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(s) 3-8, 12-16 and 19-20 have been amended.
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) 1-6, 8 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0006547 A1 Watts et al.* (hereinafter “Watts”) in view of US 2010/0099323 A1, ZU et al.* (hereinafter “ZU”).
*Cited in IDS.
Regarding claim 1
Watts teaches a photovoltaic module (100) [Fig. 3b and para. 0066], comprising:
an outer glass layer (corresponding to first glass sheet 102) [Fig. 3a and para. 0066];
an inner glass layer (corresponding to second glass sheet 103) [Fig. 3a and para. 0066];
one or more photovoltaic (PV) structures (corresponding to photovoltaic devices 101) disposed on the outer glass layer (102), inner glass layer (103) or between the layers [Fig. 3a and para. 0066];
a first glass frit (corresponding to compact/bulk glass 104 formed from a glass frit) disposed between and in contact with the inner and outer glass layers (102 and 103) [Fig. 3a, paras. 0011, 0017 and 0066], wherein a seal width of the first glass frit (104) is at least about 100 µm (less than 5 mm, preferably 1 mm to 3 mm) [para. 0069].
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].
PNG
media_image1.png
202
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3a
Watts does not teach a polymeric seal disposed between and in contact with the inner and outer glass layers.
ZU teaches a device (LED 100) comprising a glass frit (!30) disposed between and in contact with inner and outer glass layers (150 and 110) [Fig. 1, paras. 0073-0074], wherein a polymeric seal (corresponding to sealant 140 comprising a polymeric material) is disposed between and in contact with the inner and outer glass layers (150 and 110) [Fig. 1, paras. 0008 and 0074]. Said polymeric seal (140) improves the adhesive strength between the inner and outer glass layers (150 and 110) [para. 0074].
Watts and ZU are analogous inventions in the field of double glass devices, sealed with a glass frit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the photovoltaic module of Watts to comprise a polymeric seal disposed between and in contact with the inner and outer glass layers, as disclosed in ZU, in order to improve the adhesive strength between the inner and outer glass layers.
With regards to the limitation “further wherein the module exhibits no failures at the polymeric seal or first glass frit after 1200 hours of exposure at 85°C and 85% relative humidity according to the IEC 61215 Damp Heat Test”, because the structure discloses in modified Watts is identical to the one claimed, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2
Modified Watts teaches the module as set forth above, wherein the first glass frit (104) is inboard of the polymeric seal (140) [Watts, Fig. 3a; ZU, Fig. 1, see glass frit 130 and sealant 140].
Regarding claim 3
Modified Watts teaches the module as set forth above, wherein the first glass frit (104) and the polymeric seal (140) define a gap (distance) between the inner and outer glass layers (103 and 102) (see Fig. 1 and para. 0015 of ZU wherein a gap is defined; see also Watts. Fig. 3a).
Modified Watts does not disclose the gap being from about 1 to 20 µm.
However, modified Watts discloses that the gap (distance) can be optimize in order to accommodate the desired photovoltaic device thickness depth [Watts, paras. 0066 and 0074].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the gap between the inner and outer glass layers (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to accommodate the desired photovoltaic device thickness depth. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 4
Modified Watts teaches the module as set forth above, wherein a portion of the first glass frit (104) is in contact with the inner and outer glass layers (103 and 102) [Fig. 3b and para. 0066], the portion having an average bond width that is at least 90% of the seal width of the first glass frit (the wall of compact/bulk glass 104 has a width of less than 5mm, provides a hermetic seal and bonds the glass sheets 102 and 103. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the bond to width to be at least 90% of the seal width of the first glass frit 104 for the purpose of providing a hermetic seal and to bond the opposing glass sheets; see also para. 0067 of Watts. wherein the wall of compact glass 104 is fused to the surface 102a of the first glass sheet 102 and a second end of the wall of compact glass 104 is fused to the opposing surface 103a the second glass sheet 103).
Regarding claim 5
Modified Watts teaches the module as set forth above, wherein the seal width of the first glass frit is at least about 600 µm (e.g., between 1 mm and 3 mm) [Watts, para. 0069].
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 6
Modified Watts teaches the module as set forth above, wherein the polymeric seal (140) comprises one or more adhesives selected from the group consisting of silicone, epoxy, thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO), polyolefin (PO), polyvinyl butyral (PVB), and ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) adhesives (see para. 0008 of ZU wherein the polymeric seal comprises a sealant such as an epoxy resin).
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding claim 8
Modified Watts teaches the module as set forth above, wherein each PV structure is one of a CdTe, amorphous silicon (a-Si), polysilicon (p-Si), CuIn/GaSe (CIGS), and perovskite (ABX3) thin-film PV structure (silicon and perovskite) [Watts, paras. 0074 and 0081].
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding claim 17
Watts teaches a method of making a photovoltaic module (100) [Fig. 3b and para. 0066], comprising:
dispensing a first glass frit (104) on an inner glass layer (102) (the step of forming a wall of compact/bulk glass 104 may comprise forming the wall of compact glass 104 on the first glass sheet 102) [Figs. 3a-3b and paras. 0083 and 0088], the first glass frit (104) defining a seal width of at least about 100 µm (less than 5 mm, preferably 1 mm to 3 mm) [paras. 0069 and 0083-0084];
positioning one or more photovoltaic (PV) structures (corresponding to photovoltaic devices 101) on the inner glass layer (102) [Figs. 3a-3b and para. 0083];
sintering the first glass frit (104) [paras. 0090-0091];
positioning an outer glass layer (103) in contact with the first glass frit (104), the positioning conducted such that the first glass frit (104) is disposed between and in contact with the inner and outer glass layers (102 and 103) [Figs. 3a-3b, paras. 0088, 0093-0096 and 0099];
irradiating the glass frit (104) with a laser such that a portion of the first glass frit (104) is in contact with the inner and outer glass layers (102 and 103) [para. 0099], the portion having an average bond width that is at least 90% of the seal width of the first glass frit (the wall of compact/bulk glass 104 has a width of less than 5mm, provides a hermetic seal and bonds the glass sheets 102 and 103. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the bond to width to be at least 90% of the seal width of the first glass frit 104 for the purpose of providing a hermetic seal and to bond the opposing glass sheets; see also para. 0067 of Watts. wherein the wall of compact glass 104 is fused to the surface 102a of the first glass sheet 102 and a second end of the wall of compact glass 104 is fused to the opposing surface 103a the second glass sheet 103).
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].
Watts does not teach dispensing a polymeric seal on the inner glass layer and curing the polymeric seal.
ZU a method of making a device (LED 100) comprising a glass frit (130) disposed between and in contact with inner and outer glass layers (150 and 110) [Fig. 1, paras. 0073-0074], wherein a polymeric seal (corresponding to sealant 140 comprising a polymeric material) is dispensed on the inner glass layer such that it is between and in contact with the inner and outer glass layers (150 and 110), and wherein said polymeric seal (140) is subsequently cured [Fig. 1, paras. 0008, 0064 and 0074]. Said polymeric seal (140) improves the adhesive strength between the inner and outer glass layers (150 and 110) [para. 0074].
Watts and ZU are analogous inventions in the field of double glass devices, sealed with a glass frit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Watts to comprise the steps of dispensing and curing a polymeric seal, as disclosed in ZU, in order to improve the adhesive strength between the inner and outer glass layers.
Examiner notes that the above combination results in the positioning of the outer glass in contact with the polymeric seal, wherein the polymeric seal is disposed between and in contact with the inner and outer glass layers.
Regarding claim 18
With regards to the limitation “wherein the module exhibits no failures at the polymeric seal or first glass frit after 1200 hours of exposure at 85°C and 85% relative humidity according to the IEC 61215 Damp Heat Test”, because the structure discloses in modified Watts is identical to the one claimed, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19
Modified Watts teaches the module as set forth above, wherein the first glass frit (104) is inboard of the polymeric seal (140) [Watts, Fig. 3a; ZU, Fig. 1, see glass frit 130 and sealant 140].
Regarding claim 20
Modified Watts teaches the module as set forth above, further comprising:
applying a vacuum to the module at a pressure of less than 0.4 mbar (less than 760 torr) for more than 30 seconds (15-30 minutes) [Watts, para. 0003; ZU, para. 0080], the applying conducted after the positioning and before the irradiating (prior to sealing the enclosed volume using laser-assisted glass frit bonding, locating the plurality of photovoltaic devices on one of the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet and then laminating the photovoltaic module in order to bond the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet together using at least one layer of an encapsulant material) [Watts, para. 0028].
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts in view of ZU, as applied to claims 1-6 and 8 above, and further in view of US 20140323286 A1, Aitken et al.
Regarding claim 7
Regarding the polymeric seal exhibiting a CTE of 50 to 200 ppm/°C, because the polymeric seal is identical to the one claimed (see instant claim 6, epoxy resin; see also ZU, para. 0008), the claimed properties or functions are presumed inherent.
The court has held that products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Modified Watts does not teach each of the glass layers exhibits a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of less than 10 ppm/°C and the polymeric seal exhibits
Aitken teaches glass compositions suitable of photovoltaic modules, the glass comprising a of less than 10 ppm/°C (greater than 6 ppm/°C) [paras. 0003 and 0008], wherein a glass having such a CTE allow for high temperature processing and are designed to maintain manufacturability by keeping the melting temperatures reasonable [para. 0083].
Modified Watts and Aitken are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified each of the glass layers in modified Watts to comprise a CTW of less than 10 ppm/°C, as in Aitken, for the purpose of mitigating thermal expansion mismatch with the PV layer and to allow the use of thinner substrates and/or higher processing temperatures [Aitken, paras. 0003, 0008, 0082-0083].
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts in view of ZU and KR 20100005555 A, Bae et al.* (hereinafter “Bae”).
*Cited in IDS.
Regarding claim 9
Watts teaches a photovoltaic module (100) [Fig. 3b and para. 0066], comprising:
an outer glass layer (corresponding to first glass sheet 102) [Fig. 3a and para. 0066];
an inner glass layer (corresponding to second glass sheet 103) [Fig. 3a and para. 0066];
one or more photovoltaic (PV) structures (corresponding to photovoltaic devices 101) disposed on the outer glass layer (102), inner glass layer (103) or between the layers [Fig. 3a and para. 0066];
a first glass frit (corresponding to compact/bulk glass 104 formed from a glass frit) disposed between and in contact with the inner and outer glass layers (102 and 103) [Fig. 3a, paras. 0011, 0017 and 0066], wherein a seal width of the first glass frit (104) is at least about 100 µm (less than 5 mm, preferably 1 mm to 3 mm) [para. 0069].
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].
PNG
media_image1.png
202
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3a
Watts does not teach a polymeric seal disposed between and in contact with the inner and outer glass layers.
ZU teaches a device (LED 100) comprising a glass frit (!30) disposed between and in contact with inner and outer glass layers (150 and 110) [Fig. 1, paras. 0073-0074], wherein a polymeric seal (corresponding to sealant 140 comprising a polymeric material) is disposed between and in contact with the inner and outer glass layers (150 and 110) [Fig. 1, paras. 0008 and 0074]. Said polymeric seal (140) improves the adhesive strength between the inner and outer glass layers (150 and 110) [para. 0074].
Watts and ZU are analogous inventions in the field of double glass devices, sealed with a glass frit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the photovoltaic module of Watts to comprise a polymeric seal disposed between and in contact with the inner and outer glass layers, as disclosed in ZU, in order to improve the adhesive strength between the inner and outer glass layers.
With regards to the limitation “further wherein the module exhibits no failures at the polymeric seal or first glass frit after 1200 hours of exposure at 85°C and 85% relative humidity according to the IEC 61215 Damp Heat Test”, because the structure discloses in modified Watts is identical to the one claimed, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Modified Watts does not teach a second glass frit disposed between and in contact with the inner and outer glass layers.
Bae teaches a photovoltaic module comprising a first glass frit (corresponding to inner recessed or convex part of glass frit 60), a second glass frit (corresponding to outer recessed or convex part of glass frit 60) and a polymeric seal (corresponding to insulation separator or encapsulant 50) [Fig. 4, Page 4, paras. 4-6 and Page 5], the first and second glass frits (recessed or convex parts 60) disposed between and in contact with inner and outer glass layers (10a and 10b) of the photovoltaic module [Fig. 4, Pages 4-5]. The combination of the first and second glass frits (60) increasing the contact area of the edge seal (50) thereby improving the durability of the photovoltaic cell [Page 3].
Modified Watts and Bae are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the photovoltaic module of modified Watts to comprise a second glass frit disposed between and in contact with the inner and outer glass layers, as in Bae, for the purpose of improving the durability of the module.
Regarding claim 10
Modified Watts teaches the module as set forth above, wherein the first glass frit (104/60) is inboard of the polymeric seal (140) [Watts, Fig. 3a; ZU, Fig. 1, see glass frit 130 and sealant 140; Bae, Fig. 4;].
Regarding claim 11
Modified Watts teaches the module as set forth above, wherein the second glass frit (60) is outboard of the polymeric seal (see Fig. 4 of Bae, outer recessed or convex part 60).
Regarding claim 12
Modified Watts teaches the module as set forth above, wherein the first glass frit (104/60), the second glass frit (60) and the polymeric seal (140) define a gap (distance) between the inner and outer glass layers (103 and 102) (see Fig. 1 and para. 0015 of ZU wherein a gap is defined; see also Watts. Fig. 3a and Bae, Fig. 4).
Modified Watts does not disclose the gap being from about 1 to 20 µm.
However, modified Watts discloses that the gap (distance) can be optimize in order to accommodate the desired photovoltaic device thickness depth [Watts, paras. 0066 and 0074].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the gap between the inner and outer glass layers (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to accommodate the desired photovoltaic device thickness depth. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 13
Modified Watts teaches the module as set forth above, wherein a portion of the first glass frit (104 and/or inner recessed or convex port 60) and a portion of the second glass frit (outer recessed or convex part 60) is in contact with the inner and outer glass layers (103 and 102) [Watts, Fig. 3b and para. 0066; Bae, Fig. 4], each of the portions having an average bond width that is at least 90% of the seal width of the first and second glass frits (the wall of compact/bulk glass 104 has a width of less than 5mm, provides a hermetic seal and bonds the glass sheets 102 and 103. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the bond to width to be at least 90% of the seal width of the first glass frit 104 for the purpose of providing a hermetic seal and to bond the opposing glass sheets) [Watts, Fig. 3a and para. 0067; Bae, Fig. 4].
Regarding claim 14
Modified Watts teaches the module as set forth above, wherein the seal width of the first glass frit (104) and second glass frit is at least about 600 µm (e.g., between 1 mm and 3 mm provides a hermetic seal thereby reducing the risk of moisture ingress through the edge sealant while also maximizing the surface area available within the module) [Watts, para. 0069].
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 Watts teaches the module as set forth above, wherein the polymeric seal (140) comprises one or more adhesives selected from the group consisting of silicone, epoxy, thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO), polyolefin (PO), polyvinyl butyral (PVB), and ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) adhesives (see para. 0008 of ZU wherein the polymeric seal comprises a sealant such as an epoxy resin).
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts in view of ZU and Bae, as applied to claims 9-15 above, and further in view of US 2014/0323286 A1, Aitken et al.
Regarding claim 16
Regarding the polymeric seal exhibiting a CTE of 50 to 200 ppm/°C, because the polymeric seal is identical to the one claimed (see instant claim 6, epoxy resin; see also ZU, para. 0008), the claimed properties or functions are presumed inherent.
The court has held that products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Modified Watts does not teach each of the glass layers exhibits a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of less than 10 ppm/°C and the polymeric seal exhibits
Aitken teaches glass compositions suitable of photovoltaic modules, the glass comprising a of less than 10 ppm/°C (greater than 6 ppm/°C) [paras. 0003 and 0008], wherein a glass having such a CTE allow for high temperature processing and are designed to maintain manufacturability by keeping the melting temperatures reasonable [para. 0083].
Modified Watts and Aitken are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified each of the glass layers in modified Watts to comprise a CTW of less than 10 ppm/°C, as in Aitken, for the purpose of mitigating thermal expansion mismatch with the PV layer and to allow the use of thinner substrates and/or higher processing temperatures [Aitken, paras. 0003, 0008, 0082-0083].
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 at (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
Prosecution Insights