DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for application 17/926,228, filed 11/18/2022, which is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2021/062248, filed 5/10/2021, which claims priority to European application EP20176222.6, filed 5/25/2020, after the request for continued examination filed 7/1/2025.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are pending in the application; Claims 9-14 and 16 are withdrawn, and Claims 1-8 are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 1/23/2026, the rejections of record are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
Lin, et al. (Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry (2020) 140:2259-2265): This reference teaches a silane-modified polyethylene-octene layer comprising a low-density polyethylene.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0108128 A1), in view of Tsuzuki, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0000603 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Chu teaches a layer element (Fig. 6, paragraph [0082]).
The layer element of Chu comprises a layer (A), corresponding to the “ethylene copolymer” layer 62.
Chu does not teach that this layer is necessarily a polyethylene copolymer that bears silane groups and is a LDPE with a density of 920-960 kg/m3.
However, he teaches that one of several suitable examples for the polyethylene in his invention is a LDPE with a density of 0.922 g/cm3 (i.e. 920 kg/m3, shown in the text under Table 1, paragraph [0085]).
He further teaches that the polyolefin materials of his invention may comprise silanes (paragraph [0071]).
To solve the same problem of providing a polyethylene encapsulant material for a solar cell with a polypropylene backsheet, Tsuzuki teaches that polyethylene copolymers with densities in the range of 0.865-0.930 g/cm3 are most suitable, in order to balance mechanical strength and good graft polymerization abilities (paragraph [0220]).
Tsuzuki further teaches that polymerizing these polyethylenes with silanes at a level of 0.01-3 parts by weight provides the benefits of improved adhesion to an adjacent polypropylene layer (paragraphs [0216] and [0226]).
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 layer 62 of Chu to be a polyethylene-silane copolymer with a density of 0.865-0.930 g/cm3, based on Tsuzuki’s disclosure that such compositions provide good adhesion to polypropylene backsheets.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein layer (A) is a copolymer of ethylene that bears silane groups, and is an LDPE with a density of 920-960 kg/cm3.
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 920-960 kg/cm3 overlaps with the taught range of 0.865-0.930 g/cm3, or 865-930 kg/m3.
The layer element of Chu comprises a layer (B), corresponding to the “polypropylene” layer 64 (paragraph [0082]).
Chu does not teach that the polypropylene resin is necessarily any of the resins recited in Claim 1.
However, he teaches that the polypropylene resin of his invention comprise at least 90 mol% polypropylene and up to 10 mol% alpha-olefins with up to 8 carbon atoms (paragraph [0057]).
He further teaches that the polypropylene polymers may suitably be random copolymers (paragraph [0056]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein layer B comprises a polypropylene composition PP-B-a, of a random copolymer of propylene monomer units with alpha olefin monomer units selected from ethylene and alpha olefins having 4-12 carbon atoms, having an alpha olefin comonomer content of 0.5-15 wt.%.
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 “0.5-15 wt.%” overlaps with the taught range of up to 10 mol% of the alpha olefin content.
Chu does not teach that the polypropylene layer of his invention is necessarily transparent. However, he teaches that the backsheet material of his invention “need not be transparent” if the rear surface of the solar cell it encapsulates is not responsive as a light-receiving layer (paragraph [0078]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have instantly envisioned a configuration in which the back sheet is transparent, if the rear surface of the solar cell is responsive to light, based on the teachings of Chu.
Further, Chu teaches that the materials of his invention may have transparency of greater than 97% at a wavelength of 250-1200 nm, and that, if transparency is not required of an individual layer, it may contain pigment (paragraph [0075]).
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 polypropylene encapsulant layer of Chu to have a transparency greater than 97% at a wavelength of 250-1200 nm, and not to contain pigment, because Chu teaches that the layers of his invention may be suitably configured in this way.
Forming the rear polypropylene encapsulant layer of Chu to have a transparency greater than 97% at a wavelength of 250-1200 nm, and not to contain pigment, teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the polypropylene composition is free of pigment, and wherein layer (B) has a total luminous transmittance of at least 80%.
Although Chu does not explicitly teach that the transmittance is measured in the method required by Claim 1, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to have optimized the transparency of the film to its maximal possible value, including a value that meets the limitations of Claim 1, without undue experimentation, based on Chu’s disclosure.
In reference to Claim 4, Fig. 6 teaches that the layers (A) and (B) are in adherent contact with each other.
In reference to Claim 5, as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above, modified Chu teaches that the composition of his layer 62 (which corresponds to “layer A” of Claim 1) comprises a polyethylene-silane copolymer with a density of 0.865-0.930 g/cm3.
Modified Chu as applied to Claim 1 does not teach that the layer element of his invention necessarily has a structure that meets Claim 5.
To solve the same problem of providing a polyethylene encapsulant material for a solar cell with a polypropylene backsheet, Tsuzuki further teaches that suitable polyethylene copolymers for this purpose include ethylene-(hexane, butene, propylene, or octene)-olefin copolymers (paragraph [0218]).
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 layer 62 of Chu to be a polyethylene-(hexane, butene, propylene, or octene)-silane copolymer with a density of 0.865-0.930 g/cm3, based on Tsuzuki’s disclosure that these are suitable polyethylene-based copolymers for use as the “polyethylene” component of the backsheet of his invention.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 5, as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
250
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein the layer structure comprises layer (C), wherein layer C is (PE-C-b), i.e. a copolymer of ethylene comonomer units selected from one or more alpha-olefins having from 3-12 carbon atoms, which has a density of 850-905 kg/m3, wherein layers (A) and (C) and layers (B) and (C) are in adhering contact with each other in the configuration A-C-B.
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 “850-905 kg/m3” overlaps with the taught range of 0.865-0.930 g/cm3 (i.e. 865-960 kg/m3).
In reference to Claim 6, Chu does not teach that any of the layers of his invention comprise titanium dioxide.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 6, wherein all layers of the layer element are free of titanium dioxide.
In reference to Claim 7, Chu teaches that the total thickness of the layer element is 2-22 mils (i.e. 51-559 microns) (paragraph [0076]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the layer element has a total thickness of 325-2000 microns.
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 “325-2000 microns” overlaps with the taught range of 51-559 microns.
In reference to Claim 8, Chu teaches that the thickness of the top layer (i.e. layer A) is 1-5 mils (i.e. 25-127 microns) (paragraph [0076]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein thickness of layer A is 100-750 microns.
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 “100-750 microns” overlaps with the taught range of 25-127 microns.
Chu further teaches that the thickness of layer B is 1-15 mils (i.e. 25-381 microns).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein thickness of layer B is 125-750 microns.
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 “125-750 microns” overlaps with the taught range of 25-381 microns.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0108128 A1), in view of Tsuzuki, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0000603 A1), and further in view of Kim, et al. (Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 2016, 133, 43464).
In reference to Claim 2, Chu does not teach that the polypropylene layer B comprises a nucleating agent.
To solve the same problem of providing a polypropylene-containing back sheet material for a photovoltaic device, Kim teaches that including up to 1 part per hundred of a nucleating agent (1,3:2,4-bis-O-[(4-methylphenyl)methylene] hexitol, Kim, Materials section of the “Experimental” section, column 1, page 2) in a polypropylene-containing resin provides the benefit of increasing its light transmittance (Fig. 7, described in column 2, page 6).
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 incorporated up to 1 part per hundred of the nucleating agent of Kim into the polypropylene layer B of modified Chu, based on the disclosure of Kim.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 2, wherein the polypropylene layer B comprises a nucleating agent.
In reference to Claim 3, it is the Examiner’s position that the nucleating agent of modified Chu, 1,3:2,4-bis-O-[(4-methylphenyl)methylene] hexitol (Kim, Materials section of the “Experimental” section, column 1, page 2), is a soluble nucleating agent, because it is the Examiner’s position that this compound is soluble in at least one solvent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims in the non-final office action of 10/232025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 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 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.
/SADIE WHITE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights