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 § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and (a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2020/0062943 (Chaudhary).
Chaudhary discloses a composition embodiment used as a coating for electrical conductors [0061] comprising:
54.00 to 99.00 wt.% of a crosslinkable ethylene/alpha olefin copolymer (meets Applicants’ ethylene/alpha-olefin copolymer);
0.950 to 5.00 wt.% of a triallyl phosphate;
0.050 to 5.00 wt.% of an organic peroxide; and
0.4 to 0.80 wt.% of a poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) having a number average molecular weight (Mn) of 10,000 to 30,000 g/mole (meets Applicants’ polyethylene glycol and Mn thereof).(e.g., abstract, [0009], [0012], [0084], Tables 1 and 2, claims).
As to claims 1 and 5, Chaudhary sets forth inventive and comparative examples (Tables 1 and 2) comprising, inter alia, (A1) an ethylene-1-octene copolymer (meets Applicants’ ethylene/alpha-olefin copolymer) and (J1) a PEG 20000 having a Mn of 20,000 g/mol wherein the calculated PEG content ranges from about 0.60 to 0.69 wt.% based on the total weight of ethylene-1-octene copolymer and PEG (meets Applicants’ polyethylene glycol, Mn and content thereof).
As to claim 3, Chaudhary sets forth inventive and comparative examples (Table 2) wherein the PEG content ranges from about 0.60 to 0.63 wt.% based on the total weight of ethylene-1-octene copolymer and PEG (meets Applicants’ polyethylene glycol content thereof).
As to claim 4, Chaudhary’s compositions comprise additional crosslinking materials such as triallyl phosphate and peroxide.
As to claim 6, it would be expected that Chaudhary’s ethylene/1-octene copolymer would necessarily have greater than 0 mol% of the 1-octene comonomer.
As to claim 7, Chaudhary discloses the composition is used as a coating film for insulating electrical/optical conductors [0009].
Chaudhary anticipates the above-rejected claims in that it is reasonably believed that the compositions expressly exemplified by Chaudhary meet the presently claimed polyethylene glycol in terms of Mn and content thereof. In the alternative, Chaudhary discloses that 0.4 to 0.80 wt.% of a poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) having Mn of 10,000 to 30,000 g/mole can be used and, as such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a PEG having a select Mn in an appropriate amount (inclusive of that presently claimed) in accordance with the ultimate properties desired and with the reasonable expectation of success.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0062943 (Chaudhary) described hereinabove in view of JP 2018145308 A (Sugiyama).
Sugiyama discloses that a composition comprising a silane graft-modified olefin resin and a polyethylene glycol can be used as an encapsulant for a solar cell. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to similarly use Chaudhary’s composition as an encapsulant for a solar cell module with the reasonable expectation. Notably, Chaudhary’s ethylene/alpha olefin copolymer can be modified with a silane compound [0013].
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments and Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed September 01, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection over JP 2018145308 A (Sugiyama) has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2020/0062943 (Chaudhary).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ana L Woodward whose telephone number is (571)272-1082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/ANA L. WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights