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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2012/0160311) in view of Chang et al. (US 2014/0299187).
Regarding claim 1, Ha discloses a solar cell (abstract) comprising: a substrate including a first surface and a second surface (110 in Fig. 12); a passivation contact structure formed on the first surface of the substrate (1211,1212, 1213a, 1213b in Fig. 12; [0215] discloses electrodes 141 and bus bars 142; [0224] discloses anti-reflection layer 130), including: a doped silicon layer formed on the first surface of the substrate (1211 in Fig. 12; [0051], [0134]), wherein the doped silicon layer has a plurality of protrusions arranged along a first direction (1213a in Fig. 12), and each protrusion of the plurality of protrusions extends along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (extending direction of each 1213a as depicted in Fig. 12); silicon connection structures formed at intervals along the second direction (1212 in Fig. 12), each of the silicon connection structures extending along the first direction (extension direction of 1212 in Fig. 12), wherein at least one silicon connection structure of the silicon connection structures is formed between two respective adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions and is directly connected with sidewalls of the two respective protrusions (1212 in relation to 1213a in Fig. 12); an antireflection layer formed over the doped silicon layer and the silicon connection structures ([0224]); and a plurality of finger electrodes ([0215], front electrode 141), wherein each finger electrode of the plurality of finger electrodes extends along the second direction ([0215] discloses contact of 141 with 1213a) and penetrates the antireflection layer ([0224]) to electrically connect to a respective protrusion ([0215]).
Ha does not explicitly disclose a tunneling dielectric layer formed on the first surface between the substrate and the emitter region (1211 in Fig. 12).
Chang discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a tunneling dielectric layer ([0046], [0058]) formed on a first surface of a substrate between the substrate and the emitter region (42 in relation to 110 and 20 in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a tunneling dielectric layer, as disclosed by Chang, between the substrate and emitter layer in Ha, because as taught by Chang, the tunneling layer passivates the surface of the semiconductor substrate having many recombination sites and facilities [sic] (interpreted as facilitates) transfer of carriers through a tunneling effect ([0046], [0058]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation requiring each finger electrode penetrates the antireflection layer, if the disclosure of that the antireflection layer 130 is positioned on the plurality of first highly doped region 1212 except the portions crossing the second highly doped regions 1213 in paragraph [0224] does not require each finger electrode to penetrate the antireflection layer, other embodiments depicted in Ha teach the finger electrodes 141 penetrate the antireflection layer 130 (Fig. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the antireflection layer of Ha such that each finger electrode penetrates the antireflection layer, as depicted in Fig. 17 of Ha, because as evidenced in Fig. 17 of Ha, the configuration in which a finger electrode penetrates an antireflection layer to make contact with a protrusion portion of a doped silicon layer of a solar cell amounts to a known configuration in the art, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the antireflection layer of Ha such that each finger electrode penetrates the antireflection layer based on the teaching of Fig. 17 of Ha.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ha further discloses a material of the antireflection layer includes hydrogen-containing silicon nitride (Ha – [0079]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ha further discloses the silicon connection structures form an array (Ha – 1212 in Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Ha does not explicitly disclose in a direction perpendicular to the first surface of the substrate, a ratio of a height of one respective silicon connection structure of the silicon connection structures to a height of one respective protrusion of the plurality of protrusions ranges from 0.5 to 1.2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form a respective silicon connection structure such that a ratio of a height of the respective silicon connection structure to a height of a respective protrusion ranges from 0.5 to 1.2 because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ha further discloses there is at least one finger electrode located between adjacent silicon connection structures in the first direction (Ha – 141 disclosed in [0215] in relation to 1212 in Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ha further discloses the array includes a plurality of columns of silicon connection structures arranged along the first direction and a plurality of rows of silicon connection structures arranged along the second direction (Ha – 1212 in Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ha further discloses along the first direction, silicon connection structures forming one respective column of the plurality of columns of silicon connection structures are unaligned with silicon connection structures forming another column of the plurality of columns of silicon connection structures adjacent to the one respective column (it is noted that the configuration of 1212 in Fig. 12 of Ha satisfies the limitation “unaligned” because the claim does not specify the plane and/or direction in which the respective columns are unaligned; the respective columns of 1212 in Fig. 12 of Ha are unaligned in specific planes and/or directions) and along the second direction, the silicon connection structures forming one respective row of the plurality of rows of silicon connection structures are unaligned with silicon connection structures forming another row of the plurality of rows of silicon connection structures adjacent to the one respective row (it is noted that the configuration of 1212 in Fig. 12 of Ha satisfies the limitation “unaligned” because the claim does not specify the plane and/or direction in which the respective rows are unaligned; the respective rows of 1212 in Fig. 12 of Ha are unaligned in specific planes and/or directions).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ha further discloses at least one busbar extending along the first direction and electrically connected with the plurality of finger electrodes (Ha – [0215]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ha further discloses projections of the silicon connection structures on the substrate are at least partially overlapped with a projection of the at least one busbar on the substrate (it is noted that the busbar disclosed in [0215] of Ha and 1212 in Fig. 12 of Ha necessarily satisfy the limitation requiring a partial overlap of the respective projections because the claim does not specify a plane and/or direction of the projections; a partial overlap of the respective projections necessarily exists in particular planes and/or directions).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ha further discloses in a direction perpendicular to the first surface of the substrate, top surfaces of the silicon connection structures are lower than with a top surface of one respective protrusion of the plurality of protrusions (Ha – top surface of 1212 in relation to top surface of 1213a).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ha further discloses the plurality of silicon connection structures and the doped silicon layer are made of a same material (Ha – 1211 and 1212 in Fig. 12 are made of the same material with 1212 being a highly doped region [0050]).
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (US 2012/0160311) in view of Chang et al. (US 2014/0299187) and further in view of Hanoka (US 6,114,046).
Regarding claim 12, Ha discloses a solar cell (abstract) comprising: a substrate including a first surface and a second surface (110 in Fig. 12); a passivation contact structure formed on the first surface of the substrate (1211,1212, 1213a, 1213b in Fig. 12; [0215] discloses electrodes 141 and bus bars 142; [0224] discloses anti-reflection layer 130), including: a doped silicon layer formed on the first surface of the substrate (1211 in Fig. 12; [0051], [0134]), wherein the doped silicon layer has a plurality of protrusions arranged along a first direction (1213a in Fig. 12), and each protrusion of the plurality of protrusions extends along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (extending direction of each 1213a as depicted in Fig. 12); silicon connection structures formed at intervals along the second direction (1212 in Fig. 12), each of the silicon connection structures extending along the first direction (extension direction of 1212 in Fig. 12), wherein at least one silicon connection structure of the silicon connection structures is formed between two respective adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions and is directly connected with sidewalls of the two respective protrusions (1212 in relation to 1213a in Fig. 12); an antireflection layer formed over the doped silicon layer and the silicon connection structures ([0224]); and a plurality of finger electrodes ([0215], front electrode 141), wherein each finger electrode of the plurality of finger electrodes extends along the second direction ([0215] discloses contact of 141 with 1213a) and penetrates the antireflection layer ([0224]) to electrically connect to a respective protrusion ([0215]).
Ha does not explicitly disclose a tunneling dielectric layer formed on the first surface between the substrate and the emitter region (1211 in Fig. 12).
Chang discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a tunneling dielectric layer ([0046], [0058]) formed on a first surface of a substrate between the substrate and the emitter region (42 in relation to 110 and 20 in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a tunneling dielectric layer, as disclosed by Chang, between the substrate and emitter layer in Ha, because as taught by Chang, the tunneling layer passivates the surface of the semiconductor substrate having many recombination sites and facilities [sic] (interpreted as facilitates) transfer of carriers through a tunneling effect ([0046], [0058]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation requiring each finger electrode penetrates the antireflection layer, if the disclosure of that the antireflection layer 130 is positioned on the plurality of first highly doped region 1212 except the portions crossing the second highly doped regions 1213 in paragraph [0224] does not require each finger electrode to penetrate the antireflection layer, other embodiments depicted in Ha teach the finger electrodes 141 penetrate the antireflection layer 130 (Fig. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the antireflection layer of Ha such that each finger electrode penetrates the antireflection layer, as depicted in Fig. 17 of Ha, because as evidenced in Fig. 17 of Ha, the configuration in which a finger electrode penetrates an antireflection layer to make contact with a protrusion portion of a doped silicon layer of a solar cell amounts to a known configuration in the art, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the antireflection layer of Ha such that each finger electrode penetrates the antireflection layer based on the teaching of Fig. 17 of Ha.
Modified Ha does not explicitly disclose a photovoltaic module comprising at least one cell string including a plurality of the solar cells that are electrically connected; at least one encapsulation layer configured to cover a surface of the at least one cell string; and at least one cover plate configured to cover a surface of the at least one encapsulation layer facing away from the at least one cell string.
Hanoka discloses a photovoltaic module comprising a cell string including a plurality of solar cells (Fig. 2); wherein the plurality of solar cells are electrically connected (C6/L43-44); an encapsulation layer configured to cover a surface of the cell string (10 in Fig. 2); a cover plate configured to cover a surface of the encapsulation layer facing away from the cell string (26 in Fig. 2; C6/L52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the solar cell of modified Ha among a plurality of the solar cells in a cell string, as disclosed in Hanoka, because forming a plurality of the solar cells of modified Ha in a cell string would increase the amount of power generation. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to encapsulate the cell string of modified Ha in the manner disclosed by Hanoka, because as taught by Hanoka, transparent encapsulants protect and seal the underlying solar cells without adversely affecting the optical properties of such underlying materials (C1/L20-22).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ha further discloses a material of the antireflection layer includes hydrogen-containing silicon nitride (Ha – [0079]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ha further discloses the silicon connection structures form an array (Ha – 1212 in Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ha further discloses the array includes a plurality of columns of silicon connection structures arranged along the first direction and a plurality of rows of silicon connection structures arranged along the second direction (Ha – 1212 in Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ha further discloses along the first direction, silicon connection structures forming one respective column of the plurality of columns of silicon connection structures are unaligned with silicon connection structures forming another column of the plurality of columns of silicon connection structures adjacent to the one respective column (it is noted that the configuration of 1212 in Fig. 12 of Ha satisfies the limitation “unaligned” because the claim does not specify the plane and/or direction in which the respective columns are unaligned; the respective columns of 1212 in Fig. 12 of Ha are unaligned in specific planes and/or directions) and along the second direction, the silicon connection structures forming one respective row of the plurality of rows of silicon connection structures are unaligned with silicon connection structures forming another row of the plurality of rows of silicon connection structures adjacent to the one respective row (it is noted that the configuration of 1212 in Fig. 12 of Ha satisfies the limitation “unaligned” because the claim does not specify the plane and/or direction in which the respective rows are unaligned; the respective rows of 1212 in Fig. 12 of Ha are unaligned in specific planes and/or directions).
Regarding claim 17, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Ha does not explicitly disclose in a direction perpendicular to the first surface of the substrate, a ratio of a height of one respective silicon connection structure of the silicon connection structures to a height of one respective protrusion of the plurality of protrusions ranges from 0.5 to 1.2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form a respective silicon connection structure such that a ratio of a height of the respective silicon connection structure to a height of a respective protrusion ranges from 0.5 to 1.2 because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 18, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ha further discloses there is at least one finger electrode located between adjacent silicon connection structures in the first direction (Ha – 141 disclosed in [0215] in relation to 1212 in Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 19, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ha further discloses each solar cell of the plurality of solar cells further includes at least one busbar extending along the first direction and electrically connected with the plurality of finger electrodes (Ha – [0215]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Ha discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ha further discloses projections of the silicon connection structures on the substrate are at least partially overlapped with a projection of the at least one busbar on the substrate (it is noted that the busbar disclosed in [0215] of Ha and 1212 in Fig. 12 of Ha necessarily satisfy the limitation requiring a partial overlap of the respective projections because the claim does not specify a plane and/or direction of the projections; a partial overlap of the respective projections necessarily exists in particular planes and/or directions).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that because lateral transport in the present application primarily occurs within the doped conductive layer disposed above the tunneling dielectric layer, thinning of the doped conductive layer directly affects the lateral transport path. Accordingly, the claimed invention addresses the issue that etching-induced thinning reduces lateral transport capability and addresses this issue by providing conductive connection structures to enhance carrier transport between adjacent protrusions.
In response to Applicant's argument that Ha does not encounter such a problem because lateral transport occurs through continuous diffusion regions, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
As set forth in the office action, Chang discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further
discloses a tunneling dielectric layer ([0046], [0058]) formed on a first surface of a substrate between the substrate and the emitter region (42 in relation to 110 and 20 in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a tunneling dielectric layer, as disclosed by Chang, between the substrate and emitter layer in Ha, because as taught by Chang, the tunneling layer passivates the surface of the semiconductor substrate having many recombination sites and facilities [sic] (interpreted as facilitates) transfer of carriers through a tunneling effect ([0046], [0058]).
It is noted that Chang further discloses in paragraph [0011] conductive type areas include a plurality of portions disposed such that the tunneling layer is interposed between the portions, thereby minimizing recombination on the semiconductor substrate and improving electrical connection to electrodes. As a result, efficiency of the solar cells can be improved.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that introducing Chang’s tunneling layer into Ha would require the addition of another dielectric layer. Not only that, such modification would fundamentally transform Ha from a diffusion-junction structure into a TOPCon-type passivated contact structure, thereby altering Ha’s original operating principle.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Applicant has not provided evidence that the modification proposed in the office action would result in an inoperable device.
To the contrary, based on the teaching of Chang, one skilled in the art would reasonably expect that interposing a tunneling layer between the surface of the substrate and the emitter portion would result in minimizing recombination on the semiconductor substrate and improving electrical connection to electrodes, and an improved efficiency of the solar cell.
Based on the teachings of the prior art set forth in the office action, the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 |. A. and KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
As set forth in MPEP 2141, a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues adjacent regions 1213a in Ha remain continuously connected through emitter region 1211, and even in the absence of structure 1212, adjacent regions 1213a remain laterally connected through emitter region 1211.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the argument presented is not commensurate with the requirements of the limitations claimed. Specifically, claim 1 recites “silicon connection structures formed at intervals along the second direction, each of the silicon connection structures extending along the first direction, wherein at least one of silicon connection structure of the silicon connection structures is formed between two respective adjacent protrusions of the plurality of protrusions and is directly connected with sidewalls of the two respective protrusions.” Modified Ha discloses the claimed subject matter as set forth in the office action.
It is further noted that with regard to the arguments presented not being commensurate with the limitations claimed, the claims do not require isolated protrusions.
Applicant argues the contacted structures in Ha are highly doped regions directly formed on the substrate surface rather than protrusions formed in the doped silicon layer disposed over a tunneling dielectric layer.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Modified Ha teaches the limitations claimed as set forth in the office action.
In response to Applicant's argument that that the claimed invention provides technical effects that are not taught or suggested by the cited references, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights