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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 36 of claim 1 appears to contain a typographical error in the recitation “the encapsulant film comprises two layers or more layers of sub-encapsulant films.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10, 13-16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the as-filed specification does not describe “the sub-encapsulant film comprises three layers of a layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, a layer of the polyolefin elastomer and a layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer,” as recited in lines 38 through 40 of claim 1. Claims 2, 8, 10, 13-16, and 21-22 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10, 13-16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, lines 32 through 34 of claim 1 recite “wherein each layer of two layers of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer has a different bulk density which is different from a bulk density of the layer of the polyolefin elastomer,” however, lines 41 through 43 of claim 1 recite “the bulk density of the layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, the bulk density of the layer of the polyolefin elastomer and the bulk density of the layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer are 140 g/m2/200 g/m2/140 g/m2, respectively,” which contradicts the limitation requiring “each layer of two layers of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer has a different bulk density” recited in lines 32 and 33 of claim 1. Claims 2, 8, 10, 13-16, and 21-22 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10, 13-16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, lines 27 through 29 of claim 1 recite “the encapsulant film includes three layers of a layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, a layer of the polyolefin elastomer and a layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer,” and lines 35 through 40 of claim 1 recite “wherein the encapsulant film comprises a sub-encapsulant film, in the first region, the encapsulant film comprises two layers or more layers of sub-encapsulant films, and in the other region, the encapsulant film comprises one layer of sub-encapsulant film, the sub-encapsulant film comprises three layers of a layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, a layer of the polyolefin elastomer and a layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer,” and the relationship between a layer of the encapsulant film and the sub-encapsulant film is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear as to whether the limitation “sub-encapsulant film” is referring on one of the layers of the previously recited encapsulant film, or if the sub-encapsulant film recited is referring to an additional film in addition to the previously recited layers of the encapsulant film. Claims 2, 8, 10, 13-16, and 21-22 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10, 13-16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, lines 41 through 43 of claim 1 recite “the bulk density of the layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, the bulk density of the layer of the polyolefin elastomer and the bulk density of the layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer are 140 g/m2/200 g/m2/140 g/m2, respectively,” however, the manner in which a bulk density is represented by a mass of a material divided by an area is unclear. Bulk density is the mass of a material divided by the volume it occupies. Claims 2, 8, 10, 13-16, and 21-22 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
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, 2, 8, 10, 13-14, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara et al. (US 2010/0147377) in view of Cai et al. (CN 111808538 A – see attached machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Cai ‘538) further in view of Hayes et al. (US 2008/0023063).
Regarding claim 1, Ishihara discloses an encapsulant film (4 in Fig. 3) comprising: a first region (shown in annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein a film thickness of the first region is different from a film thickness of an other region of the encapsulant film ([0080] L7-8 discloses a concavity) before the encapsulant film is installed in the solar cell module (Figures 3 and 4 depict layer 4 before installation in the module), wherein the first region comprises sub-regions with different thicknesses ([0080] L7-8; it is noted that any of the additional concavities corresponding to the respective bonding wires satisfy the limitation “the first region comprises sub-regions.” Additionally, a region of the encapsulant material without a concavity is considered a sub-region which has a different thickness than a sub-region of the encapsulant material comprising the disclosed concavity).
While Ishihara does disclose wherein in the first region and the other region, the encapsulant film comprises a same encapsulant material ([0061]), Ishihara does not explicitly disclose the encapsulant material comprises ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, polyolefin elastomer and ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, and the encapsulant film includes three layers of a layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, a layer of the polyolefin elastomer and a layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, and the layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer and the layer of the polyolefin elastomer have different thicknesses.
Cai ‘538 discloses an encapsulant film ([0007]) and further discloses the encapsulant film includes three layers of a layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, a layer of the polyolefin elastomer and a layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer ([0007]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the three layer film of Cai ‘538 in the encapsulant film of Ishihara, because as taught by Cai ‘538, the encapsulation film combines the advantages of traditional EVA film and POE film ([0031).
Modified Ishihara discloses each layer of two layers of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer has a thickness being different from a thickness of the layer of the polyolefin elastomer (Cai ‘538 – [0010], [0011], [0012]).
Modified Ishihara does not explicitly disclose each layer of two layers of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer has a different bulk density which is different from a bulk density of the layer of the polyolefin elastomer.
Hayes discloses an encapsulant film and further discloses a multilayer film ([0037]) with layers formed from any material known within the art, and further discloses suitable compositions that may be used at the other layers including, but not limited to, ionomers, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), acoustic poly(vinyl acetal), acoustic poly(vinyl butyral), polyvinylbutyral (PVB), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyvinylchloride (PVC), metallocene-catalyzed linear low density polyethylenes, polyolefin block elastomers, ethylene acrylate ester copolymers, such as poly(ethylene-co-methyl acrylate) and poly(ethylene-co-butyl acrylate), acid copolymers, silicone elastomers, epoxy resins and combinations thereof ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer layers of modified Ishihara with a different bulk density than the layer of polyolefin elastomer, because as evidenced by Hayes, a substitution of the polyolefin elastomer of modified Ishihara with another polyolefin elastomer is recognized in the art as the substitution of one functionally equivalent material for another, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when substituting the polyolefin elastomer of modified Ishihara with a polyolefin elastomer of a different bulk density based on the teaching of Hayes.
Modified Ishihara further discloses in the first region, the encapsulant film comprises two layers of sub-encapsulant films, and in the other region, the encapsulant film comprises one layer of sub-encapsulant film (modified Ishihara discloses both the first region and the region with the concavity (other region) are comprised of three layers as set forth above, therefore, the first region necessarily “comprises” two layers of the disclosed three layers, and the other region necessarily “comprises” one layer of the disclosed three layers; it is further noted that the term “comprises” does not limit the respective region to a specific number of sub-encapsulant films).
Regarding the limitation “a co-extruded material,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It is noted that the encapsulant film does not include the recited solar cell module, and the limitation directed to the solar cell module amounts to an intended use for the claimed encapsulant film.
It is further noted that the limitations "configured for a solar cell module, wherein the solar cell module comprises a plurality of welding strips and a plurality of solar cells,” "an orthogonal projection of the first region on a surface wherein the solar cell module is located overlapping at least partially an orthogonal projection of at least one of the plurality of welding strips", “wherein the orthogonal projection of the first region on the surface where the solar cell module is located overlaps at least partially an orthogonal projection of a gap between the plurality of solar cells arranged parallel to an extending direction of the plurality of welding strips and overlaps at least partially an orthogonal projection of a gap between the plurality of solar cells arranged perpendicular to the extending direction of the plurality of welding strips,” and “a thickness of the sub-region of the first region overlapping at least partially the orthogonal projection of the gap between the plurality of solar cells is greater than a thickness of the sub-region of the first region overlapping at least partially the orthogonal projection of at least one of the plurality of welding strips” are directed to the manner in which the encapsulant film is intended to be used and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 2, modified Ishihara discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ishihara further discloses the film thickness of the first region is greater than the film thickness of the other region (Ishihara – [0080] L7-8 disclose a concavity).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ishihara discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Ishihara does not explicitly disclose the film thickness in the first region is uneven.
Hayes discloses encapsulant layers with smooth or roughened surfaces ([0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the encapsulant film of modified Ishihara with a roughened surface, as disclosed by Hayes, because as taught by Hayes, roughened surfaces facilitate the de-airing of the laminates through the laminate process ([0065]).
Modified Ishihara discloses the film thickness at each position in the first region is greater than the film thickness of the other region (Ishihara – [0080] L7-8 disclose a concavity corresponding to a bonding wire).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ishihara discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein the orthogonal projection of the first region on the surface where the solar cell module is located overlaps at least partially an orthogonal projection of a peripheral region of the solar cell module,” the encapsulant film of claim 1 does not include the recited solar cell module, and the limitation directed to the solar cell module amounts to an intended use for the claimed encapsulant film as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, the limitation "wherein the orthogonal projection of the first region on the surface where the solar cell module is located overlaps at least partially an orthogonal projection of a peripheral region of the solar cell module" is directed to the manner in which the encapsulant film is intended to be used and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ishihara discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ishihara further discloses a solar cell string comprising the plurality of solar cells connected to each other (Ishihara - [0089]; it is noted that the limitation “connected to each other” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components); an encapsulant layer arranged on at least one surface of the solar cell string, and formed by the encapsulant film (Ishihara – [0089]); and wherein the plurality of welding strips is arranged on at least one surface of the solar cell string between the solar cell string and the encapsulant layer (Ishihara – [0080] discloses bonding wires between the solar cells and the encapsulant layer).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ishihara discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ishihara further discloses the encapsulant layer and the plurality of welding strips are arranged on a back surface of the solar cell string (Ishihara – 1 and 40 in Fig. 7 in relation to 2; it is noted that the term “back” is dependent on the spatial orientation of the device), the solar cell module further comprises: a back plate material arranged on a side of the encapsulant layer away from the plurality of welding strips (Ishihara – 6 in Fig. 7), wherein the back plate material is an organic material (Ishihara – 6 in Fig. 7; [0066] – PET).
Regarding claim 21, modified Ishihara discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
It is noted that the encapsulant film of claim 1 does not include the recited solar cell module, and the limitation directed to the solar cell module amounts to an intended use for the claimed encapsulant film as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, with regard to the limitation “wherein a thickness of the sub-region of the first region overlapping at least partially the orthogonal projection of the peripheral region of the solar cell module is greater than a thickness of the sub-region of the first region overlapping at least partially the orthogonal projection of at least one of the plurality of welding strips,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the encapsulant film is intended to be used and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 22, modified Ishihara discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Ishihara does disclose the thickness of an encapsulant film is within the range of 0.1 to 1 mm (Ishihara - [0076]) and further discloses the thickness of the other region is less than the thickness of the first region ([0080] L7-8 disclose a concavity), modified Ishihara does not explicitly disclose the film thickness of the first region is 0.4 mm to 0.6 mm, and the film thickness of the other region is 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first region with a film thickness of 0.4 mm to 0.6 mm, and the other region with a film thickness of 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm, because as evidenced by Ishihara, a thickness range of 0.1 to 1 mm is a known thickness range in the art for an encapsulant layer in a solar cell module, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the first and other regions of the encapsulant layer of modified Ishihara within the disclosed thickness range of 0.1 to 1 mm based on the teaching of Ishihara. Selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara et al. (US 2010/0147377) in view of Cai et al. (CN 111808538 A – see attached machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Cai ‘538) further in view of Hayes et al. (US 2008/0023063) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hosoya et al. (US 2012/0031460).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ishihara discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Ishihara does disclose the encapsulant layer and the plurality of welding strips are arranged on a surface of the solar cell string (Ishihara - 1 and 40 in Fig. 7 in relation to 2); modified Ishihara does not explicitly disclose the encapsulant layer and the plurality of welding strips are arranged on a back surface and a front surface of the solar cell string, the solar cell module further comprises: a back plate material, arranged on the back surface and on a side of the encapsulant layer away from the plurality of welding strips, and a front plate material arranged on the front surface and on a side of the encapsulant layer away from the plurality of welding strips.
Hosoya discloses a solar cell module and further discloses the encapsulant layer ([0143] – 34A, 34B) and the plurality of welding strips ([0163] - 214A to 214D) are arranged on a back surface and a front surface of the solar cell string (Fig. 8B), the solar cell module further comprises: a back plate material arranged on the back surface and on a side of the encapsulant layer away from the plurality of welding strips (224 in Fig. 8B), and a front plate material arranged on the front surface and on a side of the encapsulant layer away from the plurality of welding strips (220 in Fig. 8B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the solar cell module of modified Ishihara such that the solar cells of the solar cell string are connected by connectors extending from the front surface to the back surface of adjacent solar cells, as disclosed by Hosoya, because as evidenced by Hosoya, a configuration in which adjacent solar cells in a solar cell string are connected with connectors extending from the front surface to the back surface of adjacent solar cells amounts to the use of a known configuration in the art for a solar cell string in a solar cell module, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when connecting the solar cells in the solar cell string of modified Ishihara such that connectors extend from the front surface to the back surface of adjacent cells based on the teaching of Hosoya.
Modified Ishihara does not explicitly disclose wherein the back plate material and the front plate material are glass.
Hayes discloses a solar cell module and further discloses the back plate material and the front plate material are glass (]0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use glass, as disclosed by Hayes, as the front plate and back plate material in modified Ishihara, because as evidenced by Hayes, the use of glass as a front plate and back plate material in a solar cell module amounts to the use of known components in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the front plate and back plate of modified Ishihara with glass based on the teaching of Hayes.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara et al. (US 2010/0147377) in view of Cai et al. (CN 111808538 A – see attached machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Cai ‘538) further in view of Hayes et al. (US 2008/0023063) and Hosoya et al. (US 2012/0031460) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yoda et al. (US 2003/0010378).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ishihara discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above.
Modified Ishihara does not explicitly disclose a sealing material located between the back plate material and the front plate material; a sealant arranged on an outer side of the back plate material and the front plate material in a peripheral region of the solar cell module; and a desiccant located between the sealing material and the sealant in a direction parallel to the surface where the solar cell module is located.
Yoda discloses a solar cell module and further discloses a sealing material located between the back plate material and the front plate material ([0064); 23, 31 in Fig. 3); a sealant arranged on an outer side of the back plate material and the front plate material in a peripheral region of the solar cell module ([0064]; 32 in Fig. 3); and a desiccant located between the sealing material and the sealant in a direction parallel to the surface where in the solar cell module is located ([0064]; 7 in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include sealant, sealing material, and desiccant, as disclosed by Yoda, in the solar cell module of modified Ishihara, because as taught by Yoda, the inner space is set to a dry state by using a desiccant, and the material of the sealing member is air-tight and waterproof ([0064]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that in Ishihara the EVA sheet and the potting resin are different in the material, so in the different regions between the PET sheet and the substrate the materials are different.
In response to Applicant’s argument, lines 21 and 22 of claim 1 recite “wherein in
the first region and the other region, the encapsulant film comprises a same encapsulant material,” and as set forth in the office action, 4 in Fig. 3 of Ishihara comprises a same encapsulant material.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Cai fails to disclose that on both sides
of the POE layer, two EVA layers are disposed, Cai ‘538 is relied upon to teach the limitation as set forth above. Additionally, it is noted that the limitation “wherein the encapsulant material comprises a co-extruded material (EPE) of ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, polyolefin elastomer and ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer” does not require that on both sides of the POE layer, two EVA layers are disposed. Instead, the claim limitation requires a layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, a layer of the polyolefin elastomer and a layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, without specifying a particular order of the layers. Additionally, the claim does not require the respective ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer layers to consist of EVA. The claim limitations do not preclude the existence of other components in the respective EVA layers.
Applicant argues that Ishihara does not disclose that the material of the sub-encapsulation film is the same in different regions.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Ishihara discloses a concavity in the encapsulant film ([0080] L7-8) which satisfies the limitation requiring “a film thickness of an other region of the encapsulant film before the encapsulant film is installed in the solar cell module. The encapsulant material in the region of the film with the concavity is the same as the encapsulant material in the region of the film without the concavity.
Applicant argues that Ishihara also fails to disclose the specific bulk density values of the layers. In response to Applicant’s argument, Hayes discloses an encapsulant film and further discloses a multilayer film ([0037]) with layers formed from any material known within the art, and further discloses suitable compositions that may be used at the other layers including, but not limited to, ionomers, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), acoustic poly(vinyl acetal), acoustic poly(vinyl butyral), polyvinylbutyral (PVB), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyvinylchloride (PVC), metallocene-catalyzed linear low density polyethylenes, polyolefin block elastomers, ethylene acrylate ester copolymers, such as poly(ethylene-co-methyl acrylate) and poly(ethylene-co-butyl acrylate), acid copolymers, silicone elastomers, epoxy resins and combinations thereof ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer layers of modified Ishihara with a different bulk density than the layer of polyolefin elastomer, because as evidenced by Hayes, a substitution of the polyolefin elastomer of modified Ishihara with another polyolefin elastomer is recognized in the art as the substitution of one functionally equivalent material for another, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when substituting the polyolefin elastomer of modified Ishihara with a polyolefin elastomer of a different bulk density based on the teaching of Hayes.
Additionally, as set forth in the 112(b) rejection above, lines 41 through 43 of claim 1 recite “the bulk density of the layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, the bulk density of the layer of the polyolefin elastomer and the bulk density of the layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer are 140 g/m2/200 g/m2/140 g/m2, respectively,” however, the manner in which a bulk density is represented by a mass of a material divided by an area is unclear. Bulk density is the mass of a material divided by the volume it occupies.
Criticality with regard to the bulk density values has not been presented, and based on the teaching of Hayes ([0037]), an encapsulant film containing combinations of the materials disclosed amounts to the use of known components/materials in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result.
It is noted that with regard to Applicant’s arguments directed to the Ishihara reference, one cannot show nonobviousness by 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).
Applicant argues that Cai fails to disclose the bulk density values of the three layers. In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth in the office action, Hayes discloses an encapsulant film and further discloses a multilayer film ([0037]) with layers formed from any material known within the art, and further discloses suitable compositions that may be used at the other layers including, but not limited to, ionomers, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), acoustic poly(vinyl acetal), acoustic poly(vinyl butyral), polyvinylbutyral (PVB), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyvinylchloride (PVC), metallocene-catalyzed linear low density polyethylenes, polyolefin block elastomers, ethylene acrylate ester copolymers, such as poly(ethylene-co-methyl acrylate) and poly(ethylene-co-butyl acrylate), acid copolymers, silicone elastomers, epoxy resins and combinations thereof ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer layers of modified Ishihara with a different bulk density than the layer of polyolefin elastomer, because as evidenced by Hayes, a substitution of the polyolefin elastomer of modified Ishihara with another polyolefin elastomer is recognized in the art as the substitution of one functionally equivalent material for another, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when substituting the polyolefin elastomer of modified Ishihara with a polyolefin elastomer of a different bulk density based on the teaching of Hayes.
As set forth above, with reference to Applicant’s arguments directed to the Cai reference, one cannot show nonobviousness by 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).
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 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