www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/249,000
`
`01/16/2019
`
`Tasuku Ishiguro
`
`P161190US01
`
`5462
`
`WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
`8500 LEESBURG PIKE
`SUITE 7500
`TYSONS, VA 22182
`
`BERNIER, LINDSEY A
`
`ART UNIT
`1726
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/11/2020
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`patentmail @ whda.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/249 000
`Ishiguro etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`LINDSEY A BERNIER
`1726
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 4/28/2020.
`LC} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)l¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\(Z Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-6 and 8-11 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CC) Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-11 is/are rejected.
`OO Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`C) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)) accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)0) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)X None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)L) All
`1... Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) ([] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20200504
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/249,000
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103)is incorrect, any
`
`correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousnessrejections setforth 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 beforethe 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.
`
`4.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/249,000
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 3
`
`4. Considering objective evidence presentin the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`5.
`
`This application currently namesjoint inventors. In considering patentability of the
`
`claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was
`
`commonly ownedasofthe effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any
`
`evidenceto 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
`
`ownedas ofthe effectivefiling 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.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Kardauskas (US 5,994,641) in view of Zhang etal. (US
`
`2013/0139868, on IDS) in further view of Morganet al. (US 2014/0319377).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Kardauskas discloses a solar cell module in Figures 3-5
`
`comprising:
`
`a solar cell (4) (column 5 lines 34-35);
`
`a first protection member (cover member 10) provided on a light receiving
`
`surface side of the solar cell (column 5 line 65-column 6 line 6);
`
`a second protection member (back protector sheet 6) (column 5 lines 45-51)
`
`provided on a rear surface side of the solar cell (Figure 5);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/249,000
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 4
`
`an encapsulantlayer (14) that includes a first encapsulant layer (front
`
`encapsulant layer) disposed between the solarcell (4) and the first protection member
`
`(10), and a second encapsulant layer (back encapsulant layer) disposed between the
`
`solar cell (4) and the second protection member (6), and seals the solar cell (column 6
`
`lines 7-28).
`
`Kardauskas does not disclose a wavelength conversion substancethatis
`
`contained in at least the first encapsulant layer, wherein concentration of the
`
`wavelength conversion substancein the first encapsulant layer is higher than
`
`concentration of the wavelength conversion substance in the second encapsulant layer.
`
`Zhang discloses a solar cell module in Figure 6 and [117] comprising:
`
`a solar cell (100);
`
`a first protection member (103 on front) provided onalight receiving surface side
`
`of the solar cell (100);
`
`a second protection member (103 on rear) provided on a rear surface side of the
`
`solar cell (100);
`
`an encapsulantlayer (105 and 101) that includesafirst encapsulant layer (101)
`
`(see polymer matrix for wavelength conversion material discussed in [117]) disposed
`
`between the solarcell (100) and the first protection member (103 on front), and a
`
`second encapsulant layer (105 on rear of cells) disposed between the solar cell (100)
`
`and the second protection member (103 on rear), and that seals the solarcell ([117]);
`
`and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/249,000
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 5
`
`a wavelength conversion substance (chromophore 102) that is containedin at
`
`least the first encapsulant layer (101) of the encapsulant layers ([117] and [30]), and
`
`that absorbslight having a specified wavelength, and converts the wavelength ([30]),
`
`wherein concentration of the wavelength conversion substance (chromophore
`
`102) in the first encapsulant layer (101) is higher than concentration of the wavelength
`
`conversion substance in the second encapsulant layer (105 on rear) (No wavelength
`
`conversion substance in second encapsulant layer, see Figure 6).
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention to add a wavelength conversion substanceto the first encapsulant layer of
`
`Kardauskas, such that concentration of the wavelength conversion substancein the first
`
`encapsulant layer is higher than concentration of the wavelength conversion substance
`
`in the second encapsulant layer, as taught by Zhang, because the wavelength
`
`conversion substance improves the light absorption of the cells and the efficiency of the
`
`module (Zhang, [24], [26] and [31]).
`
`Kardauskasfurther discloses a diffusion inhibiting layer (24) constituted from a
`
`material having a smaller diffusion coefficient of the wavelength conversion substance
`
`than the diffusion coefficient of resin constituting the first encapsulant layer is provided
`
`between the first encapsulant layer and the second encapsulant layer (Figures 3-5 and
`
`column 6 lines 49-66. The diffusion inhibiting layer is a metal which can be aluminum or
`
`silver, column 7 lines 47-64, and the encapsulant layer is EVA, column 6 lines 7-12. The
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/249,000
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 6
`
`aluminum or silver material necessarily has a smaller diffusion coefficient of the
`
`wavelength conversion substance than the EVA material.).
`
`Modified Kardauskas does notdisclose that the concentration of the wavelength
`
`conversion substanceinafirst region of the first encapsulant layer closer to the first
`
`protection member is higher than in a second region ofthe first encapsulant layer closer
`
`to the solar cell.
`
`Morgan discloses a luminescent photovoltaic solar concentrator in Figure 2
`
`comprising a wavelength conversion substance (luminescentdye) in a first encapsulant
`
`layer (124) wherein the concentration of the wavelength conversion substanceinafirst
`
`region of the first encapsulant layer (124) closer to the light source (126) is higher than
`
`in a second region of the first encapsulant layer closer to the solar cell (128, [105])
`
`([97]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention to modify the device of modified Kardauskas suchthat the concentration of
`
`the wavelength conversion substancein a first region of the first encapsulant layer
`
`closer to the first protection member is higher than in a second region ofthe first
`
`encapsulant layer closer to the solar cell, as taught by Morgan, because such a
`
`configuration allowsfor efficient wavelength conversion of incidentlight and efficient
`
`solarcell light absorption.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/249,000
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 7
`
`Modified Kardauskas acklltionaily discloses that the first protection layer (cover
`
`member 10) (Kardauskas, column 5 line 65-column 6 line 6); 4 first region (region
`
`closest to light source which is top of first encapsulant layer} in the first encapsulant
`
`layer in which a concentration of the wavelength conversion substance is high, a
`
`second region (region closest ta solar cell which is bottom of first encapsulant layer} in
`
`the first encapsulant layer in which the conceritration of the wavelength conversion
`
`substance is lower than that in the first region, and the solar cell (43 are layered in this
`
`order (Kardauskas, Figure 5, as modified by Zhang and Morgan).
`
`Regarding claim 2, modified Kardauskasdiscloses all of the claim limitations as
`
`set forth above. Kardauskas additionally discloses that the material constituting the
`
`diffusion inhibiting layer has a higher storage elastic modulus at 25°C to 90°C than that
`
`of the resin constituting the first encapsulant layer (The diffusion inhibiting layer is a
`
`metal which can be aluminum or silver, column 7 lines 47-64, and the encapsulant layer
`
`is EVA, column 6 lines 7-12. The aluminum or silver material necessarily has a higher
`
`storage elastic modulus at 25°C to 90°C than the EVA material.).
`
`Regarding claim 3, modified Kardauskasdiscloses all of the claim limitations as
`
`set forth above. Kardauskas additionally discloses that the material constituting the
`
`diffusion inhibiting layer has a smaller intermolecular void size at 25°C to 90°C than that
`
`of the resin constituting the first encapsulant layer (The diffusion inhibiting layer is a
`
`metal which can be aluminum or silver, column 7 lines 47-64, and the encapsulant layer
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/249,000
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 8
`
`is EVA, column 6 lines 7-12. The aluminum or silver material necessarily has a smaller
`
`intermolecular void size at 25°C to 90°C than the EVA material.).
`
`Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Kardauskas discloses all of the claim
`
`limitations as set forth above. Zhang additionally discloses that the wavelength
`
`conversion substance is a luminescent metal complex ([32], see dyes with rare earth
`
`materials which are luminescent metal complexes) and that the wavelength conversion
`
`substanceis a fluorescence dye([30]).
`
`Regarding claim 8, modified Kardauskasdiscloses all of the claim limitations as
`
`set forth above. Kardauskas additionally discloses that a front surface side of the
`
`diffusion inhibiting layer has a concave-convex pattern arranged in a width direction of
`
`the diffusion inhibiting layer, and the front surface side faces the first encapsulant layer
`
`(Figures 3-5 and column 6 lines 49-66).
`
`Regarding claim 9, modified Kardauskasdiscloses all of the claim limitations as
`
`set forth above. Kardauskas additionally discloses that the diffusion inhibiting layer
`
`comprises a metal layer (24) at a front surface side of the diffusion inhibiting layer
`
`(Figures 3-5 and column 4 lines 11-53 and column 6 lines 49-66), and the front surface
`
`side faces the first encapsulant layer (Figures 3-5 and column6lines 49-66).
`
`Regarding claim 10, modified Kardauskas discloses all of the claim limitations as
`
`set forth above. Kardauskas additionally discloses that a resin layer (22) of the diffusion
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/249,000
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 9
`
`inhibiting layer is arranged between the metallayer (24) and the solar cell (4), and the
`
`metal layer (24) and the solar cell (4) are insulated from each other (Figures 3-5,
`
`column 6 lines 49-66, column7lines 34-45 and column 9 lines 18-48).
`
`Regarding claim 11, modified Kardauskasdiscloses all of the claim limitations as
`
`set forth above. Kardauskas additionally discloses that the diffusion inhibiting layer
`
`comprising an inorganic compound layer at the front surface side of the diffusion
`
`inhibiting layer (column 11 lines 9-17, the reflective coating can be a dielectric stack
`
`including inorganic compound layers).
`
`7.
`
`Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kardauskas
`
`(US 5,994,641) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2013/0139868, on IDS) and Morganetal.
`
`(US 2014/0319377), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Bourke, Jr. et al. (US
`
`2011/0126889).
`
`Regarding claim 4, modified Kardauskasdiscloses all of the claim limitations
`
`thereof. Zhang additionally discloses that the wavelength conversion substance can be
`
`a luminescent metal complex ([82], see dyes with rare earth materials which are
`
`luminescent metal complexes) and a fluorescence dye ([30]), but modified Kardauskas
`
`does notdisclose that the wavelength conversion substance is an inorganic
`
`semiconductor nanoparticle.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/249,000
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 10
`
`Bourke teaches that inorganic semiconductor nanoparticles are alternative
`
`equivalent wavelength conversion substances to luminescent metal complexes and
`
`fluorescent dyes in photovoltaic devices ([61]-[70)]).
`
`Since Bourke recognizes the equivalency of luminescent metal complexes,
`
`fluorescent dyes and inorganic semiconductor nanoparticles as wavelength conversion
`
`substances in photovoltaic devices as discussed above, it would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention wasfiled to replace the
`
`luminescent metal complex and fluorescent dye of modified Kardauskas with an
`
`inorganic semiconductor nanoparticle, as taught by Bourke, since it is merely the
`
`selection of functionally equivalent wavelength conversion substances recognizedin the
`
`art and one ofordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success
`
`in doing so. A substitution of known equivalent materials is generally recognized as
`
`being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Responseto Arguments
`
`8.
`
`Applicant's argumentsfiled 4/28/2020 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive.
`
`Applicant argues that the cornbinaticn of Kardauskas, Zhang and Morgan does
`
`not result in the claimed limitations that the first protection layer, a first region in the first
`
`encapsulani layer in which a concertration of the wavelength coriversion substance is
`
`nigh, a second region in the first encapsulant layer in which the concentration of the
`
`wavelength conversion substance is lower than that in the first region, and the solar cell
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/249,000
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 11
`
`are layered in this order. Applicant arques that in the encapsulant of Morgan a layer
`
`conigining a larger amount of the wavelength conversion substance is provided on a
`
`surface on the left side. In this configuration, ihe light source 126 is below the
`
`encapsulant 124 and the cell 128 is above the encapsulant 124. See also paragraphs
`
`[O095] to [00981 of Margan.
`
`Applicant argues that claim 1 requires a high-concentratian layer having a high
`
`concentration of the wavelength conversion substance is provided belween the first
`
`protection member and the cell which is not disclosed in the prior art. Applicant further
`
`argues thal there is no rahonale based on the cited references and/or the general skill in
`
`the art prompting the skilled ariisan io madify Kardauskas so as to incorporate al least
`
`this missing aspect.
`
`Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, in response to applicant's arguments
`
`against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousnessby 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). In this case, Kardauskas disclosesa first
`
`protection layer (cover member 10), a first encapsulant layer Gront encapsulant layer
`
`14), and a solar cell (4) layered in thal order (Figure 8). Zhang disciases a first
`
`grotection layer (103 on front, a first encansulant layer (107) cormnprising a wavelengih
`
`conversion suostance (102) and 4 solar cell (100) layered in that arder (Figure 6 and
`
`17D.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/249,000
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 12
`
`Morgan discloses a luminescent photovoltaic solar concentrator in Figure 2
`
`comprising a wavelength conversion substance (luminescent dye) in a first encapsulant
`
`layer (124) wherein the concentration of the wavelength conversion substanceinafirst
`
`region of the first encapsulant layer (124) closer to the light source (126) is higher than
`
`in a second region of the first encapsulant layer closer to the solar cell (128, [105])
`
`([97]).
`
`Morgan additionally discloses in [97] that “The light-transmissive material of the
`
`luminescent layer 124 has a luminescent dye (containing luminescentparticles 130)
`
`impregnated, evenly or unevenly, throughout the layer 124. Exemplary uneven
`
`distributions of luminescent particles in a layer include a distribution with a concentration
`
`gradient, for example, a gradient with the concentration of luminescent particles
`
`increasing (or decreasing) from the end nearthe light source 126 towards the end near
`
`the exit surface 106. Alternately, or additionally, the concentration gradient of
`
`luminescent particles in the luminescent layer 124 can also vary in a direction
`
`perpendicularto the first surface 107.”
`
`Morgan teaches a concentration gradient of a wavelength conversion substance
`
`that is higher near a light source than near the solar cell and also teaches a
`
`concentration gradient of a wavelength conversion substancethat can vary in a
`
`direction perpendicular to the top surface (107) of the encapsulant layer which receives
`
`incident sunlight (116) (Figure 2).
`
`Based on the teachings of Morgan, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the invention wasfiled would have found it obvious to modify the concentration of the
`
`wavelength conversion substance in the first encapsulant layer of modified Kardauskas
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/249,000
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 13
`
`such thal the concentration is higher near the light source (op surface of firsi
`
`encapsulant layer in modifiect Kardauskas} than near the solar cell (rear surface of first
`
`encapsulant layer in modified Kardauskas} which would result in the claimed order of
`
`“the first protection layer, a first region in the first encapsulant layer in which a
`
`concentration of the wavelengih canversion substance is high, a secorid region in the
`
`first encapsulant layer in which the concentration of the wavelength conversion
`
`substance is lower than that in the first region, and the solar cell are layered in this
`
`order’,
`
`As discussed in MPEP 2141.03: “A person of ordinary skill in the artis also a
`
`person of ordinary creativity, nol an automaton.” ASA inf! Co. v. Teleflex inc., 550 US.
`
`398, 421, 82 USPO2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "Tn many cases a person of ardinary skill will
`
`be able to fit the teachings of muliiole patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Jd) at
`
`420, G2 USFOed 1397. Office personne! may alsa lake into account “the inferences and
`
`creative steps that a person of orcinary skill in the art would employ.” /o. at 418, 82
`
`USPO2d at 1396,
`
`Morgan does not need to explicitly teach the order ofthe first protection layer,
`
`first encapsulant layer caniaining the wavelerigih canversion substance and the solar
`
`ced since this order is already disclosed by Kardauskas and Zhang.
`
`Conclusion
`
`9.
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presentedin
`
`this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/249,000
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 14
`
`§ 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
`
`CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortenedstatutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the eventafirst replyis 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 shortenedstatutory period, then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee 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 date of this final action.
`
`10.=Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to LINDSEY A BERNIER whosetelephone number is
`
`(571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 12-10
`
`pm.
`
`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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Jeffrey Barton can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/249,000
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 15
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-
`
`my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on accessto the Private
`
`PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
`
`If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access
`
`to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or 571-
`
`272-1000.
`
`/LINDSEY A BERNIER/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
`
`