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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “wherein the back surface of the silicon substrate comprises an overlapping region where the first doped crystalline silicon region and the second doped crystalline silicon region overlaps”.
Regarding Claim 16, Applicant recites, “wherein the back surface of the silicon substrate comprises an overlapping region where the first doped crystalline silicon region and the second doped crystalline silicon region overlaps”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-16 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “wherein the back surface of the silicon substrate comprises an overlapping region where the first doped crystalline silicon region and the second doped crystalline silicon region overlaps”. Applicant discloses in the instant specification that the back surface of the silicon substrate comprises an overlapping region that overlaps the first doped crystalline silicon region and a different distinct overlapping region that overlaps the second doped crystalline silicon region overlaps (See Fig. 1, 111 overlaps 30 and a different distinct 111 overlaps 40 – Instant Specification - Paragraph 0036). Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2173.03, “A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970)”. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 16, Applicant recites, “wherein the back surface of the silicon substrate comprises an overlapping region where the first doped crystalline silicon region and the second doped crystalline silicon region overlaps”. Applicant discloses in the instant specification that the back surface of the silicon substrate comprises an overlapping region that overlaps the first doped crystalline silicon region and a different distinct overlapping region that overlaps the second doped crystalline silicon region overlaps (See Fig. 1, 111 overlaps 30 and a different distinct 111 overlaps 40 – Instant Specification - Paragraph 0036). Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2173.03, “A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970)”. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 13, Applicant recites, “a second passivation anti-reflection layer”. Its unclear if there is a first passivation anti-reflection layer present in this claim. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1, 6-8, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2025/0160043 A1) in view of Yu et al. (US 2022/0344106 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Hu et al. teaches a solar cell (Fig. 1) comprising:
a silicon substrate having a front surface (Fig. 1, #101 top surface) and a back surface opposite to the front surface (Fig. 1, #101 bottom surface – Paragraph 0031);
a first doped crystalline silicon region and a second doped crystalline silicon region that are arranged on the back surface of the silicon substrate (Fig. 1, #1021 & #1031 – Paragraph 0032-0033);
wherein a first surface of the first doped crystalline silicon region away from the silicon substrate and a second surface of the second doped crystalline silicon region away from the silicon substrate are polished surfaces (Fig. 1, #1012 – Paragraph 0031);
Alternatively, in regards to the limitation “polished”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase "polished". It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113). Its noted that the specification of the instant application teaches that a polished area is essentially flat and non-textured.
an isolation groove, configured to isolate the first doped crystalline silicon region and the second doped crystalline silicon region (Fig. 1, #104 & Paragraph 0035);
wherein a first textured structure with pyramidal structure is arranged at a bottom of the isolation groove (Fig. 1, see bottom of isolation groove);
wherein the back surface of the silicon substrate comprises an overlapping region where the first doped crystalline silicon region and the second doped crystalline silicon region overlaps (See Annotated Hu et al. Fig. 1, below – Paragraph 0031).
Annotated Hu et al. Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
541
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hu et al. does not disclose a distribution density of apexes of the pyramidal structures ranges from 25/100 µm2 to 80/100 µm2.
Yu et al. discloses a distribution density of apexes of a pyramidal structure of 0.4 pyramids/ µm2 (Paragraph 0054) and that this is a pyramid feature size that is rough enough to scatter light to reduce reflection loss (Paragraph 0005). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt Yu et al. pyramidal structure size features such that a distribution density of apexes of a pyramidal structure of 0.4 pyramids/ µm2 for the advantage of ensuring that the surface is rough enough to scatter light to reduce reflection loss.
In regards to the limitation, “a distribution density of apexes of the pyramidal structures ranges from 25/100 µm2 to 80/100 µm”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Yu et al. because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
In view of Claim 6, Hu et al. and Yu et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hu et al. discloses a thickness of the first doped crystalline silicon region ranges from 15-500 nm (Paragraph 0008) and a thickness of the second doped crystalline silicon region ranges from 10-400 nm (Paragraph 0008).
In view of Claim 7, Hu et al. and Yu et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hu et al. discloses the isolation groove is a rectangle (Fig. 1, #104 – see bottom of trench, rectangular in shape).
In view of Claim 8, Hu et al. and Yu et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hu et al. discloses a tunneling oxide layer (Fig. 1, #1023/#1033) that is located between the silicon substrate and the first and second doped crystalline regions (Fig. 1, #1023/#1033 is between #101 and regions #1021/#1031) and has a thickness that ranges from 0.5-3 nm (Paragraph 0013 & 0015).
In view of Claim 9, Hu et al. and Yu et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hu et al. teaches that the front surface of the silicon substrate comprises a second textured structure with pyramidal structure (Fig. 1, #1011 – Paragraph 0031).
In view of Claim 15, Hu et al. and Yu et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hu et al. teaches that the solar cell is a back contact solar cell (Fig. 1 & Paragraph 0031).
In view of Claim 16, Hu et al. teaches a photovoltaic module comprising a solar cell (Fig. 1) comprising:
a silicon substrate having a front surface (Fig. 1, #101 top surface) and a back surface opposite to the front surface (Fig. 1, #101 bottom surface – Paragraph 0031);
a first doped crystalline silicon region and a second doped crystalline silicon region that are arranged on the back surface of the silicon substrate (Fig. 1, #1021 & #1031 – Paragraph 0032-0033);
wherein a first surface of the first doped crystalline silicon region away from the silicon substrate and a second surface of the second doped crystalline silicon region away from the silicon substrate are polished surfaces (Fig. 1, #1012 – Paragraph 0031);
Alternatively, in regards to the limitation “polished”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase "polished". It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113). Its noted that the specification of the instant application teaches that a polished area is essentially flat and non-textured.
an isolation groove, configured to isolate the first doped crystalline silicon region and the second doped crystalline silicon region (Fig. 1, #104 & Paragraph 0035);
wherein a first textured structure with pyramidal structure is arranged at a bottom of the isolation groove (Fig. 1, see bottom of isolation groove);
wherein the back surface of the silicon substrate comprises an overlapping region where the first doped crystalline silicon region and the second doped crystalline silicon region overlaps (See Annotated Hu et al. Fig. 1, below – Paragraph 0031).
Annotated Hu et al. Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
541
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hu et al. does not disclose a distribution density of apexes of the pyramidal structures ranges from 25/100 µm2 to 80/100 µm2.
Yu et al. discloses a distribution density of apexes of a pyramidal structure of 0.4 pyramids/ µm2 (Paragraph 0054) and that this is a pyramid feature size that is rough enough to scatter light to reduce reflection loss (Paragraph 0005). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt Yu et al. pyramidal structure size features such that a distribution density of apexes of a pyramidal structure of 0.4 pyramids/ µm2 for the advantage of ensuring that the surface is rough enough to scatter light to reduce reflection loss.
In regards to the limitation, “a distribution density of apexes of the pyramidal structures ranges from 25/100 µm2 to 80/100 µm”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Yu et al. because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 2-3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2025/0160043 A1) in view of Yu et al. (US 2022/0344106 A1) in view of Feng et al. (US 12,278,296 B1).
In view of Claim 2, Hu et al. and Yu et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hu et al. does not disclose that along a thickness direction of the solar cell a distance between the first surface of the first doped crystalline silicon region and the bottom of the isolation groove ranges from 3-6 microns.
Feng et al. teaches that the depth of an isolation groove ranges from 1-6 microns (Fig. 12 & Column 16, Lines 57-60 – see that bottom of the groove “reaches” till top of first and second doping levels 101/102) and that this depth size ensures portions are completely removed from the substrate and thus improves the reliability of the formed gap (Column 16, Lines 44-56). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt the depth of an isolation groove that ranges from 1-6 microns as disclosed by Feng et al. in modified Hu et al. such that along a thickness direction of the solar cell a distance between the first surface of the first doped crystalline silicon region and the bottom of the isolation groove ranges from 1-6 microns for the advantage of improving the reliability of the formed gap.
In regards to the limitation, “along a thickness direction of the solar cell a distance between the first surface of the first doped crystalline silicon region and the bottom of the isolation groove ranges from 3-6 microns”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Feng et al. because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
In view of Claim 3, Hu et al. and Yu et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hu et al. does not disclose that along a thickness direction of the solar cell a distance between the second surface of the second doped crystalline silicon region and the bottom of the isolation groove ranges from 1-5 microns.
Feng et al. teaches that the depth of an isolation groove ranges from 1-6 microns (Fig. 12 & Column 16, Lines 57-60 – see that bottom of the groove “reaches” till top of first and second doping levels 101/102) and that this depth size ensures portions are completely removed from the substrate and thus improves the reliability of the formed gap (Column 16, Lines 44-56). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt the depth of an isolation groove that ranges from 1-6 microns as disclosed by Feng et al. in modified Hu et al. such that along a thickness direction of the solar cell a distance between the second surface of the second doped crystalline silicon region and the bottom of the isolation groove ranges from 1-6 microns for the advantage of improving the reliability of the formed gap.
In regards to the limitation, “along a thickness direction of the solar cell a distance between the second surface of the second doped crystalline silicon region and the bottom of the isolation groove ranges from 1-5 microns”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Feng et al. because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
In view of Claim 5, Hu et al. and Yu et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hu et al. does not disclose that the isolation groove extends into the silicon substrate by a depth of 2-5-5.8 microns.
Feng et al. teaches that the depth of an isolation groove ranges from 1-6 microns (Fig. 12 & Column 16, Lines 57-60 – see that bottom of the groove “reaches” till top of first and second doping levels 101/102) and that this depth size ensures portions are completely removed from the substrate and thus improves the reliability of the formed gap (Column 16, Lines 44-56). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt the depth of an isolation groove that ranges from 1-6 microns as disclosed by Feng et al. in modified Hu et al. such that along a thickness direction of the solar cell a distance between the second surface of the second doped crystalline silicon region and the bottom of the isolation groove ranges from 1-6 microns for the advantage of improving the reliability of the formed gap.
In regards to the limitation, “the isolation groove extends into the silicon substrate by a depth of 2-5-5.8 microns”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Feng et al. because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2025/0160043 A1) in view of Yu et al. (US 2022/0344106 A1) in view of Li (CN-113964216-A). Li is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 4, Hu et al. and Yu et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hu et al. does not disclose that along a distribution direction of the plurality of isolation grooves a width of an isolation groove of the plurality of isolation grooves ranges from 20-150 microns.
Li discloses that the width of isolation grooves ranges from 10-100 microns that further realizes light energy utilization and improves power generation efficiency of a back contact solar cell (Page 1, Last Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate Li’s teaching isolation groove widths such that in Hu et al. solar cell along a distribution direction of the plurality of isolation grooves a width of an isolation groove of the plurality of isolation grooves ranges from 10-100 microns for the advantages of realizing further light energy utilization and improving the power generation efficiency.
In regards to the limitation that, “along a distribution direction of the plurality of isolation grooves a width of an isolation groove of the plurality of isolation grooves ranges from 20-150 microns”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Li because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 10-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2025/0160043 A1) in view of Yu et al. (US 2022/0344106 A1) in view of Kout (WO 2022/105949 A1).
In view of Claim 10, Hu et al. and Yu et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Modified Hu et al. does not disclose that an apex angle of the pyramidal structures of the first textured structure are greater than an apex angle of the pyramidal structure of the second textured structures.
Kout discloses that the apex angle of pyramidal structures of a first texture structure on a back surface of a solar cell are larger than an apex angle of pyramidal structures of a second textured structure on the front surface of a solar cell (Page 3, Lines 9-26). Kout teaches that this configuration maximizes the possible number of photon paths of solar radiation in a cloud cover of the sky, in particular photon paths of solar radiation which are scattered or reflected by the passage through clouds (Page 3, Lines 23-27). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the apex angle of the pyramidal structures of the first textured structure are greater than an apex angle of the pyramidal structure of the second textured structures in Hu et al. solar cell for the advantage of maximizing the possible number of photon paths of solar radiation in a cloud cover of the sky, in particular photon paths of solar radiation which are scattered or reflected by the passage through clouds.
In view of Claim 11, Hu et al., Yu et al., and Kout are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Kout discloses the apex angle of the pyramidal structures of a first texture structure on a back surface of a solar cell can be greater than 79 degrees, and the apex angle of pyramidal structure of a second textured structure on a front surface of a solar cell are less than 79 degrees (Page 3, Lines 9-26).
In view of Claim 13, Hu et al., Yu et al., and Kout are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Hu et al. teaches the solar cell comprises a second passivation anti-reflection layer on the back surface of the silicon substrate (Fig. 1, #105), wherein the second anti-reflection layer comprises a second portion located on the first textured structure (Fig. 1, See trench 104, thinner portion of 105 within trench) and a third thicker portion located on the polished surface of its respective overlapping region (Fig. 1, 105 on back surface of doped regions is thicker than trench portion).
In view of Claim 14, Hu et al., Yu et al., and Kout are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Hu et al. teaches a first passivation anti-reflection layer on the front surface of the silicon substrate with a first portion located on the second textured structure (Fig. 1, #106); and a second passivation anti-reflection layer on the back surface of the silicon substrate (Fig. 1, #105), wherein the second anti-reflection layer comprises a second portion located on the first textured structure (Fig. 1, See trench 104, thinner portion of 105 within trench) and a third thicker portion located on the polished surface of its respective overlapping region (Fig. 1, 105 on back surface of doped regions is thicker than trench portion).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2025/0160043 A1) in view of Yu et al. (US 2022/0344106 A1) in view of Kout (WO 2022/105949 A1) in view of Li (CN-116613226-A). Li is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 12, Hu et al., Yu et al., and Kout are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Hu et al. teaches a first passivation anti-reflection layer on the front surface of the silicon substrate, wherein the first passivation anti-reflection layer comprises a first portion located on the second textured structure (Fig. 1, #106); and a second passivation layer on the back surface of the silicon substrate that comprises a second portion located on the first textured structure (Fig. 1, #105) but does not explicitly teach a thickness of the first portion is less than a thickness of the second portion.
Li discloses that a thickness of a first portion can be less than a thickness of a second portion (Page 2, 11th Paragraph & Page 3, 1st Paragraph – the front anti-reflection layer can be selected to be less than the back anti-reflection layer) and that this configuration can provide a solar cell with high photoelectric conversion efficiency, while the process is simple and easy, and easily mass produced (Page 1, Contents of the Invention). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrive at a thickness of the first portion is less than a thickness of the second portion in modified Hu et al. solar cell for the advantages of utilizing configurations that have high photoelectric conversion efficiency, simple and easy processes, and are easily mass produced
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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 T 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726