DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 19/479,830, filed 10/29/2025, which is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2025/091866, filed 4/28/2025, which claims priority to Chinese applications CN202410772492.X, filed 6/14/2024 and CN202410772306.2, filed 6/14/2024.
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending; 1-9 and 11-20 are considered herein.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, Claims 1-9 and 11-20 in the reply filed on 5/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0020740 A1: This reference teaches an interdigitated back contact solar cell with doped regions comprising intrinsic intermediate layers (Fig. 2).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0056545 A1: This reference teaches an interdigitated back contact solar cell with electrodes having wider top regions and narrower contact regions (Fig. 2).
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-5, 11, 13-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahama, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0210187 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Takahama teaches a back contact cell (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0029]-[0046]).
The back contact solar cell comprises a silicon substrate 10 (paragraph [0031]), wherein the silicon substrate 10 comprises a front surface and a back surface (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2 teaches that first regions W4 and second regions W2 are sequentially and alternately disposed on the back surface.
Fig. 2 teaches that the device comprises a first semiconductor layer 12 disposed on each of the first regions W4 (paragraph [0029]).
Fig. 2 teaches that the device comprises a second semiconductor layer 13 disposed on each of the second regions W2 (paragraph [0029]).
Fig. 2 teaches that the first semiconductor layer 12 is connected to a first transparent electrode pattern 14 (paragraph [0046]).
Fig. 2 teaches that the second semiconductor layer 13 is connected to a second transparent electrode pattern 15 (paragraph [0046]).
Fig. 2 teaches that the first transparent electrode pattern 14 and the second transparent electrode pattern 15 are isolated by a first gap W5.
Fig. 2 teaches that a thickness of an edge of the first transparent electrode pattern 14 close to the first gap is less than a thickness of a middle region of the first transparent electrode pattern 14, and a thickness of an edge of the second transparent electrode pattern 15 close to the first gap is less than a thickness of a middle region of the second transparent electrode pattern 15.
In reference to Claim 2, Takahama teaches that the second semiconductor layer 13 extends from a second region W2 toward a first region W4 (Fig. 2).
The inset below teaches that the second semiconductor layer 13 comprises a climbing portion and a covering portion, wherein the covering portion covers a portion of the first semiconductor layer 12, such that the first semiconductor layer 12 comprises a bare first semiconductor region (i.e. the region corresponding to W4) and a covered first semiconductor region (corresponding to the portion covered by the “covering portion” in the inset below).
The inset below teaches that the second transparent electrode pattern 15 is disposed on the second semiconductor layer 13 above an orthographic projection of the second region W2.
The inset below teaches that the first transparent electrode pattern 14 is disposed on the entire bare first semiconductor region and on a portion of the covering portion in a direction perpendicular to a direction extending from the first region toward the second region.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 3, Takahama teaches that the first transparent electrode pattern 14 comprises a first middle region and a first peripheral region surrounding the first middle region (shown in the inset below).
The inset below teaches that a thickness of the first peripheral region is less than an average thickness of the first middle region.
The inset below teaches that the second transparent electrode pattern 15 comprises a second middle region and a second peripheral region surrounding the second middle region.
The inset below teaches that a thickness of the second peripheral region is less than an average thickness of the second middle region.
PNG
media_image2.png
547
825
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 4, the inset below teaches that the first transparent electrode pattern 14 comprises a first middle region and a first peripheral region surrounding the first middle region.
The inset below teaches that, in a cross-section of the back contact cell, a thickness of the first peripheral region at a cross-section of the back contact cell gradually increases along in a direction away from an edge of the first peripheral region.
The inset below teaches that the second transparent electrode pattern 15 comprises a second middle region and a second peripheral region surrounding the second middle region.
The inset below teaches that, in a cross-section of the back contact cell, a thickness of the second peripheral region at the cross-section of the back contact cell gradually increases along in a direction away from an edge of the second peripheral region.
PNG
media_image2.png
547
825
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 5, the inset below teaches that a first thickness-reduced region is disposed in a first peripheral region of the first transparent electrode pattern close to the first gap, and wherein a thickness of the first thickness-reduced region gradually decreases from the middle region of the first transparent electrode pattern 14 to an outer boundary of the first transparent electrode pattern 14.
The inset below teaches that a second thickness-reduced region is disposed in a second peripheral region of the second transparent electrode pattern 15 close to the first gap, and wherein a thickness of the second thickness-reduced region gradually decreases from the middle region of the second transparent electrode pattern to an outer boundary of the second transparent electrode pattern.
PNG
media_image3.png
616
966
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 11, the inset below teaches that a vertical distance between a surface of the covering portion facing away from the silicon substrate and a position on the silicon substrate is greater than a vertical distance between a surface of the second transparent electrode pattern facing away from the silicon substrate and the position on the silicon substrate.
It is noted that both the top and bottom surfaces of each of the covering portion and the second transparent electrode pattern “face away” (i.e. have portions parallel to) the silicon substrate.
PNG
media_image4.png
635
966
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 13, Takahama teaches that a textured surface is disposed on the front surface of the silicon substrate (paragraph [0048]).
Takahama teaches that an intrinsic amorphous silicon layer 17i is disposed on the textured surface (paragraph [0049]).
In reference to Claim 14, Takahama teaches that an anti- reflection layer 16 is disposed on a surface of the intrinsic amorphous silicon layer 17i facing away from the silicon substrate (paragraph [0051]).
In reference to Claim 16, Takahama teaches that the first transparent electrode pattern 14 is close to an edge of the first gap and the second electrode pattern 15 is close to an edge of the first gap (Fig. 2).
Takahama teaches that the edge of the first transparent electrode pattern has a wavy shape (i.e. a shape with regular protrusions, Fig. 1) in a direction perpendicular to a direction extending from a first region toward a second region, and that the edge of the second transparent electrode pattern has the wavy shape (i.e. a shape with regular protrusions, Fig. 1) in the direction perpendicular to the direction extending from the first region toward the second region.
In reference to Claim 17, Takahama teaches that an edge of the first transparent electrode pattern 14 disposed on the portion of the covering portion has a wavy shape (i.e. a shape with regular protrusions, Fig. 1) in the direction perpendicular to the direction extending from the first region toward the second region (Fig. 1).
In reference to Claim 20, Fig. 2 teaches that the edges of the first transparent electrode pattern 14 taper.
Therefore, Takahama teaches that a thickness- reduced region is disposed at a side of the first transparent electrode pattern close to the first gap.
Takahama further teaches that widths of the electrodes (given by W1 and W2 in Fig. 2) are 100 microns-1.5 mm (paragraph [0038]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the 10-50 micron thick portion of the first transparent electrode 14 nearest the gap meets the limitations of Claim 20, wherein a width of the thickness-reduced region ranges from 10 micron to 50 micron, and a thickness of an edge of the thickness-reduced region close to the first gap ranges from 45 nm to 65 nm. Specifically, because the first electrode pattern is shown to taper to a thickness of 0, it is the Examiner’s position that a portion of the electrode has a thickness of 45 nm to 65 nm near the edge of the first electrode pattern.
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 6-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahama, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0210187 A1).
In reference to Claim 6, the inset below teaches that the second transparent electrode pattern 15 is disposed on a portion of the second semiconductor layer 13 above the orthographic projection of the second region W2.
The inset below teaches that a second gap W5 is formed at a cross-section of the back contact cell and between the edge of the second transparent electrode pattern 15 and the climbing portion (i.e. having a surface extending along the edge of the second transparent electrode pattern 15 and the climbing portion). It is noted that multiple gaps W5 are present in the solar cell.
Takahama teaches that the width W1 is 100 microns-1.5 mm (paragraph [0038]), that the width W3 is 1/3 of the width W1 (paragraph [0040]), and that the width W5 is 1/3 of the width W3 (paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, Takahama teaches that the width W5 is 11-167 microns (i.e. 1/9 of 100-1500 microns).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 6, wherein a width of the second gap ranges from 10 micrometers to 80 micrometers.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, the claimed range of 10-80 microns overlaps with the taught range of 11-167 microns.
PNG
media_image5.png
518
702
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 7, the inset below teaches that a third gap (having width W5) is formed between the edge of the first transparent electrode pattern 14 and the climbing portion.
Takahama teaches that the width W1 is 100 microns-1.5 mm (paragraph [0038]), that the width W3 is 1/3 of the width W1 (paragraph [0040]), and that the width W5 is 1/3 of the width W3 (paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, Takahama teaches that the width W5 is 11-167 microns (i.e. 1/9 of 100-1500 microns).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein a width of the third gap ranges from 40 micrometers to 80 micrometers.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, the claimed range of 40-80 microns lies within the taught range of 11-167 microns.
PNG
media_image6.png
605
1014
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 8, as described above, the second and third gaps are both taught to have width W5 (paragraphs [0038], [0040] and [0045]).
Therefore, Takahama teaches that a ratio of the width of the third gap to the width of the second gap ranges from 1:1 to 3:1, i.e. is 1:1.
In reference to Claim 9, Takahama teaches that a width of the covering portion corresponds to the difference of the widths W3 and W5 (per the inset under the rejection of Claim 2 above).
Takahama teaches that the width W1 is 100 microns-1.5 mm (paragraph [0038]), that the width W3 is 1/3 of the width W1 (paragraph [0040]), and that the width W5 is 1/3 of the width W3 (paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, Takahama teaches that a width of the covering portion is W3 – W5 = W3 – 1/3*W3 = 2/3*W3, or 22 microns-333 microns.
Therefore, this disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 9, wherein a width of the covering portion ranges from 60 micrometers to 80 micrometers.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, the claimed range of 60-80 microns lies within the taught range of 22-333 microns.
In reference to Claim 12, Takahama does not teach that the first or second semiconductor layers necessarily have the structures recited in Claim 12.
However, he teaches that a layer of intrinsic silicon having a thickness of “several” to 250 Å may suitably be disposed between the silicon substrate and each of the doped silicon regions 12 and 13 (paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have disposed layers of intrinsic silicon having thicknesses of “several” to 250 Å between the silicon substrate and each of the doped silicon regions 12 and 13, based on Takahama’s disclosure that this is a suitable configuration for the device of his invention.
Disposing layers of intrinsic silicon having thicknesses of “several” to 250 Å between the silicon substrate and each of the doped silicon regions 12 and 13 teaches the limitations of Claim 12, wherein the first semiconductor layer 12 comprises a tunneling layer (corresponding to the thin layer of intrinsic silicon between the silicon substrate and layer 12) disposed on the silicon substrate, and an N-type doped polycrystalline silicon layer 12 disposed on a side of the tunneling layer facing away from the silicon substrate (paragraph [0033]).
It is noted that Takahama does not explicitly teach that the amorphous intrinsic silicon layer is a tunneling layer.
However, because he teaches that the layer can have a thickness that allows for quantum mechanical tunneling (i.e. several Å), it is the Examiner’s position that it encompasses layers that meet the limitation of a tunneling layer, and therefore teaches the limitation.
It is noted that Takahama teaches that the term “amorphous” as used in his specification includes microcrystalline (i.e. polycrystalline) materials (paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the disclosure of Takahama teaches the limitations of Claim 12, wherein the N-type layer 12 is polycrystalline.
Disposing layers of intrinsic silicon having thicknesses of “several” to 250 Å between the silicon substrate and each of the doped silicon regions 12 and 13 teaches the limitations of Claim 12, wherein the second semiconductor layer 13 comprises an intrinsic amorphous silicon layer (described above), and a P-type doped microcrystalline silicon layer (paragraph [0029]) is disposed on a side of the intrinsic amorphous silicon layer facing away from the silicon substrate.
It is noted that Takahama teaches that the term “amorphous” as used in his specification includes microcrystalline (i.e. polycrystalline) materials (paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the disclosure of Takahama teaches the limitations of Claim 12, wherein the P-type layer 13 is polycrystalline.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahama, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0210187 A1), in view of Park, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0101633 A1).
In reference to Claim 15, Takahama does not teach that the climbing portion is disposed obliquely relative to the back surface of the silicon substrate, as required by Claim 15.
To solve the same problem of providing a solar cell, Park teaches a solar cell in which all of the electrodes and active layers of the solar cell are textured to include portions with oblique angles, relative to the underlying substrate (Fig. 11, paragraphs [0126]-[0133])
Park further teaches that texturing all of the layers of the solar cell in this manner provides the benefit of increasing the reflection efficiency of solar light (paragraph [0127]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed all of the layers of the device of Takahama to be textured to include portions with oblique angles, relative to the substrate, based on Park’s disclosure that such texturing provides the benefit of increasing the reflection efficiency of solar light (paragraph [0127]).
Forming all of the layers of the device of Takahama to be textured to include portions with oblique angles, relative to the substrate teaches the limitations of Claim 15, wherein the climbing portion is disposed obliquely relative to the back surface, and wherein an inclination angle of the climbing portion relative to the back surface ranges from 5° to 80°.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahama, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0210187 A1), in view of Shin, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20120/103389 A1).
In reference to Claim 16, if it is found that Takahama does not anticipate the limitations of Claim 16, the following alternate rejection is presented.
Takahama teaches that the first transparent electrode pattern 14 is close to an edge of the first gap and the second electrode pattern 15 is close to an edge of the first gap (Fig. 2).
Takahama does not teach that the edge of the first transparent electrode pattern has a wavy shape in a direction perpendicular to a direction extending from a first region toward a second region, or that the edge of the second transparent electrode pattern has the wavy shape in the direction perpendicular to the direction extending from the first region toward the second region.
To solve the same problem of providing an interdigitated contact rear electrode structure for a solar cell, Shin teaches that interdigitated electrodes in which a boundary line between a first electrode type and a second electrode type is a curve (Fig. 10, paragraphs [0128]-[0129]).
Shin further teaches that forming interdigitated rear electrodes to have this curved shape provides the benefit of decreasing resistance of the electrodes and reducing the material required to form the electrodes, thus decreasing the cost of producing the solar cell (paragraph [0129]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the first and second electrode patterns of Takahama to have the curved shape shown in Fig. 10 of Shin, to achieve the taught benefit of decreasing the resistance of the electrodes and reducing the material required to form the electrodes, thus decreasing the cost of producing the resulting solar cell (paragraph [0129]).
Forming the first and second electrode patterns of Takahama to have the curved shape shown in Fig. 10 of Shin teaches the limitations of Claim 16, wherein the edge of the first transparent electrode pattern has a wavy shape in a direction perpendicular to a direction extending from a first region toward a second region, and the edge of the second transparent electrode pattern has the wavy shape in the direction perpendicular to the direction extending from the first region toward the second region.
In reference to Claim 17, if it is found that Takahama does not anticipate the limitations of Claim 17, the following alternate rejection is presented.
Takahama does not teach that an edge of the first transparent electrode pattern disposed on the portion of the covering portion has a wavy shape in the direction perpendicular to the direction extending from the first region toward the second region.
To solve the same problem of providing an interdigitated contact rear electrode structure for a solar cell, Shin teaches that interdigitated electrodes in which a boundary line between a first electrode type and a second electrode type is a curve (Fig. 10, paragraphs [0128]-[0129]).
Shin further teaches that forming interdigitated rear electrodes to have this curved shape provides the benefit of decreasing resistance of the electrodes and reducing the material required to form the electrodes, thus decreasing the cost of producing the solar cell (paragraph [0129]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the first and second electrode patterns of Takahama to have the curved shape shown in Fig. 10 of Shin, to achieve the taught benefit of decreasing the resistance of the electrodes and reducing the material required to form the electrodes, thus decreasing the cost of producing the resulting solar cell (paragraph [0129]).
Forming the first and second electrode patterns of Takahama to have the curved shape shown in Fig. 10 of Shin teaches the limitations of Claim 16, wherein an edge of the first transparent electrode pattern disposed on the portion of the covering portion has a wavy shape in the direction perpendicular to the direction extending from the first region toward the second region.
In reference to Claim 18, Takahama does not teach that a boundary line between a first region and a second region is a curve.
However, he teaches that the first and second regions are interdigitated, and that the first and second electrode patterns 14 and 15 are also interdigitated (Fig. 1).
To solve the same problem of providing an interdigitated contact rear electrode structure for a solar cell, Shin teaches that interdigitated electrodes in which a boundary line between a first electrode type and a second electrode type is a curve (Fig. 10, paragraphs [0128]-[0129]).
Shin further teaches that forming interdigitated rear electrodes to have this curved shape provides the benefit of decreasing resistance of the electrodes and reducing the material required to form the electrodes, thus decreasing the cost of producing the solar cell (paragraph [0129]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the first and second electrode patterns of Takahama to have the curved shape shown in Fig. 10 of Shin, to achieve the taught benefit of decreasing the resistance of the electrodes and reducing the material required to form the electrodes, thus decreasing the cost of producing the resulting solar cell (paragraph [0129]).
Forming the first and second electrode patterns of Takahama to have the curved shape shown in Fig. 10 of Shin teaches the limitations of Claim 18, wherein a boundary line between a first region and a second region is a curve.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahama, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0210187 A1), in view of Park, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0101633 A1), and further view of Carlson, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0084009 A1).
In reference to Claim 19, Takahama teaches that the first semiconductor layer and the silicon substrate that are adjacent define a first groove, indicated in the inset below.
The inset below further teaches that the second region W2 is a “groove region,” because it is disposed in the “groove” between adjacent regions 12.
Takahama does not teach that the bottom of the groove region is textured.
To solve the same problem of providing a solar cell, Park teaches a solar cell in which all of the electrodes and active layers of the solar cell are textured (Fig. 11, paragraphs [0126]-[0133])
Park further teaches that texturing all of the layers of the solar cell in this manner provides the benefit of increasing the reflection efficiency of solar light (paragraph [0127]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed all of the layers of the device of Takahama to be textured, based on Park’s disclosure that such texturing provides the benefit of increasing the reflection efficiency of solar light (paragraph [0127]).
Forming all of the layers of the device of Takahama to be textured teaches the limitations of Claim 19, wherein the bottom of the groove region is textured.
Modified Takahama does not teach that the valley portion of a bottom textured surface of a bottom of the groove region is provided with transparent conductive oxide (TCO) islands, and the TCO islands are away from the climbing portion and are isolated from the climbing portion.
To solve the same problem of providing an interdigitated back contact solar cell, Carlson teaches that interdigitated back contact electrodes may suitably be formed to have either a linear structure (as in Takahama) or a point structure (paragraph [0056]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the rear electrodes of modified Takahama to have a point contact structure, based on the disclosure of Carlson.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 19, wherein the valley portion of a bottom textured surface of a bottom of the groove region is provided with transparent conductive oxide (TCO) islands (i.e. point contacts), and the TCO islands are away from the climbing portion and are isolated from the climbing portion.
PNG
media_image7.png
548
702
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6am-2:30pm ET.
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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights