DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
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) 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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “that” in line 11. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the claimed “that” to further limit. For the purpose of office action, the claimed “that” is will be treated as if it recites “an adhesion force”. All claims which depend on clam 1 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “that” in line 2. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the claimed “that” to further limit. For the purpose of office action, the claimed “that” is will be treated as if it recites “a contact area”. All claims which depend on clam 2 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “that” in line 4. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the claimed “that” to further limit. For the purpose of office action, the claimed “that” is will be treated as if it recites “the adhesion force”. All claims which depend on clam 2 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “that” in line 2. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the claimed “that” to further limit. For the purpose of office action, the claimed “that” is will be treated as if it recites “a volume”. All claims which depend on clam 3 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “that” in line 2. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the claimed “that” to further limit. For the purpose of office action, the claimed “that” is will be treated as if it recites “a length”. All claims which depend on clam 4 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “that” in line 3. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the claimed “that” to further limit. For the purpose of office action, the claimed “that” is will be treated as if it recites “a width”. All claims which depend on clam 4 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “that” in line 4. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the claimed “that” to further limit. For the purpose of office action, the claimed “that” is will be treated as if it recites “a height”. All claims which depend on clam 4 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the first sub-region” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “a first sub-region”. All claims which depend on clam 10 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the second sub-region” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “a second sub-region”. All claims which depend on clam 10 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “that” in line 4. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the claimed “that” to further limit. For the purpose of office action, the claimed “that” is will be treated as if it recites “an adhesion”. All claims which depend on clam 10 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “that” in line 3. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the claimed “that” to further limit. For the purpose of office action, the claimed “that” is will be treated as if it recites “a length”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “that” in line 5. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the claimed “that” to further limit. For the purpose of office action, the claimed “that” is will be treated as if it recites “a width”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “that” in line 7. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the claimed “that” to further limit. For the purpose of office action, the claimed “that” is will be treated as if it recites “a height”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIM (US 20200044105 A1).
Regarding claim 1, KIM teaches a solar cell (see the solar cells C1, C2, in Fig. 1) (see Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a cell substrate (see the semiconductor substrate 110), a solder strip (see the conductive lines P1, P2; [0074] Each of the first and second conductive lines P1 and P2 may use a conductive wire or a conductive ribbon, which includes a core containing at least one of copper (Cu), gold (Au), silver (Ag), and aluminum (Al) and a coating layer coated on the surface of the core with a solder material containing tin (Sn) and has a stripe shape extending in one direction), a reinforced limiting adhesive dot (see the insulating layer IL; [Claims 8, 9] the insulating layers include one of epoxy, acryl or silicon resin, which has a reinforced limiting adhesion property) (see Figs. 1, 4, 5), and an additional limiting adhesive dot (see the conductive adhesive CA, which has an additional limiting adhesion property) (see Figs. 1, 4, 5),
wherein the solder strip is arranged on the cell substrate (see Figs. 1-5), and the reinforced limiting adhesive dot and the additional limiting adhesive dot are attached to the solder strip and the cell substrate (see Figs. 1, 4, 5); and
wherein the cell substrate comprises an adhesion-enhanced region and an additional region (see the adhesion-enhanced region and the additional region in Fig. 1 attached below), the adhesion-enhanced region is immediately adjacent to at least one edge of the cell substrate (The adhesion-enhanced region is immediately adjacent to the four edges of the semiconductor substrate 110) (see Fig. 1 attached below), the additional region is arranged at a side of the adhesion-enhanced region away from the at least one edge (The additional region is arranged at the inner sides of the adhesion-enhanced region away from the four edges of the semiconductor substrate 110) (see Fig. 1 attached below), the additional limiting adhesive dot is arranged in the additional region, the reinforced limiting adhesive dot is arranged in the adhesion-enhanced region (see Fig. 1 attached below), and an adhesion force between the reinforced limiting adhesive dot and the solder strip is greater than that between the additional limiting adhesive dot and the solder strip ([Claims 8, 9] the insulating layers include one of epoxy, acryl or silicon resin; [Claims 4, 5] wherein the conductive adhesives include a resin and conductive metal particles, wherein the resin is one of epoxy, acryl or silicon resin; Since the insulating layer IL and the conductive adhesive CA contains the same epoxy, acryl or silicon resin and the insulating layer IL has greater adhesion surface area than the adhesion surface area of the conductive adhesive CA, the adhesion force between the insulating layer IL and the conductive lines is greater than that between the conductive adhesive CA and the conductive lines) (see Figs. 1, 4, 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
474
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
KIM teaches a contact area between the reinforced limiting adhesive dot and the solder strip is greater than that between the additional limiting adhesive dot and the solder strip (see Fig. 4, 5), such that the adhesion force between the reinforced limiting adhesive dot and the solder strip is greater than that between the additional limiting adhesive dot and the solder strip (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 2.
KIM teaches a volume of the reinforced limiting adhesive dot is greater than that of the additional limiting adhesive dot (see Figs. 1, 4, 5 and the rejection of claim 1; The volume of the insulating layer IL is greater than the volume of the conductive adhesive CA).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 3.
KIM teaches a length of the reinforced limiting adhesive dot is greater than that of the additional limiting adhesive dot (see Fig. 1; The x direction length of the insulating layer IL is greater than the x direction length of the conductive adhesive CA), a width of the reinforced limiting adhesive dot is greater than that of the additional limiting adhesive dot (see Fig. 1; The y direction width of the insulating layer IL is greater than the y direction width of the conductive adhesive CA), and a height of the reinforced limiting adhesive dot is greater than that of the additional limiting adhesive dot (see Figs. 4, 5; The z direction height of the insulating layer IL is greater than the z direction height of the conductive adhesive CA).
Regarding claim 6, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
KIM teaches the additional limiting adhesive dot satisfy at least one of the following conditions: (1) a ratio of the length of the additional limiting adhesive dot to a strip width of the solder strip is 1.5 to 6; (2) a ratio of the width of the additional limiting adhesive dot to the strip width of the solder strip is 0.5 to 3; and (3) a ratio of the height of the additional limiting adhesive dot to the strip width of the solder strip is 0.5 to 1.2 (Fig. 1 shows that y direction width of the conductive adhesive CA is the same as the y direction width of the conductive lines, which corresponds to the claimed “a ratio of the width of the additional limiting adhesive dot to the strip width of the solder strip is 0.5 to 3”).
Regarding claim 7, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
KIM teaches there are a plurality of solder strips (see the plurality of conductive lines P1, P2) extending in a first direction (see the x direction) and arranged side by side in a second direction (see the y direction) intersecting with the first direction (see Fig. 1), and the at least one edge of the cell substrate (see the four edges of the semiconductor substrate 110) comprises two first edges opposite to each other in the first direction (see the two first edges opposite to each other in the x direction) and two second edges opposite to each other in the second direction (see the two second edges opposite to each other in the y direction) (see Fig. 1); wherein the adhesion-enhanced region comprises two first sub-regions (see the two first sub-regions in Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1) located immediately adjacent to the two first edges, respectively (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1), and at least one of the two first sub-regions is provided with the reinforced limiting adhesive dot (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1), or the adhesion-enhanced region comprises two second sub-regions located immediately adjacent to the two second edges, respectively (see the two second sub-regions in Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1), and at least one of the two second sub-region is provided with the reinforced limiting adhesive dot (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 7.
KIM teaches the adhesion-enhanced region comprises the two first sub-regions (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1), each of the plurality of solder strips is attached with the additional limiting adhesive dot and at least two reinforced limiting adhesive dots (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1), the additional limiting adhesive dot is arranged between the two reinforced limiting adhesive dots (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1), and the two reinforced limiting adhesive dots are located in the two first sub-regions, respectively (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1); or the adhesion-enhanced region comprises the two second sub-regions (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1), each of the two second sub-regions is provided with at least one solder strip (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1), and each of the at least one solder strip in each of the two second sub-regions is attached with a plurality of reinforced limiting adhesive dots (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 7.
KIM teaches the adhesion-enhanced region comprises the two first sub-regions and the two second sub-regions (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1), and the two second sub-regions are located between the two first sub-regions (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1); wherein each of the two first sub-regions is provided with at least one solder strip (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1), and each of the at least one solder strip in each of the two second sub-regions is attached with a plurality of reinforced limiting adhesive dots (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1); and the solder strip located between the two second sub-regions is attached with the additional limiting adhesive dot and at least two reinforced limiting adhesive dots (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1), the additional limiting adhesive dot is arranged between the two reinforced limiting adhesive dots (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1), and the two reinforced limiting adhesive dots are located in the two first sub-regions, respectively (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
KIM teaches a material of the reinforced limiting adhesive dot is the same as that of the additional limiting adhesive dot (see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
KIM teaches the cell substrate comprises a fine grid electrode extending in a direction intersecting with an extension direction of the solder strip (see the fine grid electrode structure extending in a direction intersecting with an extension direction of the conductive lines) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
KIM teaches a plurality of solder strips (see the plurality of conductive lines P1, P2) parallel to and spaced from each other are arranged on the cell substrate (see Fig. 1), and each of two end portions of each of the plurality of solder strips is provided with the reinforced limiting adhesive dot (The each of the two end portions within the two first sub-regions is provided with the insulating layer IL) (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 15.
KIM teaches each of the plurality of solder strips is provided with a plurality of additional limiting adhesive dots arranged spaced apart in an extension direction thereof and located between the two end portions thereof (see the two end portions within the two first sub-regions) (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
KIM teaches a plurality of solder strips (see the plurality of conductive lines P1, P2) parallel to and spaced from each other are arranged on the cell substrate (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1), and two of the plurality of solder strips located at opposite edges of the cell substrate (see the two of the plurality of conductive lines P1, P2 located at opposite edges of the semiconductor substrate 110) are each provided with a plurality of reinforced limiting adhesive dots spaced from each other in an extension direction thereof (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 17.
KIM teaches others of the plurality of solder strips (see others except the two of the plurality of conductive lines P1, P2 located at opposite edges of the semiconductor substrate 110) are each provided with a plurality of additional limiting adhesive dots spaced from each other in an extension direction thereof (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
KIM teaches a solar cell string (see the solar cell string in Figs. 1, 5; [0088] As shown in FIG. 5, the string formed by connecting the plurality of solar cells shown in FIGS. 1 and 4 in series may be configured as a module), comprising a plurality of solar cells (see the two solar cells C1, C2) according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1), wherein the solar cells are connected by the solder strips thereof (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 19.
KIM teaches a photovoltaic module (see the solar cell module in Fig. 5; [0088] As shown in FIG. 5, the string formed by connecting the plurality of solar cells shown in FIGS. 1 and 4 in series may be configured as a module), comprising a first encapsulation panel (see the front transparent substrate FG in Fig. 5), a second encapsulation panel (see the back sheet BS in Fig. 5), and the solar cell string according to claim 19 (see the rejections of claims 1, 19), wherein the solar cell string is arranged between the first encapsulation panel and the second encapsulation panel (see Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (US 20200044105 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of SON (US 20160181454 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 4.
Regarding the claimed “wherein the additional limiting adhesive dot and the reinforced limiting adhesive dot satisfy at least one of the following conditions: (1) a ratio of the length of the reinforced limiting adhesive dot to the length of the additional limiting adhesive dot is 1.2 to 2; (2) a ratio of the width of the reinforced limiting adhesive dot to the width of the additional limiting adhesive dot is 1.2 to 2; and (3) a ratio of the height of the reinforced limiting adhesive dot to the height of the additional limiting adhesive dot is 1 to 2”, KIM discloses a thickness of the insulating layer paste ILP may be greater than a thickness of the conductive adhesive paste CAP [0026] and the thickness TC of each of the plurality of first and second electrodes C141 and C142 may be 0.2 μm to 1 μm [0063], but does not explicitly disclose the claimed ratio. However, SON discloses the solar cell module, wherein the thickness of the conductive adhesive may be 50 μm to 150 μm [0013]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the thickness of 50 μm to 150 μm for the conductive adhesive CA in KIM as taught by SON, because the change in configuration of an element is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Since Figs. 4, 5 of KIM shows that the thickness of the insulating layer IL is the same as the sum of the thickness of the electrodes C141 and C142 and the thickness of the conductive adhesive CA, the ratio of the height of the insulating layer IL to the height of the conductive adhesive CA is calculated as to be between 1.00 to 1.02, which corresponds to the claimed “a ratio of the height of the reinforced limiting adhesive dot to the height of the additional limiting adhesive dot is 1 to 2”.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (US 20200044105 A1) as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 9.
KIM teaches the plurality of reinforced limiting adhesive dots comprise a first reinforced adhesive dot arranged in the first sub-region (see the first insulating layer IL in the left first sub-region of the two first sub-regions) and a second reinforced adhesive dot arranged in the second sub-region (see the second insulating layer IL in the bottom second sub-region of the two second sub-regions) (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1), and an adhesion force between the first reinforced adhesive dot and the solder strip is greater than that between the second reinforced adhesive dot and the solder strip (One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that there would be a slight difference between the adhesion forces of the insulating layers IL in the different location during the fabrication process. It would have been obvious to choose the different adhesion forces such that the adhesion force between the first insulating layer IL and the conductive line is greater than the adhesion force between the second insulating layer IL and the conductive line from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for the selection of the adhesion force; 1. the adhesion force between the first insulating layer IL and the conductive line is greater than the adhesion force between the second insulating layer IL and the conductive line, 2. the adhesion force between the first insulating layer IL and the conductive line is the same as the adhesion force between the second insulating layer IL and the conductive line, or 3. the adhesion force between the first insulating layer IL and the conductive line is smaller than the adhesion force between the second insulating layer IL and the conductive line).
Regarding claim 11, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 10.
KIM teaches the first reinforced adhesive dot and the second reinforced adhesive dot satisfy at least one of the following conditions: (1) a length of the first reinforced adhesive dot is greater than that of the second reinforced adhesive dot; (2) a width of the first reinforced adhesive dot is greater than that of the second reinforced adhesive dot; and (3) a height of the first reinforced adhesive dot is greater than that of the second reinforced adhesive dot (One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that there would be a slight difference between the length, width, or height of the insulating layers IL in the different location during the fabrication process. It would have been obvious to choose the different length, width, or height such that the length, width, or height of the first insulating layer IL is greater than the length, width, or height of the second insulating layer IL from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for the selection of the length, width, or height; 1. the length, width, or height of the first insulating layer IL is greater than the length, width, or height of the second insulating layer IL, 2. the length, width, or height of the first insulating layer IL is the same as the length, width, or height of the second insulating layer IL, or 3. the length, width, or height of the first insulating layer IL is less than the length, width, or height of the second insulating layer IL).
Regarding claim 12, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Regarding the claimed “wherein the cell substrate comprises a welding electrode arranged below the solder strip and extending in an extension direction of the solder strip, and a width of the welding electrode is 50 µm to 55 µm”, KIM teaches the cell substrate comprises a welding electrode arranged below the solder strip and extending in an extension direction of the solder strip (see the coating layer coated on the surface of the core with a solder material which has a stripe shape extending in one direction, see [0074]). Regarding the width, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that when the width of the welding electrode decreases, the adhesion, the conductivity, and the fabrication cost decrease, but when the width of the welding electrode increases, the adhesion, the conductivity, and the fabrication cost increase. As the adhesion, the conductivity, and the fabrication cost are variables that can be modified by adjusting said width of the welding electrode, the precise width would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed width 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 width of the welding electrode in the apparatus of KIM to obtain the desired balance among the adhesion, the conductivity, and the fabrication cost (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).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728