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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group II, claims 33-37 in the reply filed on 04/17/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, newly added process claims 38-49 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 33-37 are currently under examination on the merits.
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 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al (US 2017/0186898, of record, ‘898 hereafter) in view of Kostromine et al (US 2016/0152833, ‘833 hereafter) and Thompson et al (US 2019/0211168, ‘168 hereafter).
Regarding claims 33-37, ‘898 discloses a solar battery module reading upon photovoltaic panel ([0007]-[0008]), comprising a front protection layer formed from a resin material having optical transparency including PC, PMMA, PS, ABA and the like ([0008]. Fig.4A, layer 18, [0051]-[0056]). “898 does not set forth that the protection layer is a scratch resistant transparent article which further includes a hydrophobic nanoparticles in the transparent resin material as presently claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘833 discloses a scratch resistant transparent article comprising a surface coating with scratch resistance and solvent resistance ([0008]-0016], [0021]); wherein the coating comprises a polymer being PMMA, PC, PS or ABS, particularly preferred PMMA ([0031]-[0041]), and inorganic nanoparticles such as silica, titanium oxide, zinc oxide and the like, in a range of 0.1 to 10 wt%, with at least 95% particle having particle size in a preferred range of 5 to 50 nm, to increase mechanical durability such as scratch resistance and surface hardness ([0058]-[0061]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use scratch resistant coating layer with inorganic nanoparticles as taught by ‘833, to modified the solar battery module of ‘898, in order to render the solar battery module having better surface protection. Modified ‘898 as set forth above does not expressly set forth that the nanoparticles are hydrophobic nanoparticles being surface treated by the silane compound as presently claimed. However, it is a well-known practice to surface-treat an inorganic nanoparticle such as silica particle by a silane compound to render hydrophobic silica nanoparticles with better dispersibility and stability in a polymer matrix, as evidenced by ‘168 ([0064]-[0079]), wherein the silica can be a fumed silica as in present claims 36 and 37 ([0069]) and the silane compounds can be one of the silane compound as presently claimed in claims 34-35 and the like ([0079]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use surface-treated hydrophobic nanoparticles as known in the art, to improve the dispersibility of nanoparticle in a polymer matrix and render a scratch resistant coating layer having desired optical and mechanical properties. The cited prior art does not expressly set forth that the transparent article having optical transmittance and higher scratch resistance as claimed. However, as set forth above, the cited prior art fairly suggests a transparent coating being formed from transparent PMMA resin and silica nanoparticles, which is identical to the presently claimed transparent article, thus it is reasonable to expect that the prior art transparent article would have possessed the same optical and mechanical properties including transmittance and scratch resistance as presently claimed. 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. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also MPEP § 2112.01(I)-(II).
Conclusion
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