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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “non in contact” recited in claim 1 is interpreted as shown in Figure 1.
The limitation “does not penetrate through the first passivation contact step” recited in claim 2 is interpreted as shown in Figure 1 (the electrode penetrates through the first layer, but not through the layered stack).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the layers within the solar cell are not clearly delineated. As seen in Figs. 1-3, the numerals appear to be floating rather than associated with a definite structure. 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 4-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12439728 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of instant claims 1, 3-18 and 20 can be found in claims 1, 2 and 4-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12439728 B2 (see table below for claim-to-claim correspondence).
Instant Claims
U.S. Patent No. 12439728 B2
1
1
3
1
4
2
5
4
6
5
7
6
8
7
9
8
10
9
11
10
12
11
13
12
14
13
15
14
16
15
17
16
18
17
20
18
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, 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) 1-5, 7-9, 12-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 215815893 U, Chen et al. (hereinafter “Chen”) in view of CN 110061072 A, QU et al., (hereinafter “QU”).
Regarding claim 1
Chen teaches a solar cell [Fig. 1 and paragraph 0054], comprising:
a crystalline silicon substrate (1) [Fig. 1, paragraphs 0056; see also commonly known semiconductor substrate materials disclosed in paragraph 0005];
a first passivation contact step (corresponding to area denoted as 1P in annotated Figure 1 below, including first silicon oxide layer 2 and first polysilicon layer 3) provided on a surface of the crystalline silicon substrate (1) [Fig. 1 and paragraph 0056];
a second passivation contact step (corresponding to area denoted as 2P in annotated Figure 1 below, including second silicon oxide layer 4 and second polysilicon layer 5) provided on a surface of the first passivation contact step (1P) away from the crystalline silicon substrate (1) and located corresponding to an electrode (7) [Fig. 1 and paragraph 0056];
a first passivation antireflection step (corresponding to portions of the anti-reflection layer 6 denoted as 1A in annotated Fig. 1 below) provided on the surface of the first passivation contact step (1P) away from the crystalline silicon substrate (1) and not in contact with the second passivation contact step (2P) [Fig. 1 and paragraph 0067];
a second passivation antireflection step (corresponding to portions of the anti-reflection layer 6 denoted as 2A in annotated Fig. 1 below) provided on a surface of the second passivation contact step (2P) away from the first passivation contact step (1P) [Fig. 1]; and
the electrode (7) including a side penetrating through the second passivation contact step (2P) and the second passivation antireflection step (2A) [Fig. 1].
PNG
media_image1.png
340
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen, annotated Fig. 1
Chen does not teach the electrode (7) including a side in direct contact with the first passivation contact step (1P).
QU teaches a solar cell [Fig. 1], comprising a first passivation step (corresponding to portions of tunneling oxide layer 201 and polysilicon layers 202 or 204 annotated with an arrow in Fig. 1 below), wherein an electrode (206 or 207) has a side in direct contact with the first passivation step (electrodes 206 and 207 penetrate through the polysilicon layers 202 and 204) in order to form ohmic contact [Bottom of Page 4 to Page 5].
PNG
media_image2.png
228
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
QU, annotated Fig. 1
Chen and QU are analogous inventions in the field of solar cells comprising passivation structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the invention to modify the solar cell of Chen such that the electrode has a side in direct contact with the first passivation step, as disclosed in QU, in order to form ohmic contact.
Regarding claim 2
Modified Chen teaches the solar cell as set forth above, wherein the side of the electrode (7) in direct contact with the first passivation contact step (1P) does not penetrate through the first passivation contact step (the electrode is disclosed to penetrate through the polysilicon layer but not all the way through the stack) [QU, Fig. 1 and Pages 5-6].
Regarding claim 3
Modified Chen teaches the solar cell as set forth above, wherein the first passivation contact step (1P) comprises a first tunnel oxide layer (2) and a first doped polysilicon layer (3) [Chen, Fig. 1, paragraphs 0004-0005 and 0056], the first tunnel oxide layer (2) is provided on the surface of the crystalline silicon substrate (1) [Chen, Fig. 1], and the first doped polysilicon layer (3) is provided on a side of the first tunnel oxide layer (2) away from the crystalline silicon substrate (1) [Chen, Fig. 1];
the second passivation contact step (2P) comprises a second tunnel oxide layer (4) and a second doped polysilicon layer (5) [Chen, Fig. 1, paragraphs 0004-0005 and 0056], the second tunnel oxide layer (4) is provided on a side of the first doped polysilicon layer (3) away from the first tunnel oxide layer (2) and located corresponding to the electrode (7) [Chen, Fig. 1]; the second doped polysilicon layer (5) is provided on a side of the second tunnel oxide layer (4) away from the first doped polysilicon layer (3) [Chen, Fig. 1]; and
one side of the electrode (see bottom surface side of electrode 7) is in contact with the first doped polysilicon layer (3) [Chen, Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 4
Modified Chen teaches the solar cell as set forth above, wherein the first tunnel oxide layer (2) comprises at least one of phosphorous-containing silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, silicon oxynitride, or silicon oxycarbide, and a phosphorus concentration of the first tunnel oxide layer is not greater than 9×1020 cm-3 (although silicon oxide is exemplified, said first passivation tunnel oxide layer 2 can be made of one or more of silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride or silicon carbide) [Chen, paragraphs 0024 and 0056].
Examiner notes that since the first doped polysilicon layer (3) is formed by phosphorus doping, the first tunnel oxide layer (2) will necessarily include phosphorus to an extent due to cross-diffusion during high temperature annealing [paragraphs 0046, 0088].
Regarding claim 5
Modified Chen teaches the solar cell as set forth above, wherein a thickness of the first tunnel oxide layer (2) ranges from 0.5 nm to 10 nm (0.5 nm to 5 nm) [Chen, paragraph 0066].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 7
Modified Chen teaches the solar cell as set forth above, wherein a thickness of the first doped polysilicon layer (3) ranges from 3 nm to 150 nm (10 nm to 450 nm) [Chen, paragraph 0066].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 8
Modified Chen teaches the solar cell as set forth above, wherein the second tunnel oxide layer (4) comprises at least one of phosphorous-containing silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, silicon oxynitride, or silicon oxycarbide, and a phosphorus concentration of the first tunnel oxide layer is not greater than 1×1021 cm-3 (although silicon oxide is exemplified, said second passivation tunnel oxide layer 4 can be made of one or more of silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride or silicon carbide) [Chen, paragraphs 0026 and 0056].
Examiner notes that since the first doped polysilicon layer (5) is formed by phosphorus doping, the second tunnel oxide layer (4) will necessarily include phosphorus to an extent due to cross-diffusion during high temperature annealing [Chen, paragraphs 0046, 0088].
Regarding claim 9
Modified Chen teaches the solar cell as set forth above, wherein a thickness of the second tunnel oxide layer (4) ranges from 0.1 nm to 5 nm (0.5 nm to 5 nm), and the thickness of the second tunnel oxide layer (4) is not greater than the first tunnel oxide layer (2) [Chen, paragraph 0066].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 12
Modified Chen teaches the solar cell as set forth above, wherein a thickness of the second doped polysilicon layer (5) ranges from 5 nm to 300 nm (1 nm to 300nm) [Chen, paragraph 0066], and the thickness of the second doped polysilicon layer (5) is greater than the first doped polysilicon layer (3) [Chen, paragraph 0066].
Regarding claim 13
Modified Chen teaches the solar cell as set forth above, wherein a patterned width of the second doped polysilicon layer (5) is not greater than a patterned width of the second tunnel oxide layer (4) [Chen, Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 14
Modified Chen teaches the solar cell as set forth above, wherein the first passivation antireflection step comprises at least one passivation antireflection layer (“the first passivation layer 6 includes at least one first passivation layer 6 film”) [Chen, paragraph 0067], and a thickness of the first passivation antireflection step ranges from 30 nm to 300 nm (30 nm to 200 nm) and is not less than a thickness of the second passivation contact step [Chen, Fig. 1 and paragraph 0066].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 15
Modified Chen teaches the solar cell as set forth above, wherein a thickness of the second passivation antireflection step ranges from 30 nm to 500 nm (30 nm to 200 nm) [see Chen, annotated Fig. 1 above and paragraph 0066].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 19
Modified Chen teaches the solar cell as set forth above, wherein the first passivation contact step (1P), second passivation contact step (2P), the first passivation antireflection step (1A), the second passivation antireflection step (2A) and the electrode (7) are arranged on both an upper surface and a tower surface of the crystalline silicon substrate (1) [Chen, Fig. 1].
Claim(s) 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and QU, as applied to claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-15 and 19 above, and further in view of CN 105762234 A, Gao et al. (See attached machine translation).
Regarding claims 6 and 11
Modified Chen teaches the solar cell as set forth above.
Modified Chen does not teach that a phosphorus concentration after activation of the first doped polysilicon layer ranges from 9×1019 cm-3 to 1×1021 cm-3 (instant claim 6), and the phosphorus concentration after activation of the second doped polysilicon layer ranging from 1×1020 cm-3 to 1×1021 cm-3 (instant claim 11).
Gao teaches a solar cell comprising a phosphorus doped polysilicon layer having a concentration of 1019 cm-3 to 1022 cm-3 in order to make the contact resistance between the doped silicon film and the metal electrode as small as possible [paragraphs 0005 and 0008]. However, the concentration of phosphorus within the surface of the layer adjacent silicon oxide layer should be kept within a range of 0 to 1 x 1016 cm-3 in order to avoid damage to the passivation integrity of the tunneling/passivation layer [Pages 1-2].
Modified Chen and Ye are analogous inventions in the field of solar cells comprising passivated contact structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each of the first and second doped polysilicon layers in modified Chen to have a concentration in a range of 1019 cm-3 to 1022 cm-3, as in Gao, in order to make the contact resistance between the doped silicon film and the metal electrode as small as possible [Gao, Pages 1-2]. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first tunnel oxide layer such that the concentration of phosphorus is not greater than 5×1019 cm-3 in order to avoid damage to the passivation integrity of the tunneling/passivation layer [Gao, Pages 1-2].
Claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and QU, as applied to claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-15 and 19 above, and further in view of CN 106098146, Zhu.
Regarding claims 10 and 16
Modified Chen teaches the solar cell as set forth above, wherein a patterned width of the second tunnel oxide layer (4) ranges from 0.5% to 20% of a patterned width of the first doped polysilicon layer (3) [Chen, Fig. 1], and
wherein a patterned width of the second passivation antireflection step (6) is not less than a patterned width of the second passivation contact step (layers 4 and 5) [see Fig. 1 of Chen above].
Modified Chen does not teach a patterned width of the second tunnel oxide layer and the second passivation antireflection step of not greater than 1000 µm (instant claims 10 and 16).
Zhu teaches a solar cell wherein a tunnel oxide layer/passivation contact has a width in a range of about 30-60 µm [Page 4].
Modified Chen and Zhu are analogous inventions in the field of solar cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tunnel oxide layer/passivation contact of modified Chen to have a patterned width within the range disclosed in Zhu as such is disclosed to be a conventional patterned width known in the art for providing such structures.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and QU as applied to claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-15 and 19 above, and further in view of CN 102197495 A, Ahn et al.
Regarding claims 17 and 18
Chen teaches the solar cell as set forth above, wherein a patterned width of the electrode (7) is not greater than a patterned width of the second passivation contact step (layers 4 and 5) [Fig. 1].
Chen is silent to a patterned width of the electrode not greater than 100 nm (instant claim 18) and to a distance from the side of the electrode in contact with the first passivation contact step to a surface of the second passivation antireflection step away from the second passivation contact step is not less than 40 nm (instant claim 17).
Ahn teaches a solar cell comprising an electrode structure having a width of about 10 µm to 100 µm and a height of about 10 µm to 20 µm [paras. 0032, 0059 and 0071]. By setting the patterned width and height of the electrode structure within the prescribed ranges of Ahn, the light receiving area of the solar cell is increased thereby improving the efficiency of the solar cell [paras. 0032 and 0079].
Chen and Ahn are analogous inventions in the field of solar cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrode of Chen to have a patterned width and height within the prescribed ranges of Ahn in order to improve the efficiency of the solar cell.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
It is noted that providing an electrode with a height the range of 10 to 40 µm necessarily results in “a distance from the side of the electrode in contact with the first passivation contact step to a surface of the second passivation antireflection step away from the second passivation contact step is not less than 40 nm.”
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of QU and US 2012/0192941 A1, Schoop et al.
Regarding claim 19
Chen teaches a solar cell [Fig. 1 and paragraph 0054], comprising:
a crystalline silicon substrate (1) [Fig. 1, paragraphs 0056; see also commonly known semiconductor substrate materials disclosed in paragraph 0005];
a first passivation contact step (corresponding to area denoted as 1P in annotated Figure 1 above, including first silicon oxide layer 2 and first polysilicon layer 3) provided on a surface of the crystalline silicon substrate (1) [Fig. 1 and paragraph 0056];
a second passivation contact step (corresponding to area denoted as 2P in annotated Figure 1 above, including second silicon oxide layer 4 and second polysilicon layer 5) provided on a surface of the first passivation contact step (1P) away from the crystalline silicon substrate (1) and located corresponding to an electrode (7) [Fig. 1 and paragraph 0056];
a first passivation antireflection step (corresponding to portions of the anti-reflection layer 6 denoted as 1A in annotated Fig. 1 above) provided on the surface of the first passivation contact step (1P) away from the crystalline silicon substrate (1) and not in contact with the second passivation contact step (2P) [Fig. 1 and paragraph 0067];
a second passivation antireflection step (corresponding to portions of the anti-reflection layer 6 denoted as 2A in annotated Fig. 1 above) provided on a surface of the second passivation contact step (2P) away from the first passivation contact step (1P) [Fig. 1]; and
the electrode (7) including a side penetrating through the second passivation contact step (2P) and the second passivation antireflection step (2A) [Fig. 1].
PNG
media_image1.png
340
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen, annotated Fig. 1
Chen does not teach a photovoltaic module, comprising: a plurality of solar cells as set forth above, wherein at least part of the solar cells is electrically connected in a splicing or laminating manner and packaged through a packaging material.
Schoop teaches connected a plurality of solar cells to form a module in order to achieve a usable voltage, wherein at least part of the solar cells is electrically connected in a splicing or laminating manner and packaged through a packaging material (encapsulant) [paras. 0005 and 0022].
Chen and Schoop are analogous inventions in the field of solar cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a plurality of the solar cells disclosed in Chen electrically connected in a splicing or laminating manner and packaged through a packaging material, as disclosed in Schoop, in order to achieve a usable voltage.
Modified Chen does not teach the electrode (7) including a side in direct contact with the first passivation contact step (1P).
Chen does not teach the electrode (7) including a side in direct contact with the first passivation contact step (1P).
QU teaches a solar cell [Fig. 1], comprising a first passivation step (corresponding to portions of tunneling oxide layer 201 and polysilicon layers 202 or 204 annotated with an arrow in Fig. 1 below), wherein an electrode (206 or 207) has a side in direct contact with the first passivation step (electrodes 206 and 207 penetrate through the polysilicon layers 202 and 204) in order to form ohmic contact [Bottom of Page 4 to Page 5].
PNG
media_image2.png
228
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
QU, annotated Fig. 1
Chen and QU are analogous inventions in the field of solar cells comprising passivation structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the invention to modify the solar cell of Chen such that the electrode has a side in direct contact with the first passivation step, as disclosed in QU, in order to form ohmic contact.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, Allison Bourke can be reached on (303)297-4684. 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721