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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 1-20 are currently pending of which claim 20 has been withdrawn. Claims 1, 8-11, and 14-16 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 recites the abbreviation “ETFE” without first setting forth what polymer is being abbreviated. 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.
Claim 11 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.
Claim 11 recites the fluoropolymer based material is selected from the group consisting of with a list of polymers. Claim 10 from which claim 11 depends recites that the fluoropolymer based material comprises ETFE and it is unclear if the listed polymers in claim 11 are a second fluoropolymer added with the fluoropolymer based material already required in claim 10.
For sake of further examination claim 11 will be examined as reciting a mixture of ETFE and one or more of the listed polymers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (US 20130063952).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, Hong discloses a multilayer laminate (10) comprising a fluoropolymer layer (20), a UV resistant fluoropolymer adhesive layer (30) and a third layer (40) (0016). Where the third layer includes glass (0064) and has a thickness in the range of 0.5 mils to 10 mils (0065; 12.7 to 254 microns), anticipating the claimed thickness of not greater than about 300 microns in claim 1 and not greater than about 100 microns in claim 8 and of at least about 1 micron in claim 9 (MPEP 2131.03).
The fluoropolymer layer comprising a fluoropolymer (0030).
The UV resistant fluoropolymer adhesive layer provided in contact with the third layer and fluoropolymer layer (Fig. 1) and comprising an encapsulant component e.g., a polymer (0046) and an UV absorber component (0054).
The multilayer laminate having a visible light transmission in a range of between 400 and 1100 nm (0149) of at least 85% (0116), anticipating the claimed VLT of at least about 50% (MPEP 2131.03).
Hong does not expressly teach a lower UV-light transmission of not greater than 1.0% at a percent transmission between 200 nm and 360 nm and high UV-light transmission of not greater than 5.0% at a percent transmission between 360 nm and 380 nm. Hong however teaches the use of the same materials (e.g., glass substrate, fluoropolymer layer, and encapsulant layer comprising a polymer and UV absorber) thus these values are expected from the multilayer film of Hong.
Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product.
Regarding claims 2-5, as discussed above the L-UVLT and H-UVLT values are expected from the prior art multilayer film (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Hong teaches the multilayer laminate having a visible light transmission of at least 85% (0116), anticipating the claimed VLT of at least about 55% in claim 6 and not greater than about 99.9% in claim 7 (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding claim 10, Hong teaches the fluoropolymers including e.g., ETFE (0030-0039).
Regarding claim 11, Hong teaches the fluoropolymers including combinations which include ETFE and e.g., FEP, polyvinylidene fluoride, vinylidene fluoride, tetrafluoroethylene (0030-0039).
Regarding claims 12-14, Hong teaches the fluoropolymer based layer only including the fluoropolymer e.g., 100 wt% (0030).
Regarding claim 15-17, Hong teaches the fluoropolymer layer being and ETFE film e.g., 100 wt% ETFE (0037, 0148).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Hong teaches the fluoropolymer layer having a thickness in the range of 0.5 mils to 20 mils (0020; 12.7 to 508 microns), anticipating the claimed thickness of at least about 10 µm in claim 18 and not greater than about 1000 µm in claim 19 (MPEP 2131.03).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 05/22/2026 have been entered. Accordingly, the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been withdrawn. However, due to the amendments a new objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been made.
Applicant argues that Hong (US 2013/0063952) is directed to an entirely different field of technology then the multilayer laminate structure recited in claim 1. Applicant argues Hong does not disclose a glass substrate, a fluoropolymer based layer or an encapsulated layer comprising an encapsulant component and a UV absorber component.
In an anticipation rejection a reference may be directed to an entirely different problem from the one addressed by the inventor and may be from an entirely different field of endeavor than that of the claimed invention yet the reference is still anticipatory if it explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation recited in the claims (MPEP 2131.05). As noted in the rejection above, Hong anticipated the claimed multilayer laminate structure as Hong discloses a multilayer laminate (10) comprising a fluoropolymer layer (20), a UV resistant fluoropolymer adhesive layer (30) and a third layer (40) which includes glass (0016 and 0064).
Applicant further argues that Hong does not teach the specific UV light transmission properties and that there is no evidence that the optical element of Hong would necessarily posses the specific UV transmission characteristics.
While Hong is silent to these properties, as discussed in the rejection above, Hong discloses a multilayer laminate which comprises the same materials and structure. Thus, the L-UVLT and H-UVLT properties would be inherent to the multilayer laminate of the prior art. See MPEP 2112.01 I. "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."
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 ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights