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/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-7 and 16-19, drawn to a polyolefin composition including an ethylene alpha olefin copolymer, an ethylene alpha olefin diene terpolymer, and a crosslinking agent.
Group II, claim(s) 8 and 10, drawn to a process for preparing said polyolefin composition.
Group III, claim(s) 9, drawn to a film comprising said polyolefin composition.
Group IV, claim(s) 11 and 12, drawn to an encapsulated solar cell including a first and second sealing layer defined by a film comprising said polyolefin composition.
Group V, claim(s) 13, drawn to a process for preparing a solar cell.
Group VI, claim(s) 14, drawn to a photovoltaic modulus comprising a front protection member, a back protection member, and a solar cell.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-VI lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a polyolefin composition including an ethylene alpha olefin copolymer, an ethylene alpha olefin diene terpolymer, and a crosslinking agent, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Yarnell (US 5,610,217) and Scobbo (US 5,177,146). Yarnell is directed to a composition comprising ethylene copolymers (e.g. ethylene and octene in which octene content is between about 25% by weight and about 65% by weight- corresponds with (ii) of the claimed invention) and ethylene terpolymers (e.g. EPDM). The combination of a copolymer and a terpolymer is suggested in light of the language “as well as mixtures thereof” (Column 6, Lines 1-20). The composition of Yarnell further includes an organic peroxide curative (claimed crosslinking agent) at loadings between about 2 phr and about 10 phr (Column 7, Lines 27+). In terms of the loadings of the copolymer and the terpolymer, Yarnell discloses exemplary compositions formed solely with a copolymer (Example 5) and exemplary compositions formed solely with a terpolymer (Example 1). Given the express teaching to use “mixtures”, it reasons that compositions formed predominantly with a copolymer would be within the scope of Yarnell (and thus satisfy the claimed loadings). It is emphasized that Yarnell teaches inventive compositions formed solely with a copolymer and further states that an inventive composition can include a mixture of a copolymer and a terpolymer. Lastly, the claimed unsaturation amount is consistent with well-known and conventionally used ethylene terpolymers in general, as shown for example by Scobbo (Column 3, Lines 5-9).
During a telephone conversation with Asaf Batelman on August 19, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of a polyolefin composition, claims 1-7 and 16-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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, 3, 4, 7, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarnell and further in view of Scobbo.
Yarnell is directed to a composition (claimed polyolefin composition) comprising ethylene copolymers (e.g. ethylene and octene in which octene content is between about 25% by weight and about 65% by weight- corresponds with (ii) of the claimed invention) and ethylene terpolymers (e.g. EPDM). The combination of a copolymer and a terpolymer is suggested in light of the language “as well as mixtures thereof” (Column 6, Lines 1-20). The composition of Yarnell further includes an organic peroxide curative (claimed crosslinking agent) at loadings between about 2 phr and about 10 phr (Column 7, Lines 27+). In terms of the loadings of the copolymer and the terpolymer, Yarnell discloses exemplary compositions formed solely with a copolymer (Example 5) and exemplary compositions formed solely with a terpolymer (Example 1). Given the express teaching to use “mixtures”, it reasons that compositions formed predominantly with a copolymer would be within the scope of Yarnell (and thus satisfy the claimed loadings between 60 weight percent and 99 weight percent). It is emphasized that Yarnell teaches inventive compositions formed solely with a copolymer and further states that an inventive composition can include a mixture of a copolymer and a terpolymer.
Lastly, the claimed unsaturation amount is consistent with well-known and conventionally used ethylene terpolymers in general, as shown for example by Scobbo (Column 3, Lines 5-9). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to usen any number of ethylene based terpolymers given the general disclosure of Yarnell and the general teachings of Scobbo and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results. Looking at Tables 1 and 2 in Applicant’s original disclosure, all of the inventive examples include a degree of unsaturation in accordance to the claimed invention and there is a lack of comparative examples having a degree of unsaturation outside the scope of the claimed invention. It is further noted that the lone comparative example does not include a mixture of polymers, while the closest prior art of record does in fact teach a mixture of copolymers and terpolymers.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Yarnell suggests the use of hexadiene, dicyclopentadiene, and ethylidenenorbornene (Column 6, Lines 5-10).
With respect to claims 4 and 19, Yarnell teaches a wide variety of peroxides in accordance to the claimed invention (Column 7, Lines 27+).
As to claim 7, exemplary compositions 1, 3, and 7 in Table 2 of Yarnell demonstrate a tensile strength at break between 10.5 MPa and 25.0 MPa.
Regarding claims 16-18, the copolymer or terpolymer of Yarnell can include propylene units, butene units, pentene units, or octene units (Column 6, Lines 1+).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarnell and Scobbo as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Gopalan (US 2019/0031805).
As detailed above, Yarnell is directed to a composition comprising a mixture of ethylene copolymers and ethylene terpolymers. Yarnell further states that such a composition has applicability in, for example, power transmission belts and flat belts (Column 1, Lines 10+). In such an instance, though, Yarnell is silent with respect to a density of the ethylene copolymer. In any event, the claims define a broad range of densities that are consistent with well-known and conventional ethylene copolymers commonly used in belting applications, as shown for example by Gopalan (Paragraphs 35, 36, 51, and 85). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of conventional ethylene copolymers in the composition of Yarnell absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarnell and Scobbo as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Segal (US 4,207,373) and/or Hikita (JP 01110546).
Yarnell is directed to a composition including an ethylene copolymer, an ethylene terpolymer, a reinforcing filler (e.g. silica at a loading as small as 25 phr), a peroxide crosslinking agent (about 2 phr to about 10 phr), and additional, conventional additives (i.e. antioxidants at loadings between about 0.5 phr and about 1.5 phr) (Column 7, Lines 13-54). In such an instance, though, Yarnell is silent with respect to the inclusion of a coupling agent.
A fair reading of Yarnell, though, suggests the general inclusion of conventional additives. More particularly, when using silica in similar polyolefin compositions, it is well known to include coupling agents in order to promote coupling between silica and the polymer and ultimately improve or optimize mechanical properties, as shown for example by Segal (Column 4, Lines 50+). Hikita is similarly directed to a polyolefin composition and teaches the inclusion of a coupling agent when silica is used as a filler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a conventional coupling agent in the composition of Yarnell for the benefits detailed above. Additionally, given a silica loading as small as 25 phr in the composition of Yarnell, it reasons that a coupling agent loading would fall within the broad range of the claimed invention, it being noted that Hikita specifically teaches a loading between 0.1 and 10 parts by weight (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights