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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments filed on 08/06/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US 2020/0347213, of record, ‘213 hereafter) in view of Jones et al (US 2,985,631, ‘631 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-9 and 14, ‘213 discloses an encapsulant composition and an encapsulant film for an optical device, the encapsulant composition ([0008]-[0015], [0041]) comprising an olefin-based copolymer being an ethylene α-olefin with density, melt index, and volume resistance satisfying present claims 2-4 ([0005], [0032]-[0033], [0044], [0055]-[0051], [0096]); a crosslinking agent being an organic peroxide as listed in the present claims 5 and 6 ([0006], [0061]-[0064]); a silane coupling agent as listed in the present claim 7 ([0007], [0066]-[0068]); and a crosslinking co-agent having a crosslinkable group (double bonds such as vinyl or allyl groups) including tetravinyl silane ([0008], [0014], [0069]-[0072]); wherein the amount of each components satisfying present claim 10 ([0092], [0094]). ‘213 does not set forth that the crosslinking co-agent being an organic tin compound represented by Formula 1 as presently claimed, including a tetraallyl tin or tetravinyl tin. However, ‘631 teaches tetravinyl silane and tetravinyl tin can be used alone or together as crosslinking agents in a polymer composition (C2/L14-L53, C4/L68-C5/L40, Examples), in view of 631's recognition that tetravinyl silane and tetravinyl tin are equivalent and interchangeable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute tetravinyl silane with tetravinyl tin, thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention. Case law holds that the mere substitution of an equivalent (something equal in value or meaning, as taught by analogous prior art) is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claims 11-13, modified ‘213 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘213 also teaches that a compound having allyl group such as TAIC can also be used as a co-crosslinking agent in the composition ([0127], Example B). Since the cited references teach that each of TAIC, tetravinyl silane and tetravinyl tin is co-crosslinking agent in a polymer composition, which has unsaturated double bonds being used to chemically bond polymer chains together to form a crosslinked polymeric network; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to further use these co-crosslinking agents together, in any suitable weight ratio including the weight ratio as presently claimed, as co-crosslinking agents used in the encapsulant composition as taught by cited prior art. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine two or more ingredients each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from there having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (See MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding claim 15, modified ‘213 teaches all the limitations of claim 14, ‘213 also discloses an optical device module comprising an optical device and encapsulant film (0101]-[0108]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/06/2026 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues there is no motivation to combine Yang’213 and Jone’s 631 because these references are directed to incompatible technologies and doing so would destroy the intended purpose of Yang. It is noted that the rejection as drafted does based on a combination of technical features of these inventions. The secondary reference is cited to prove that the tetravinyl silane and tetravinyl tin are equivalent and interchangeable component in a polymer-based composition, thus it is would have been obvious to be able to substitute with each other in a polymer composition to function as a crosslinking agent because both compounds have multiple unsaturated vinyl groups. Regarding unpredictable high volume resistance as argued, the presently claimed subject matter does not require having high volume resistance as argued, see present claims 1 and 4.
For the reasons as set forth above and of record, the claims stand properly rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights