mao teaches the feature, as set forth in the Office Action above.
Applicant argues that Mao has only disclosed the reflectivity of the substrate surface itself, not the reflectivity after stacking the doped conductive layer and the passivation layer thereon.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the anti-reflection layer being formed over the substrate would greatly reduce the reflectivity of the substrate further, due to the purpose of the anti-reflection layer, such that if Mao discloses the reflectivity of the substrate surface to be the above-disclosed ranges, it means the reflectivity of the anti-reflection layer further reduces any reflectivity. Additionally, Jaffrennou et al. (US 2015/0024541) discloses in paragraph [0014] that it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a rough surface has an average reflectivity lower than 15% for visible light and a smoothened surface can have an average reflectivity higher than 20% within the same wavelength range, where Mao also discloses the use of different roughness and Jaffrennou discloses a difference in reflectivity of 5% to 15% in the two regions. Further, Jaffrennou discloses the reflectivity of textured surfaces is not dependent upon the material but the roughness of the surface. Further, Yang discloses the anti-reflection layers reduce a reflectance of light incident on the substrate ([0056]), such that the reflectivity of a solar cell is known by one of ordinary skill in the art to be directed to the outermost surface of the solar cell. Therefore, Applicant’s argument was not found to be persuasive without further evidence the reflectivity of the anti-reflection layer would not be substantially similar to the reflectivity of the substrate as disclosed by Mao.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). It is noted that no combination was made with respect to Mao’s teaching of reflectivity, such that it is unclear where impermissible hindsight reconstruction was made in the Office Action.
Therefore, the arguments were not found to be persuasive.
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 CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights