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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11 MAY 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-18 and 30-43 in the reply filed on 11 MAY 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction has not been properly established. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the first instance, the property being argued is not present in all independent claims, as Claim 1 make no mention of an encapsulant. In the second instance, Examiner notes that isothermal DSC to determine crosslink percentage of a film is known in the art and cites US ‘477 (U.S. Patent 5,211,477), column 8, as evidence. Since US ‘530 (U.S. PGPub 2017/0133530) PG 0110-0112 recognizes advantages and disadvantages accrued to both blocked and unblocked isocyanate groups and the crosslinking that occurs therefrom, monitoring the crosslink density by means of e.g. US ‘477 would be held as routine optimization of disclosed film properties.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-18, 30-31, and 33-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US ‘530 (U.S. PGPub 2017/0133530) in view of US ‘477 (U.S. Patent 5,211,477).
As regards Claim 1, US ‘530 discloses A back sheet (1) for photovoltaic module (cf. fig. 1 and 4) comprises a layer C (11) that will be bonded to an encapsulant (6) when the back sheet is incorporated into a photovoltaic module of a substrate film (2).
Layer C (11) preferably contains an acrylic resin (US ‘530 0054). The back sheet for photovoltaic module, the layer-C-forming material preferably contains a blocked isocyanate compound and an isocyanate compound not protected by blocking groups in order to enhance the interfacial adhesions between the layer C and the substrate film and between the layer C and the encapsulant (US ‘530 0111 ). During the process of producing the back sheet, the isocyanate compound having isocyanate groups not protected by blocking groups in the layer-C forming material undergoes a cross-linking reaction with an acrylic resin to give the acrylic resin having urethane linkage. In contrast, the blocked isocyanate compound does not undergo a reaction during the process for producing the back sheet and remains in the layer C unreacted (US ‘530 0113). Lamination in a vacuum laminator is heated to a temperature of 130-160°C (US ‘530 PG 0120). In present claim 1 the partial reticulation of the layer of coating resin in step c) results from stopping the reticulation or cross-linking reaction before completion of the reaction. In US ‘530 partial crosslinking takes place when isocyanate groups not protected by blocking groups undergo a cross-linking reaction with an acrylic resin to give the acrylic resin having urethane linkage. the predetermined time for the partial crosslinking is for example, 50° C. for about three days (US ‘530 PG 0110). After this period crosslinking is interrupted. US ‘530 does not teach or suggest the use of isothermal DSC to confirm the degree of crosslinkage. US ‘530 discloses at PG 0109 that too much or too little crosslink density has detrimental effects on the film (PG 0103). US ‘477 Column 8 discloses the use of isothermal DSC to monitor the degree of crosslinking in a resin film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of US ‘530 to determine the degree of crosslinking in the film as suggested by US ‘477, as US ‘530 notes film effects based on the degree of crosslinking and US ‘477 discloses a way to monitor the film for degree of crosslinking.
As regards Claim 2, US ‘530 teaches that a photovoltaic module is obtained by disposing, in sequence, a light-receiving side protective substrate (5), a light-receiving-side encapsulant (6), cells (3), a backside encapsulant (6), and a back sheet (1) such that the layer C (11) of the back sheet (1) faces the backside encapsulant (6), thereby forming a layered product, and laminating the layered product. For the lamination, vacuum lamination is typically used, and in bonding the layers in this vacuum lamination process, heat necessary for the blocking groups to be eliminated is applied. During the vacuum lamination process, elimination of the blocking groups, formation of isocyanate groups, and a cross-linking reaction with components in the encapsulants are caused (US ‘530 PG 0116). The layer-C-forming material composition can contain a solvent (US ‘530 PG 0114). Layer C can be cured by UV radiation (US ‘530 PG 0117). The wet coating method, heating and drying in the drying step after the application can be carried out in a drying oven set at a high temperature of 150° C. or higher (US ‘530 PG 0117). Lamination in a vacuum laminator is heated to a temperature of 130-160°C (US ‘530 PG 0120). Present claim 2 further specifies that step c) comprises interrupting said partial cross-linking after a predefined time interval less than the time for completing the cross-linking reaction. In US ‘530 partial crosslinking takes place when isocyanate groups not protected by blocking groups undergo a cross-linking reaction with an acrylic resin to give the acrylic resin having urethane linkage. the predetermined time for the partial crosslinking is for example, 50° C. for about three days (US ‘530 PG 0110). After this period crosslinking is interrupted. US ‘530 does not teach or suggest the use of isothermal DSC to confirm the degree of crosslinkage. US ‘530 discloses at PG 0109 that too much or too little crosslink density has detrimental effects on the film (PG 0103). US ‘477 Column 8 discloses the use of isothermal DSC to monitor the degree of crosslinking in a resin film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of US ‘530 to determine the degree of crosslinking in the film as suggested by US ‘477, as US ‘530 notes film effects based on the degree of crosslinking and US ‘477 discloses a way to monitor the film for degree of crosslinking.
The additional limitation of dependent claim 3 is also disclosed in US ‘530, see for example US ‘530 PG 0110.
The additional limitation of dependent claims 4 and 30 is also disclosed in US ‘530, see for example US ‘530 PG 0116.
The additional limitation of dependent claims 5 and 31 is held as prima facie obvious. It is common knowledge of the skilled person that chemical crosslinking reactions are temperature dependent. moreover the crosslinking percentage of the partial crosslinking is not defined. Therefore, the skilled person will, in a procedure of process optimization, increase the crosslinking temperature as to reduce the reaction time and only partially crosslink the isocyanate compound having isocyanate groups not protected by blocking groups.
The additional limitation of dependent claims 7 and 33 is also disclosed in US ‘530, see for example US ‘530 PG 0167.
Claims 8 and 34 – While the preferred embodiment of US ‘530 requires both blocked and unblocked isocyanate groups, US ‘530 PG 0110-0112 discloses advantages accrued to both types of isocyanate groups. Selection of a desired composition of blocked and unblocked isocyanate groups to obtain desired physical properties when the recognition of those properties is present in the art is held as prima facie obvious.
Claims 9-10 and 35-36: In claim 9 and 35 the first partial cross linking step has a duration of 10-25s. In US ‘530 the corresponding partial cross linking step is the step where the isocyanate compound having isocyanate groups not protected by blocking groups in the layer-C-forming material undergoes a cross-linking reaction with an acrylic resin to give the acrylic resin having urethane linkage. The duration of this partial crosslinking is for example 3 days at 50°C (US ‘530 PG 0110) or 3 days at 40°C (US ‘530 PG 0176, example 1 ). In present partial crosslinking step the duration of 10-25s cannot be seen independent form the temperature at which the crosslinking reaction takes place. The crosslinking temperature is in the first place determined by the deblocking temperature of the blocked isocyanate used which is in the range of 100-120°C (present claim 5). On page 21, last paragraph of the description is disclosed that partial crosslinking is obtained at 120-130°C. The distinguishing feature of claim 9 and 35 over US ‘530 is a reduced production time of the first partial crosslinking step. The applicant formulates the problem to be solved as reducing production time and costs. Since the problem formulated contains a pointer to the solution, it should be reformulated to, how to increase the output of the partial crosslinking step (c) in claim 1. It is common knowledge of the skilled person that chemical crosslinking reactions are temperature dependent. moreover the crosslinking percentage of the partial crosslinking is not defined. Therefore, the skilled person will, in a procedure of process optimization, increase the crosslinking temperature as to reduce the reaction time and only partially crosslink the isocyanate compound having isocyanate groups not protected by blocking groups.
The additional limitation of dependent claim 11 and 37 is also disclosed in US ‘530, see for example US ‘530 PG 0117 and US ‘530 PG 0120.
The additional limitation of dependent claims 12 and 38 is also disclosed in US ‘530, see for example US ‘530 PG 0097.
The additional limitation of dependent claim 13 and 39 is also disclosed in US ‘530, see for example US ‘530 PG 0089.
The additional limitation of dependent claims 14 and 40 is also disclosed in US ‘530, see for example US ‘530 PG 0095 and US ‘530 PG 0113.
The additional limitation of dependent claim 15 and 41 is also disclosed in US ‘530, see for example US ‘530 PG 0114 and example 1.
The additional limitation of dependent claims 16 and 42 is also disclosed in US ‘530, see for example US ‘530 PG 0117.
The additional limitation of dependent claim 17 is also disclosed in US ‘530, see for example US ‘530 PG 0120.
The additional limitation of dependent claim 18 and 43 is also disclosed in US ‘530, see for example US ‘530 PG 0120.
Claim(s) 6 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US ‘530 / US ‘477 as applied to claims 4 and 30 above, and further in view of US ‘191 (U.S. PGPub 2011/0045191).
Claims 6 and 32: US ‘530 does not explicitly disclose blocking agent di-ethyl-malonate (DEM) as isocyanate blocking agent. Novelty of claims 6 and 32 in view of US ‘530 is acknowledged. The purported effect over the blocking agents in US ‘530 is a lower deblocking temperature. The technical problem can hence be formulated in terms of optimizing the crosslinking process. It is however generally known from US ‘191 (example 5 and tables 3.5) that Diethyl Malonate (DEM has a lower deblocking temperature than 3,5- dimethylpyrazole (DMP)) and is a stated alternative to the DMP for the same purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of US ‘530 to use DEM as a deblocking agent, as selection of a material known to be suitable for a given purpose is held as prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL G MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL G MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights