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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/15/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Libert et al. (US 20150311368) in view of Chung (“Expanding Polyethylene and Polypropylene Applications to High-Energy Areas by Applying Polyolefin-Bonded Antioxidants”) further in view of Bonekamp et al. (US 2017/0226321) and further in view of Weib et al. (US 20210355321).
Regarding claim 1, Libert discloses a photovoltaic solar panel (abstract) backsheet (Example 31) comprising: an exterior layer having inner and outer surfaces (outer skin layer [0143]), said exterior layer comprising a polyamide-polyolefin alloy ([0143] and [0163]- [0165]) an intermediate exterior layer having inner and outer surfaces ([0143] tie layer), a middle layer, having inner and outer surfaces (core layer [0143]) said middle layer comprising a polyolefin ([0143] containing an ionomer of polyethylene and methacrylic acid [0096] and [00165]); an intermediate interior layer having inner and outer surfaces (second tie layer [0143]) and an interior layer having inner and outer surfaces (inner skin layer [0143) said interior layer comprising a polyamide-polyolefin alloy ([0143], [0163]-[0165]); wherein the outer surface of the middle layer is adjoined to the inner surface of the intermediate exterior layer, the inner surface of the middle layer is adjoined to the outer surface of the intermediate interior layer, the inner surface of the exterior layer is adjoined to the outer surface of the intermediate exterior layer, and the outer surface of the interior layer is adjoined to the inner surface of the intermediate interior layer ([0143]).
While Libert does disclose the blend may further contain additives including antioxidants, UV stabilizers, hindered phenols, and hindered amine light stabilizers ([0112] – [0113]), Libert does not explicitly disclose the polyolefin of the polyamide-polyolefin alloy in the exterior and interior layers comprises polyolefin chains with chemically attached hindered phenol antioxidant groups.
Chung discloses incorporating hindered phenol (HP) antioxidant groups in a polyolefin chain in situ forming a polymer network via a coupling reaction between two deprotonated HP groups (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate chemically attached hindered phenol antioxidants, as disclosed by Chung, in the polyolefin of Libert, because as taught by Chung, instead of weakening the mechanical strength, the resulting cross-linked PE-HP and PP-HP copolymers become stronger after high-energy exposure (abstract).
While Libert does disclose a multilayer structure wherein one or more tie layers is present and each tie layer comprises a maleic anhydride-grafted polymer ([0154], [0165]), Libert does not explicitly disclose the polyolefin of the polyamide-polyolefin alloy in the exterior and interior layers comprises a polyolefin chain with chemically attached maleic anhydride species.
Bonekamp discloses a photovoltaic solar panel backsheet (abstract) and further discloses the polyolefin is graft-modified to enhance the interlayer adhesion between the top layer and the bottom layer of the multilayer structure through a reaction of the grafted functionality with the reactive group present in the middle tie layer, and that any material that can be grafted to the polyolefin and can react with the reactive group present in the tie layer can be used as the graft material ([0088]). Bonekamp further discloses the MAH functionality can be present in the polyolefin by grafting, or even by copolymerization with the olefin monomer ([0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the polyolefin of Libert with a grafted or copolymerized maleic anhydride functionality, as disclosed by Bonekamp, because as taught by Bonekamp, the polyolefin is graft-modified to enhance interlayer adhesion ([0088]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “a multifunctional polyolefin,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Modified Libert does not explicitly disclose the intermediate exterior and said intermediate interior layer comprises at least one polyamide selected from the recited group of polyamides.
Weib discloses adhesion promoting layers used to adhere polyamide containing exterior layers to interior layers in a multi-layer stack may contain PA6, PA66, PA12, or PA612 ([0005] teaching “wherein said exterior intermediate layer comprises at least one of PA610, PA612, PA11, PA12, PA9T, PA6, PA6G, and PA66” and “wherein said interior intermediate layer comprises at least one of PA610, PA612, PA11, PA12, PA9T, PA6, PA6G, and PA66”).
As such, a skilled artisan would be motivated to use any known adhesion promoting layer compositions, including those disclosed by Weib, to adhere the exterior and interior polyamide containing layers disclosed in modified Libert such that modified Libert’s intermediate layers would then be formed of polyamide, as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etzel et al. (US 2012/0028060) in view of Santoleri et al. (US 2014/0083487) further in view of Chung (“Expanding Polyethylene and Polypropylene Applications to High-Energy Areas by Applying Polyolefin-Bonded Antioxidants”) further in view of Bonekamp et al. (US 2017/0226321) and further in view of Weib et al. (US 2021/0355321).
Regarding claim 1, Etzel discloses a photovoltaic solar panel (abstract) backsheet (Fig. 1) comprising: an exterior layer having inner and outer surfaces (3), an intermediate exterior layer having inner and outer surfaces (6), a middle layer, having inner and outer surfaces (4) said middle layer comprising a polyolefin ([0063]-[0064] wherein layer 4 may be a cyclic olefin copolymer or polypropylene); an intermediate interior layer having inner and outer surfaces (6) and an interior layer having inner and outer surfaces (2) wherein the outer surface of the middle layer is adjoined to the inner surface of the intermediate exterior layer, the inner surface of the middle layer is adjoined to the outer surface of the intermediate interior layer, said inner surface of the exterior layer is adjoined to the outer surface of the intermediate exterior layer, and the outer surface of the interior layer is adjoined to the inner surface of the intermediate interior layer (Fig. 1).
Etzel discloses the exterior and interior layers are formed of polyamide and specifically the same material ([0052]) but fails to disclose the polyamide is a polyamide-polyolefin alloy.
However, Santoleri discloses the use of polyamide-polyolefin alloy for the exterior and interior layers of a photovoltaic backsheet ([0028]), thereby teaching said interior layer comprising a polyamide-polyolefin alloy, said exterior layer comprising a polyamide-polyolefin alloy. Santoleri teaches the use of this material for the interior and exterior layers for excellent mechanical properties, toughness, UV resistance and weather resistance ([0028]).
As Etzel is concerned with the interior and exterior layers providing water vapor barrier (Etzel [0052]), one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use Santoleri’s polyamide-polyolefin alloy as the material for Etzel’s interior and exterior layers as the material would provide the desired weather resistance and additionally provide excellent mechanical properties, toughness, and UV resistance.
Modified Etzel does not explicitly disclose the polyolefin of the polyamide-polyolefin alloy in the exterior and interior layers comprises polyolefin chains with chemically attached hindered phenol antioxidant groups.
Chung discloses incorporating hindered phenol (HP) antioxidant groups in a polyolefin chain in situ forming a polymer network via a coupling reaction between two deprotonated HP groups (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate chemically attached hindered phenol antioxidants, as disclosed by Chung, in the polyolefin of modified Etzel, because as taught by Chung, instead of weakening the mechanical strength, the resulting cross-linked PE-HP and PP-HP copolymers become stronger after high-energy exposure (abstract).
While Etzel does disclose olefin copolymers functionalized with maleic anhydride ([0063]), modified Etzel does not explicitly disclose the polyolefin of the polyamide-polyolefin alloy in the exterior and interior layers comprises a polyolefin chain with chemically attached maleic anhydride species.
Bonekamp discloses a photovoltaic solar panel backsheet (abstract) and further discloses the polyolefin is graft-modified to enhance the interlayer adhesion between the top layer and the bottom layer of the multilayer structure through a reaction of the grafted functionality with the reactive group present in the middle tie layer, and that any material that can be grafted to the polyolefin and can react with the reactive group present in the tie layer can be used as the graft material ([0088]). Bonekamp further discloses the MAH functionality can be present in the polyolefin by grafting, or even by copolymerization with the olefin monomer ([0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the polyolefin of modified Etzel with a grafted or copolymerized maleic anhydride functionality, as disclosed by Bonekamp, because as taught by Bonekamp, the polyolefin is graft-modified to enhance interlayer adhesion ([0088]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “a multifunctional polyolefin,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Modified Etzel further discloses the intermediate exterior layer and intermediate
interior layer are adhesion promoting layers (Etzel - [0066]) but fails to disclose the use of the recited polyamides for the adhesion promoting layers.
However, Weib discloses adhesion promoting layers used to adhere polyamide containing exterior layers to interior layers in a multi-layer stack may contain PA6, PA66, PA12, or PA612 ([0005] teaching “wherein said exterior intermediate layer comprises at least one of PA610, PA612, PA11, PA12, PA9T, PA6, PA6G, and PA66” and “wherein said interior intermediate layer comprises at least one of PA610, PA612, PA11, PA12, PA9T, PA6, PA6G, and PA66”). Weib and Etzel are within the same field of endeavor as each are directed to forming polyamide-containing multilayer polymer films.
As such, a skilled artisan would be motivated to use any known adhesion promoting layer compositions, including those disclosed by Weib, to adhere the exterior and interior polyamide containing layers disclosed in Etzel’s backsheet such that Etzel’s intermediate layers would then be formed of polyamide, as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 4, 9, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santoleri et al. (US 2014/0083487) in view of Chung (“Expanding Polyethylene and Polypropylene Applications to High-Energy Areas by Applying Polyolefin-Bonded Antioxidants”) and further in view of Bonekamp et al. (US 2017/0226321).
Regarding claim 4, Santoleri discloses a backsheet for a PV module (Fig. 4) comprising an exterior layer having inner and outer surfaces (110), the exterior layer comprising a polyamide-polyolefin alloy ([0028]); a middle layer, having inner and outer surfaces (120), the middle layer comprising a filled PA ([0030]); and an interior layer having inner and outer surfaces (110), the interior layer comprising a polyolefin ([0033]); wherein the outer surface of the middle layer is adjoined to the inner surface of the exterior layer, and the inner surface of said middle layer is adjoined to the outer surface of the interior layer (Fig. 4).
Santoleri does not explicitly disclose the polyolefin of the polyamide-polyolefin alloy comprises polyolefin chains with chemically attached hindered phenol antioxidant groups.
Chung discloses incorporating hindered phenol (HP) antioxidant groups in a polyolefin chain in situ forming a polymer network via a coupling reaction between two deprotonated HP groups (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate chemically attached hindered phenol functionalities, as disclosed by Chung, in the polyolefin of Santoleri, because as taught by Chung, instead of weakening the mechanical strength, the resulting cross-linked PE-HP and PP-HP copolymers become stronger after high-energy exposure (abstract).
Modified Santoleri does not explicitly disclose the polyolefin of the polyamide-polyolefin alloy comprises a polyolefin chain with chemically attached maleic anhydride species.
Bonekamp discloses a photovoltaic solar panel backsheet (abstract) and further discloses the polyolefin is graft-modified to enhance the interlayer adhesion between the top layer and the bottom layer of the multilayer structure through a reaction of the grafted functionality with the reactive group present in the middle tie layer, and that any material that can be grafted to the polyolefin and can react with the reactive group present in the tie layer can be used as the graft material ([0088]). Bonekamp further discloses the MAH functionality can be present in the polyolefin by grafting, or even by copolymerization with the olefin monomer ([0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the polyolefin of modified Santoleri with a grafted or copolymerized maleic anhydride functionality, as disclosed by Bonekamp, because as taught by Bonekamp, the polyolefin is graft-modified to enhance interlayer adhesion ([0088]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “a multifunctional polyolefin,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Modified Santoleri further discloses wherein the middle layer comprises at least one of PA610, PA612, PA11, PA12, PA9T, PA6, PA6G, and PA66 (Santoleri - [0072]).
Regarding claim 9, Santoleri discloses a solar module (Fig. 4) comprising a front cover having inner and outer surfaces (410); one or more photovoltaic cells substantially encapsulated in an encapsulant having a top outer surface and a bottom outer surface (420, 430); and a backsheet comprising: an exterior layer having inner and outer surfaces (110), wherein the exterior layer comprises a polyamide-polyolefin alloy ([0028]); a middle layer (120), having inner and outer surfaces and comprising a polyamide ([0030]); and an interior layer (130) having inner and outer surfaces and comprising a polyolefin ([0033]); wherein the outer surface of said middle layer (bottom surface of 120 in Fig. 4) is directly affixed to the inner surface of the exterior layer ([0024]; bottom surface of 120 in relation to upper surface of 110 in Fig. 4), and the inner surface of the middle layer (top surface of 120 in Fig. 4) is directly affixed to the outer surface of the interior layer ([0024]; top surface of 120 in relation to bottom surface of 130 in Fig. 4); and wherein the top outer surface of the encapsulant is adjoined to the inner surface of the front cover, and the bottom outer surface of the encapsulant is adjoined to the inner surface of the interior layer of the backsheet (Fig. 4).
Santoleri does not explicitly disclose the polyolefin of the polyamide-polyolefin alloy in the exterior and the polyolefin of the interior layer comprises polyolefin chains with chemically attached hindered phenol antioxidant groups.
Chung discloses incorporating hindered phenol (HP) antioxidant groups in a polyolefin chain in situ forming a polymer network via a coupling reaction between two deprotonated HP groups (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate chemically attached hindered phenol antioxidants, as disclosed by Chung, in the polyolefin of Santoleri, because as taught by Chung, instead of weakening the mechanical strength, the resulting cross-linked PE-HP and PP-HP copolymers become stronger after high-energy exposure (abstract).
Modified Santoleri does not explicitly disclose the polyolefin of the polyamide-polyolefin alloy in the exterior layer and the polyolefin of the interior layer comprises a polyolefin chain with chemically attached maleic anhydride species.
Bonekamp discloses a photovoltaic solar panel backsheet (abstract) and further discloses the polyolefin is graft-modified to enhance the interlayer adhesion between the top layer and the bottom layer of the multilayer structure through a reaction of the grafted functionality with the reactive group present in the middle tie layer, and that any material that can be grafted to the polyolefin and can react with the reactive group present in the tie layer can be used as the graft material ([0088]). Bonekamp further discloses the MAH functionality can be present in the polyolefin by grafting, or even by copolymerization with the olefin monomer ([0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the polyolefin of modified Santoleri with a grafted or copolymerized maleic anhydride functionality, as disclosed by Bonekamp, because as taught by Bonekamp, the polyolefin is graft-modified to enhance interlayer adhesion ([0088]).
With regard to the limitations “multifunctional polyolefin” and “wherein the maleic anhydride species of the polyolefin of the polyamide-polyolefin alloy in the exterior layer and the polyolefin of the interior layer enhances bonding of the interior and exterior layers with the polyamide of the middle layer,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 15, modified Santoleri discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Santoleri further discloses wherein the middle layer comprises at least one of PA610, PA612, PA11, PA12, PA9T, PA6, PA6G, and PA66 (Santoleri – [0030],[0072]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Santoleri discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Santoleri further discloses the use of polyamide-ionomer alloy for the exterior and interior layers of a photovoltaic backsheet (Santoleri - [0028]-[0033] use of Surlyn Reflections TM, thereby teaching the interior layer and exterior layer comprising a polyamide-ionomer alloy).
Regarding claim 17, modified Santoleri discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Santoleri further discloses the middle layer comprising a filled polyamide (Santoleri - [0030]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Santoleri discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Santoleri further discloses wherein the middle layer comprises at least one of PA610, PA612, PA11, PA12, PA9T, PA6, PA6G, and PA66 (Santoleri – [0030],[0072]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etzel et al. (US 2012/0028060) in view of Santoleri et al. (US 2014/0083487) further in view of Weib et al. (US 20210355321) further in view of Chung (“Expanding Polyethylene and Polypropylene Applications to High-Energy Areas by Applying Polyolefin-Bonded Antioxidants”) and further in view of Bonekamp et al. (US 2017/0226321).
Regarding claim 6, Etzel discloses a backsheet (Fig. 1) for a solar module (abstract, title) but is silent as to the structure of the solar module.
However, as supported by Santoleri, routine and conventional solar modules (Fig. 4) include a front cover having inner and outer surfaces (410); and one or more photovoltaic cells (430) substantially encapsulated in an encapsulant having a top outer surface and a bottom outer surface (420, 440).
As Etzel is silent to the structure of the module, a skilled artisan would be motivated to look to other teachings in the art and would appreciate that when forming a solar module to be supported by Etzel’s solar module backsheet, a routine and conventional solar module, such as that disclosed by Santoleri, may be used. The claimed subject matter simply combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Modified Etzel’s backsheet (Fig. 1) comprises an exterior layer having inner and outer surfaces (3) , an exterior intermediate layer having inner and outer surfaces (6) a middle layer having inner and outer surfaces (4) and comprising a polyolefin ([0063]-[0064] wherein layer 4 may be a cyclic olefin copolymer or polypropylene), interior intermediate layer having inner and outer surfaces (6) and an interior layer having inner and outer surfaces (2) ; wherein the outer surface of the middle layer is adjoined to the inner surface of the intermediate exterior layer, the inner surface of the middle layer is adjoined to the outer surface of said intermediate interior layer, the inner surface of the exterior layer is adjoined to the outer surface of the intermediate exterior layer, and the outer surface of the interior layer is adjoined to the inner surface of the intermediate interior layer; and wherein the top outer surface of said encapsulant is adjoined to said inner surface of said front cover, and the bottom outer surface of the encapsulant is adjoined to the inner surface of the interior layer of the backsheet (Fig. 1 Etzel, Fig. 4 Santoleri).
Modified Etzel discloses the exterior intermediate layer and interior intermediate layers are adhesion promoting layers ([0066]) but fails to disclose the use of the polyamide for the adhesion promoting layers.
However, Weib discloses adhesion promoting layers used to adhere polyamide containing exterior layers to interior layers in a multi-layer stack may contain PA6, PA66, PA12, or PA612 ([0005]). Weib and Etzel are within the same field of endeavor as each are directed to forming polyamide-containing multilayer polymer films.
As such, a skilled artisan would be motivated to use any known adhesion promoting layer compositions, including those disclosed by Weib, to adhere the exterior and interior polyamide containing layers disclosed in Etzel’s backsheet such that Etzel’s intermediate layers would then be formed of polyamide, as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Modified Etzel further discloses the exterior and interior layers are formed of polyamide and specifically the same material (Etzel - [0052]) but fails to disclose the polyamide is a polyamide-polyolefin alloy.
However, Santoleri discloses the use of polyamide-polyolefin alloy for the exterior and interior layers of a photovoltaic backsheet ([0028]-[0033] use of Surlyn Reflections TM), thereby teaching said interior layer and exterior comprising a polyamide-polyolefin alloy, said exterior layer comprising a polyamide-polyolefin alloy. Santoleri teaches the use of this material for the interior and exterior layers for excellent mechanical properties, toughness, UV resistance and weather resistance ([0028]).
As Etzel is concerned with the interior and exterior layers providing water vapor barrier (Etzel [0052]), one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use Santoleri’s polyamide-polyolefin alloy as the material for Etzel’s interior and exterior layers as the material would provide the desired weather resistance and additionally provide excellent mechanical properties, toughness, and UV resistance.
Modified Etzel does not explicitly disclose the polyolefin of the polyamide-polyolefin alloy comprises polyolefin chains with chemically attached hindered phenol antioxidant groups.
Chung discloses incorporating hindered phenol (HP) antioxidant groups in a polyolefin chain in situ forming a polymer network via a coupling reaction between two deprotonated HP groups (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate chemically attached hindered phenol functionalities, as disclosed by Chung, in the polyolefin of modified Etzel, because as taught by Chung, instead of weakening the mechanical strength, the resulting cross-linked PE-HP and PP-HP copolymers become stronger after high-energy exposure (abstract).
Modified Etzel does not explicitly disclose the polyolefin of the polyamide-polyolefin alloy comprises a polyolefin chain with chemically attached maleic anhydride species.
Bonekamp discloses a photovoltaic solar panel backsheet (abstract) and further discloses the polyolefin is graft-modified to enhance the interlayer adhesion between the top layer and the bottom layer of the multilayer structure through a reaction of the grafted functionality with the reactive group present in the middle tie layer, and that any material that can be grafted to the polyolefin and can react with the reactive group present in the tie layer can be used as the graft material ([0088]). Bonekamp further discloses the MAH functionality can be present in the polyolefin by grafting, or even by copolymerization with the olefin monomer ([0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the polyolefin of modified Etzel with a grafted or copolymerized maleic anhydride functionality, as disclosed by Bonekamp, because as taught by Bonekamp, the polyolefin is graft-modified to enhance interlayer adhesion ([0088]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “a multifunctional polyolefin,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Modified Etzel further discloses the exterior and interior layers are formed of polyamide and specifically the same material (Etzel - [0052]) but fails to disclose the polyamide is a polyamide-ionomer alloy.
However, Santoleri discloses the use of polyamide-ionomer alloy for the exterior and interior layers of a photovoltaic backsheet ([0028]-[0033] use of Surlyn Reflections TM, thereby teaching said interior layer and exterior layer comprising a polyamide-ionomer alloy). Santoleri teaches the use of this material for the interior and exterior layers for excellent mechanical properties, toughness, UV resistance and weather resistance ([0028]).
As Etzel is concerned with the interior and exterior layers providing water vapor barrier (Etzel [0052]), one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use Santoleri’s polyamide-ionomer alloy as the material for Etzel’s interior and exterior layers as the material would provide the desired weather resistance and additionally provide excellent mechanical properties, toughness, and UV resistance.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonekamp et al. (US 2017/0226321) in view of Chung (“Expanding Polyethylene and Polypropylene Applications to High-Energy Areas by Applying Polyolefin-Bonded Antioxidants”).
Regarding claim 19, Bonekamp discloses a photovoltaic solar panel module (Fig. 1) comprising: a front cover having inner and outer surfaces (13); one or more photovoltaic cells substantially encapsulated in an encapsulant having a top outer surface and a bottom outer surface (11, 12a, 12b); a mono-layer backsheet having inner and outer surfaces (14 [0021] wherein the backsheet can be a single layer) comprising a polyolefin ([0010]-[0012]); and wherein the top outer surface of the encapsulant is adjoined to the inner surface of the backsheet (Fig. 1).
While Bonekamp does disclose the polyolefin of each of the inner and outer surfaces of the mono-layer backsheet comprises a polyolefin chain with chemically attached maleic anhydride species ([0088],[0090]); Bonekamp does not explicitly disclose the polyolefin of each of the inner and outer surfaces of the mono-layer backsheet comprises a polyolefin chain with chemically attached hindered phenol groups.
Chung discloses incorporating hindered phenol (HP) antioxidant groups in a polyolefin chain in situ forming a polymer network via a coupling reaction between two deprotonated HP groups (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the hindered phenol groups of Bonekamp, with a chemical attachment, as disclosed by Chung, because as taught by Chung, instead of weakening the mechanical strength, the resulting cross-linked PE-HP and PP-HP copolymers become stronger after high-energy exposure (abstract).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “a multifunctional polyolefin,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 20, Bonekamp discloses a photovoltaic solar panel backsheet (Fig. 1) comprising: an exterior layer having inner and outer surfaces (14C); and an interior layer having inner and outer surfaces (14B); wherein the outer surface of the interior layer is adjoined to the inner surface of the exterior layer (Fig. 1), and wherein each of the exterior and interior layers comprises a polyolefin ([0009] – wherein the backsheet may comprise multiple layers including the hindered phenol polyolefin material) having a polyolefin chain which chemically attached maleic anhydride species ([0088],[0090]).
Bonekamp does not explicitly disclose the polyolefin of each of the exterior and interior layers having a polyolefin chain with chemically attached hindered phenol groups.
Chung discloses incorporating hindered phenol (HP) antioxidant groups in a polyolefin chain in situ forming a polymer network via a coupling reaction between two deprotonated HP groups (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the hindered phenol groups of Bonekamp, with a chemical attachment, as disclosed by Chung, because as taught by Chung, instead of weakening the mechanical strength, the resulting cross-linked PE-HP and PP-HP copolymers become stronger after high-energy exposure (abstract).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “a multifunctional polyolefin,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Chung provides no guidance or teaching to an ordinarily skilled person in this art that such a functionalized polymer could be employed successfully in a layer of a photovoltaic cell backsheet, and one of ordinary skill in this art would therefore not consider Chung to provide any teaching with respect to photovoltaic cells generally, and backsheets for such photovoltaic cells more specifically.
In response to Applicant’s argument, it has been held that a prior art reference
must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Chung, Libert, Etzel, Santoleri, Bonekamp, and the as-filed specification are concerned with antioxidation or oxidation inhibition. Chung discloses polyolefin-bonded antioxidants. Chung further discloses effective antioxidation protection (abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would consider Chung with regard to enhancing antioxidation in polyolefins.
Applicant argues that claim 2 adds a concrete material definition for the intermediate exterior layer that Etzel’s adhesion promoting layer disclosure does not expressly teach.
In response to Applicant’s argument, modified Etzel discloses the intermediate exterior layer and intermediate interior layer are adhesion promoting layers (Etzel - [0066]) but fails to disclose the use of the recited polyamides for the adhesion promoting layers. However, Weib discloses adhesion promoting layers used to adhere polyamide containing exterior layers to interior layers in a multi-layer stack may contain PA6, PA66, PA12, or PA612 ([0005] teaching “wherein said exterior intermediate layer comprises at least one of PA610, PA612, PA11, PA12, PA9T, PA6, PA6G, and PA66” and “wherein said interior intermediate layer comprises at least one of PA610, PA612, PA11, PA12, PA9T, PA6, PA6G, and PA66”). Weib and Etzel are within the same field of endeavor as each are directed to forming polyamide-containing multilayer polymer films.
As such, a skilled artisan would be motivated to use any known adhesion promoting layer compositions, including those disclosed by Weib, to adhere the exterior and interior polyamide containing layers disclosed in Etzel’s backsheet such that Etzel’s intermediate layers would then be formed of polyamide, as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Applicant argues that independent claim 4 is patentable over all applied prior art references of record. In response to Applicant’s argument, the incorporation of the limitation of claim 5 into claim 4 does not result in an allowable claim for the reasons set forth in the office action.
Applicant argues that claim 6 has been amended by incorporating the limitation of claim 7 that each of the exterior layer and the interior layer comprise a polyamide and an ionomer alloy. In response to Applicant’s argument, Santoleri teaches each of the exterior layer and the interior layer comprise a polyamide and an ionomer alloy ([0028]-[0033] use of Surlyn Reflections TM, thereby teaching said interior layer and exterior layer comprising a polyamide-ionomer alloy).
Applicant argues that the rejections of claims 19 and 20 lack the required articulated reasoning with rational underpinning tying Chung’s specialized polyolefin-bonded-HP chemistry to Bonekamp’s PV backsheet construction.
In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth in the office action, while Bonekamp does disclose the polyolefin of each of the inner and outer surfaces of the mono-layer backsheet comprises a polyolefin chain with chemically attached maleic anhydride species ([0088],[0090]); Bonekamp does not explicitly disclose the polyolefin of each of the inner and outer surfaces of the mono-layer backsheet comprises a polyolefin chain with chemically attached hindered phenol groups.
Chung discloses incorporating hindered phenol (HP) antioxidant groups in a polyolefin chain in situ forming a polymer network via a coupling reaction between two deprotonated HP groups (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the hindered phenol groups of Bonekamp, with a chemical attachment, as disclosed by Chung, because as taught by Chung, instead of weakening the mechanical strength, the resulting cross-linked PE-HP and PP-HP copolymers become stronger after high-energy exposure (abstract).
With regard to claim 20, Bonekamp does not explicitly disclose the polyolefin of each of the exterior and interior layers having a polyolefin chain with chemically attached hindered phenol groups.
Chung discloses incorporating hindered phenol (HP) antioxidant groups in a polyolefin chain in situ forming a polymer network via a coupling reaction between two deprotonated HP groups (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the hindered phenol groups of Bonekamp, with a chemical attachment, as disclosed by Chung, because as taught by Chung, instead of weakening the mechanical strength, the resulting cross-linked PE-HP and PP-HP copolymers become stronger after high-energy exposure (abstract).
Applicant further argues that the Office has not shown a reasonable expectation of success that such a substitution would preserve Bonekamp’s backsheet objectives without redesigning its stabilizer system.
In response to Applicant’s argument, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established as set forth above. Applicant has not provided evidence that the chemical attachment of the hindered phenol groups, as proposed in the modification set forth in the office action, would hinder Bonekamp’s backsheet objectives.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (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 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights