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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0037] of the as-filed specification states “a bulk density of each layer of the encapsulant film formed by the three-layer co-extruded material may be 140 g/m2/200 g/m2/140 g/m2, to form an adhesive film with a bulk density of 480g/m2. At present, the bulk density is usually used to control the thickness,” however, the bulk density of a material is the mass per volume, not mass per area.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 contains portions which are both lined-through and underlined. For the purpose of this office action, the claim will be treated as if the limitations that are both lined-through and underlined are lined through in accordance with Applicant’s Remarks submitted 05/13/2026. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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(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, claim 1 recites the limitations "the sub-region of the first region overlapping at least partially the orthogonal projection of the gap between the plurality of solar cells" and “the sub-region of the first region overlapping at least partially the orthogonal projection of at least one of the plurality of welding strips” in lines 17-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is noted that while claim 1 does recite “wherein the first region comprises sub-regions with different thicknesses” in line 16, this limitation does not provide antecedent basis for the limitations “the sub-region of the first region overlapping at least partially the orthogonal projection of the gap between the plurality of solar cells" and “the sub-region of the first region overlapping at least partially the orthogonal projection of at least one of the plurality of welding strips” in lines 17-20. 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, claim 1 recites the limitation "the sub-region of the first region overlapping at least partially the orthogonal projection of the gap between the plurality of solar cells" in lines 17 and 18, however, the limitation is unclear as to whether the gap recited is the gap between the plurality of solar cells arranged parallel to an extending direction of the plurality of welding strips, or whether the gap recited is the gap between the plurality of solar cells arranged perpendicular to the extending direction of the plurality of welding strips. 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, claim 1 recites the limitation "the other region” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations in the claim. It is noted that the limitation “another region” in line 8 will be treated as if it states an other region. 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 46 through 50 recite “the bulk density of the one layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, the bulk density of the one layer of the polyolefin elastomer and the bulk density of the another layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer are 140g/m2 / 200g/m2 / 140g/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.
Claims 13-16 and 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, claims 13 and 22 recite “A solar cell module according to claim 1” and “The solar cell module according to claim 1,” respectively, however, claim 1 is directed to an encapsulant film. Claims 14-16 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 13.
Claim 21 is 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, claim 21 recites the limitations "the sub-region of the first region overlapping at least partially the orthogonal projection of the peripheral region of the solar cell module" and “the sub-region of the first region overlapping at least partially the orthogonal projection of at least one of the plurality of welding strips.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is noted that while claim 1 does recite “wherein the first region comprises sub-regions with different thicknesses” in line 16, this limitation does not provide antecedent basis for the limitations “the sub-region of the first region overlapping at least partially the orthogonal projection of the peripheral region of the solar cell module" and “the sub-region of the first region overlapping at least partially the orthogonal projection of at least one of the plurality of welding strips.”
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, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ru et al. (US 2022/0056315) in view of Yang et al. (CN 111403517 A – see attached machine translation) and further in view of Wei et al. (WO 2021/098299 A1 – see equivalent US 20220389282 A1), as evidenced by Gehring (US 2009/0321299 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ru discloses an encapsulant film (abstract) comprising: a first
region (shown in annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein a film thickness of the first region is different from a film thickness of an other region of the encapsulant film (shown in annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein the first region comprises sub-regions with different thicknesses (shown in annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein an encapsulant material layer comprises a co-extruded material (EPE) of ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, polyolefin elastomer and ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer ([0023]), and comprises three layers of one layer of ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, one layer of the polyolefin elastomer, and another layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer which are disposed in sequence ([0023]).
Ru does not explicitly disclose in the first region the encapsulant film comprises two encapsulant material layers, and in the other region the encapsulant film comprises one encapsulant material layer (it is noted that the limitation “comprises” allows each region to have additional encapsulant material layers).
Yang discloses an encapsulant film comprising multiple encapsulant layers ([0040]).
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 Ru such that the encapsulant film contains multiple encapsulant layers, as disclosed by Yang, because such a modification amounts to a mere duplication of parts. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Modified Ru does not explicitly disclose in the three layers, the one layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer and the another layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer have the same thickness being different from a thickness of the one layer of the polyolefin elastomer.
Wei discloses an encapsulant film (abstract) and further discloses one layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer and the another layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer have the same thickness being different from a thickness of the one layer of the polyolefin elastomer ([0109]).
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 Ru such that one layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer and the another layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer have the same thickness being different from a thickness of the one layer of the polyolefin elastomer, as disclosed by Wei, because as evidenced by Wei, the formation of an encapsulant film with an extruded EPE layer having one layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer and the another layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer have the same thickness being different from a thickness of the one layer of the polyolefin elastomer amounts to the use of a known configuration in the art for an encapsulant film with an extruded EPE layer, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the extruded EPE encapsulant film of modified Ru with one layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer and the another layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer have the same thickness being different from a thickness of the one layer of the polyolefin elastomer based on the teaching of Wei.
Modified Ru does not explicitly disclose the one layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer and the another layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer have the same bulk density which is different from a bulk density of the one layer of the polyolefin elastomer, the bulk density of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, the bulk density of the polyolefin elastomer, and the bulk density of the another layer of the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer are 140 g / m2 / 200 g / m2 / 140 g / m2, respectively.
Gehring discloses the physical and/or chemical properties of polymeric materials such as EVA may vary depending on, for example, the density, thickness, method of making, and/or polymer chain length of the polymer ([0043]). As the material cost and the physical and/or chemical properties of the polymeric materials are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said thickness and density, the precise density of the encapsulant layers would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed densities cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness and density of the encapsulant layers of modified Ru to obtain the desired balance between the material cost and the physical and/or chemical properties of the polymeric materials (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
[AltContent: textbox (sub-regions)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (first region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (other region)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
289
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that the encapsulant film of claim 1 does not include the recited solar cell module, and the limitations directed to the solar cell module amount to an intended use for the claimed encapsulant film. With regard to 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 where the solar cell is located overlapping at least partially an orthogonal projection of at least one of the plurality of welding strips,” “before the encapsulant film is installed in the solar cell module,” “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,” “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,” and “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 limitations are directed to the manner in which the apparatus 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 2, modified Ru discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ru further discloses the film thickness of the first region is greater than the film thickness of the other region (shown in annotated Fig. 2 of Ru above).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ru discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ru further discloses the film thickness in the first region is uneven (thickness of first region as depicted in annotated Fig. 2 of Ru above).
While modified Ru does not explicitly disclose the film thickness at each position in the first region is greater than the film thickness of the other region, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shapes of the first region and the other region of modified Ru such that the film thickness at each position in the first region is greater than the film thickness of the other region, because such a modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ru 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. 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 limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus 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 21, modified Ru 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. 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 apparatus 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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ru et al. (US 2022/0056315) in view of Yang et al. (CN 111403517 A – see attached machine translation) and further in view of Wei et al. (WO 2021/098299 A1 – see equivalent US 20220389282 A1), as evidenced by Gehring (US 2009/0321299 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0277698 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ru discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
While modified Ru does disclose the hot melt adhesive can be used as a packaging material for a solar panel (Ru - [0024]), Ru does not explicitly disclose the solar panel including a solar cell string comprising a plurality of solar cells connected to each other, and a plurality of welding strips arranged on at least one surface of the solar cell string between the solar cell string and the encapsulant film.
Park discloses a solar module (Fig. 3) and further discloses a solar cell string comprising a plurality of solar cells connected to each other (cells 100 connected by 300 in Fig. 3), and a plurality of welding strips (300 in Fig. 3 satisfy the limitation “a plurality of welding strips) arranged on at least one surface of the solar cell string (300 on 100 in Fig. 3) between the solar cell string (100 in Fig. 3) and an encapsulant film (20 and 30 in Fig. 3 are encapsulant films).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the encapsulant film of modified Ru in the solar cell module of Park, because as taught by Ru, the hot melt adhesive can be used as a packaging material for a solar panel (Ru - [0024]).
Based on the teaching of Ru, the use of the encapsulant film of modified Ru in a solar cell module, such as the solar cell module of Park, amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the solar cell module of Park with the encapsulant film based on the teaching of Ru.
Regarding claim 14, modified Ru discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above. Modified Ru further discloses the encapsulant layer and the plurality of welding strips are arranged on a back surface of the solar cell string (Park - 30 and 300 in relation to the back surface of 100 in Fig. 3), 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 (Park – 40 in relation to 30 and 300 in Fig. 3), wherein the back plate material is an inorganic material (Park – [0049] discloses the back member 40 may be formed of glass).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ru discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ru further discloses the encapsulant layer (Park – 20 and 30 in Fig. 3) and the plurality of welding strips (Park – 300 in Fig. 3) are arranged on a back surface and a front surface of the solar cell string (Park – 20, 30, and 300 in relation to the front and back surfaces of 100 in Fig. 3), 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 (Park – 40 in relation to 100, 300, and the bottom side of 30), 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 (Park – 10 in relation to 100, 300, and the top side of 20), wherein the back plate material and the front plate material are glass (Park – [0044], [0049]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ru et al. (US 2022/0056315) in view of Yang et al. (CN 111403517 A – see attached machine translation) and further in view of Wei et al. (WO 2021/098299 A1 – see equivalent US 20220389282 A1), as evidenced by Gehring (US 2009/0321299 A1), further in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0277698 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yoda et al. (US 2003/0010378).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ru discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Ru 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 Ru, 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]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ru et al. (US 2022/0056315) in view of Yang et al. (CN 111403517 A – see attached machine translation) and further in view of Wei et al. (WO 2021/098299 A1 – see equivalent US 20220389282 A1), as evidenced by Gehring (US 2009/0321299 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishihara et al. (US 2010/0147377).
Regarding claim 22, modified Ru discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Ru 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.
Ishihara discloses a 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).
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 of the encapsulant film of modified Ru 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 film, 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 Ru 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that referring to the area density as bulk density is a customary industrial expression. Applicant further states that for thin encapsulation films with uniform thickness: area density = bulk density x film thickness, and that on the premise of fixed thickness, area density is in linear positive correlation with bulk density. Additionally, Applicant argues that the industry conventionally uses area density to replace the expression of bulk density, which has gradually formed the common name of bulk density.
In response to Applicant’s argument, evidence has not been presented to
support the assertion that the reference to area density as bulk density is a customary industrial expression. The manner in which an area density = bulk density x film thickness, while the bulk density is a measurement of mass per area is unclear.
Applicant argues that with respect to the specific bulk density values limited in claim 1, paragraph [0037] of the specification discloses that the bulk density is used to control the thickness. Applicant further argues that for the present application, the thickness of the encapsulation film is critical, and that an excessively thick film will cause material waste and render the lamination process difficult, while an excessively thin film cannot provide enough protection for solar cells and solder strips. Applicant further asserts that as discloses in paragraph [0041] of the specification, controlling the thickness by selecting the bulk density can reduce the gap between the backsheet and the solar cell while lowering the consumption of encapsulation materials, adequately protect the solder ribbons, and ensure sufficient bonding among the backsheet, solar cells and solder ribbons. Applicant further argues that the first region may correspond to the gaps between solar cells and/or the peripheral region of the solar cell module, which can further improve the bonding strength of the back sheet, front sheet and solar cells, and enhance the performance and stability of the solar cell.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Applicant has not provided evidence showing unexpected results which are commensurate in scope with the limitations claimed.
Unexpected results must be established by factual evidence; mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification do not suffice. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1977) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Mere conclusions in the as-filed specification and Applicant’s Remarks, without evidence in support of the assertions, are insufficient in showing the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d) II. states “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside of the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).” It is also well settled that where patentability is predicated upon a change in a condition of a prior art composition, such as a change in size, concentration or the like, the burden is on the applicant to establish with objective evidence that the change is critical, i.e., it leads to a new, unexpected result. In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 8, 10, 13-16, and 21-22, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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