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 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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0081501) (See WO 2021/060917) in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2019/0218346).
Regarding claims 1-3, Lee discloses a composition for an encapsulant film (abstract, 0002), comprising an ethylene alpha olefin copolymer (0023), a crosslinking agent (0071), a crosslinking auxiliary agent (0071) and a silane coupling agent (0071). Lee discloses that the crosslinking auxiliary agent is used in improving heat resistance properties (0080).
Lee does not disclose the same crosslinking auxiliary agent as claimed in present claim.
Nakagawa discloses resin composition for encapsulation (0001, 0054, claim 14) comprising tetrakis(vinyldimethylsiloxy)silane to enhance the hardness and thermal resistance of the product (0157, 0159). Given that Nakagawa discloses the same compound as claimed in present claim, it is clear that the compound of Nakagawa would have the same structure as claimed in the present claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the tetrakis(vinyldimethylsiloxy)silane of Nakagawa in the encapsulant film of Lee to enhance the hardness and thermal resistance.
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Nakagawa discloses the composition for an encapsulant film of claim 1, wherein the crosslinking auxiliary agent is 0.01 parts by weight to 0.5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the composition, i.e. ethylene alpha olefin copolymer, (0002, 0080).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Nakagawa discloses the composition for an encapsulant film of claim 1, wherein Lee discloses more than one crosslinking auxiliary agent can be used such as triallyl isocyanurate, i.e. a second crosslinking auxiliary agent, (0077-0079).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Lee in view of Nakagawa discloses the composition for an encapsulant film of claim 1, but fails to disclose the mole ratio. Lee discloses the crosslinking auxiliary agent is used in improving heat resistance properties and physical properties (0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any amount of mole ratio of compound represented by Formular 1 and the allyl group to obtain desired heat resistance properties and physical properties.
Alternatively, since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific mole ratio of compound represented by Formular 1 and the allyl group is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the heat resistance properties and physical properties are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of compound represented by Formular 1 and the allyl group, the precise amounts 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 amounts 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 amounts of compound represented by Formular 1 and the allyl group in encapsulant film to obtain the desired heat resistance properties and physical properties (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).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Nakagawa discloses the composition for an encapsulant film of claim 1, wherein the alpha olefin comprises one or more propylene and 1-butene (0045).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Nakagawa discloses the composition for an encapsulant film of claim 1, wherein the alpha olefin is comprised greater than 0 to 99 mol% based on the ethylene alpha olefin copolymer (0047).
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Nakagawa discloses the composition for an encapsulant film of claim 1, further comprising light stabilizer (0090).
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Nakagawa discloses an encapsulant film comprising the composition for an encapsulant film of claim 1 (abstract, 0002).
Regarding claim 11, a solar cell module comprising the encapsulant film of claim 10 (0012).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that tetrakis(vinyldimethylsiloxy)silane in Nakagawa is used to improve the heat resistance of a curable resin composition, which does not even contain ethylene/alpha-olefin. However, note that while Nakagawa does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Nakagawa is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely tetrakis(vinyldimethylsiloxy)silane to enhance the hardness and thermal resistance of the product, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicant argues that Nakagawa requires that the component B is used in an amount from 3 wt% relative to a total amount of the composition. However, it is noted that Nakagawa is not used to teach the amount of the crosslinking auxiliary agent. Lee already teaches the amount of the crosslinking auxiliary agent as explained above.
Applicant points to examples and states the criticality of using crosslinking auxiliary agent of formular 1 and its amount. However, the data is not persuasive given that the data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the present claim given that the claim broadly recite any amounts and types of each component while the examples disclose specific types and amounts of each component. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support”. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Applicants have not provided data to show that the unexpected results do in fact occur over the entire claimed range.
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 SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights