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 reflectivity…for an incident light.” It is unclear the wavelength range in which the surface reflectivity is to be evaluated in the claims, where previously cited prior art Yang discloses the reflectivity of the anti-reflection layer changes depending on the wavelength of the incident light (Figure 5), which is the standard by one of ordinary skill in the art to specify what wavelength range is being disclosed for the reflectivity. Yang discloses the anti-reflection layers reduce a reflectance of light incident on the substrate, as shown in Figure 5 ([0056]), where the reflectivity ranges between below 5% and 30% with one anti-reflection layer on a textured surface (Figure 5a) and between 5% and just over 50% with one anti-reflection layer on a non textured surface (Figure 5b), where the difference between the two regions differ depending on wavelength. Therefore, without further guidance and information in the claim, the limitation has been interpreted to be directed generally to any surface reflectivity of the anti-reflection layers. Similar deficiency can be found in numerous dependent claims referencing the surface reflectivity without specifying the wavelength range in which the surface reflectivity is to be evaluated.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “on the first surface of the solar cell on the first surface” in the last line. It is unclear what the limitation intends to describe. Clarification is requested.
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) 1-3, 5-12, 15-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. (US 2024/0088312) in view of Hu et al. (US 2024/0355941).
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 greater roughness and more large textures ([0058] and [0060]) and the total number of textures per unit area in the non-metal region is greater than the total number of textures per unit area in the metal pattern region ([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).
Mao does not expressly disclose a thickness of the first anti-reflection layer is greater than a thickness of the second ant-reflection layer.
Hu discloses a solar cell comprising a first anti-reflection layer (105) and a second anti-reflection layer (108) (see Figure 4), where the two anti-reflection layers do not have particular thicknesses between a range from 50 nm to 150 nm, where the two anti-reflection layers can have the same thickness but is not required ([0060]).
While Mao does not expressly disclose a thickness of the first anti-reflection layer is greater than a thickness of the second ant-reflection layer, there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for the relationship between the thicknesses of the first and second anti-reflection layers in the device of Mao, as shown by Hu, such that the relationship between the thicknesses of the first and second anti-reflection layers is either they are the same, the first anti-reflection layer is thicker, or the second anti-reflection layer is thicker. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions disclosed above, where a thickness of the first anti-reflection layer is greater than a thickness of the second ant-reflection layer in the device of Mao, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, modified 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 ([0057] and [0066]).
While modified 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.
Modified 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 modified 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, modified 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, modified 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 modified 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 6, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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 (both regions have texture structure).
Regarding claim 9, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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 greater roughness and more large textures ([0058] and [0060]) and the total number of textures per unit area in the non-metal region is greater than the total number of textures per unit area in the metal pattern region ([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).
Mao does not expressly disclose a thickness of the first anti-reflection layer is greater than a thickness of the second ant-reflection layer.
Hu discloses a solar cell comprising a first anti-reflection layer (105) and a second anti-reflection layer (108) (see Figure 4), where the two anti-reflection layers do not have particular thicknesses between a range from 50 nm to 150 nm, where the two anti-reflection layers can have the same thickness but is not required ([0060]).
While Mao does not expressly disclose a thickness of the first anti-reflection layer is greater than a thickness of the second ant-reflection layer, there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for the relationship between the thicknesses of the first and second anti-reflection layers in the device of Mao, as shown by Hu, such that the relationship between the thicknesses of the first and second anti-reflection layers is either they are the same, the first anti-reflection layer is thicker, or the second anti-reflection layer is thicker. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions disclosed above, where a thickness of the first anti-reflection layer is greater than a thickness of the second ant-reflection layer in the device of Mao, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. (US 2024/0088312) in view of Hu et al. (US 2024/0355941) as evidenced by Ishii (US 2013/0112234).
Regarding claim 20, modified 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 of a partial region of the inter-string conductive member arranged on the first surface of the solar cell on the first surface 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that regarding the term “surface reflectivity” rejected under 112 (b) for being unclear what conditions (e.g., wavelength range) the reflectivity is measured, Applicant has amended claims 1 and 19 to recite “measured under same incident light conditions”, where “same conditions” provides clear notice of the claim scope to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
However, it is unclear how the amendment addresses the issue, where Applicant even recites the rejection is related to the limitation for being unclear what conditions (e.g., wavelength range) the reflectivity is measured, such that stating the reflectivity is “measured under same incident light conditions” does not resolve this issue.
Applicant still has not explained what conditions the reflectivity is to be measured, such that the previous Office Action already stated previously cited prior art Yang discloses the reflectivity of the anti-reflection layer changes depending on the wavelength of the incident light (Figure 5), which is the standard by one of ordinary skill in the art to specify what wavelength range is being disclosed for the reflectivity. Yang discloses the anti-reflection layers reduce a reflectance of light incident on the substrate, as shown in Figure 5 ([0056]), where the reflectivity ranges between below 5% and 30% with one anti-reflection layer on a textured surface (Figure 5a) and between 5% and just over 50% with one anti-reflection layer on a non textured surface (Figure 5b), where the difference between the two regions differ depending on wavelength. Nowhere does the instant specification provide any guidance as to how one of ordinary skill in the art is to determine which wavelengths of light is to be used to evaluate the difference in surface reflectivity between the two anti-reflection layers, such that the difference in surface reflectivity between the two anti-reflection layers may be drastically different than the claimed range depending on the wavelength range.
Applicant further argues that the claims rely on the antecedent basis of “an incident light” and “the incident light”, which ties the reflectivity measurement to a specific light source. However, it is unclear the relevance of this statement with respect to the indefiniteness of the claimed subject matter. Applicant has not explained how this argument addresses the lack of any guidance provided in the claims or specification as to how one of ordinary skill in the art is to evaluate the difference in surface reflectivity between the two anti-reflection layers.
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.
Applicant’s further argument that the technical purpose of Mao is contrary to that of the present application was not found to be persuasive because it is not directed to the invention as claimed.
Applicant also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to modify Mao such that a thickness of the first anti-reflection layer is greater than a thickness of the second anti-reflection layer because Mao does not teach or suggest that such a thickness relationship would provide any technical effect. However, it is noted the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.") See MPEP 2144 IV.
Applicant’s further arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13, 15-17, and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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