DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-6 be found allowable, claims 12-16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
Claims 1, 5-10, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hetzler et al. (US 2005/0271867).
Hetzler is directed to a polymer film comprising a first layer and a second layer wherein the first layer includes a first fluoropolymer having a melting point that is less than 135 oC and the second layer includes a second fluoropolymer having a melting point that is greater than 135 oC (paragraph 0004). The first and second layers are formed of essentially 100% fluoropolymer but may also contain common fillers and additives, such as UV agents (paragraph 0012). The first and second layers may be made of PVDF (paragraph 0019). The polymer film may include additional fluoropolymer layers overlying the second fluoropolymer layer (paragraphs 0022-0023 and Figure 2). The film may be laminated over a substrate (paragraph 0028).
The first fluoropolymer layer reads on the low-melt fluoropolymer adhesion layer of the instant claims; the second fluoropolymer layer in combination with additional fluoropolymer layers reads on the multilayer fluoropolymer film of the instant claims; the substrate over which the film is laminated reads on the structural substrate of the claims.
While Hetzler does not illustrate an embodiment wherein the polymer film is laminated over a substrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately envisaged such a construction as a purpose of the film is to be laminated over an article or device (paragraph 0002). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to laminate the film over an article or device (reading on a structural substrate) since this is explicitly taught as a use for the film.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, while Hetzler does not illustrate an embodiment employing PVDF for the first fluoropolymer layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately envisaged the use of PVDF based on the limited number of fluoropolymer taught by Hetzler (paragraph 0019). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use PVDF as the first fluoropolymer since Hetzler explicitly teaches the use of PVDF as the first fluoropolymer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hetzler et al. (US 2005/0271867).
Hetzler teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, except for the presence of a layer corresponding to a transition layer contacting the multilayer fluoropolymer film and the low-melt adhesion layer. However, Hetzler does teach that their first and second layers may be coextruded so as to be in direct contact (paragraph 0014) and that their polymer film may contain additional fluoropolymer layers overlying the layer having a melting point that is greater than 130 oC (paragraph 0022) that are similar to the layer having a melting point greater than 135 oC (paragraph 0023).
Since Hetzler teach that additional fluoropolymer layers (i.e., plural) may overlie the higher melting point layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the polymer film with two (or more) additional fluoropolymer layers. In such a polymer film, the layer closest to the layer formed from a fluoropolymer having a melting point less than 135 oC would read on the transition layer of claim 11 while the two (or more) additional fluoropolymer layers would read on the multilayer fluoropolymer film of claim 11.
Hetzler teaches all the limitation of claim 18, as outlined above, except for illustrating an embodiment wherein the first fluoropolymer (i.e., the fluoropolymer having a melting point that is less than 135 oC) is PVDF-HFP. However, Hetzler teaches that fluoropolymer having a melting temperature below 135 oC may be a copolymer of monomers including vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene (paragraph 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a copolymer formed from any of the explicitly recited monomers, including vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene, as the first fluoropolymer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2017/0077331) in view of Hetzler et al. (US 2005/0271867).
Huang is directed to a solar cell module comprising a substrate (paragraph 0010). The substrate may be formed from glass or a flexible plastic, such as polycarbonate (paragraph 0027). Polycarbonate is a thermoformable thermoplastic having a glass transition temperature of 144-145 oC (see MatWeb: Overview of materials for Polycarbonate, Optical Grade submitted in the IDS filed 24 October 2024). A moisture barrier or weatherability layer may be applied on the substrate (Figure 8B and paragraph 0056).
Huang does not teach a multilayer fluoropolymer film or a low-melt fluoropolymer adhesion layer comprising PVDF or PVDF-HFP.
Hetzler is directed to a polymer film comprising a first layer and a second layer wherein the first layer includes a first fluoropolymer having a melting point that is less than 135 oC and the second layer includes a second fluoropolymer having a melting point that is greater than 135 oC (paragraph 0004). The film may be used to provide moisture and weather protection to photovoltaic cells (paragraph 0003). The first and second layers are formed of essentially 100% fluoropolymer but may also contain common additives, such as UV agents (paragraph 0012). The first and second layers may be made of PVDF (paragraph 0019). The polymer film may include additional fluoropolymer layers overlying the second fluoropolymer layer (paragraphs 0022-0023 and Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polymer film of Hetzler as the moisture and weather resistant layer of Huang et al. since the courts have held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07) and an intended use of the known film of Hetzler is as a moisture/weather resistant film for a photovoltaic cell.
The first fluoropolymer layer of Hetzler reads on the low-melt fluoropolymer adhesion layer of the instant claims; the second fluoropolymer layer in combination with additional fluoropolymer layers reads on the multilayer fluoropolymer film of the instant claims.
Regarding the limitation of claim 11, Hetzler teach that their first and second layers may be coextruded so as to be in direct contact (paragraph 0014) and that their polymer film may contain additional fluoropolymer layers overlying the layer having a melting point that is greater than 130 oC (paragraph 0022) that are similar to the layer having a melting point greater than 135 oC (paragraph 0023). Since Hetzler teach that additional fluoropolymer layers (i.e. plural) may overlie the higher melting point layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the polymer film with two (or more) additional fluoropolymer layers. In such a polymer film, the layer closest to the layer formed from a fluoropolymer having a melting point less than 135 oC would read on the transition layer of claim 13 while the two (or more) additional fluoropolymer layers would read on the multilayer fluoropolymer film of claim 13.
Regarding the limitations of claim 18, since Hetzler teach that the first fluoropolymer may be a copolymer of monomers including vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene (paragraph 0011), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a copolymer formed from any of the explicitly recited monomers as the first fluoropolymer.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-10 and 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,292.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the inventions of instant claims 1-10 and 12-18 represent a genus of which the inventions described by claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,292 are species since they are required to have a specific temperature ranges of the low-melt fluoropolymer adhesion layer, multilayer fluoropolymer film, and first peak peel strength of at least about 175 NPM while the composite article of the instant claims may have any melting temperatures and peak peel strength. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,292 in view of Hetzler et al. (US 2005/0271867).
Claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,292 recite all the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, except for a transition layer between the multilayer fluoropolymer film and the low-melt fluoropolymer adhesion layer.
Hetzler is directed to a polymer film comprising a first layer and a second layer wherein the first layer includes a first fluoropolymer having a melting point that is less than 135 oC and the second layer includes a second fluoropolymer having a melting point that is greater than 135 oC (paragraph 0004) that may be laminated over a substrate (paragraph 0028) to provide the substrate with mechanical and chemical protection (paragraph 0002). The polymer film may include additional fluoropolymer layers overlying the second fluoropolymer layer (paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide additional fluoropolymer layers overlying the multilayer fluoropolymer film recited in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,292 to provide additional mechanical and/or chemical protection to the resulting composite article. In such a polymer film, the layer closest to the layer formed from a fluoropolymer having a melting point less than 135 oC would read on the transition layer of claim 11 while the additional fluoropolymer layers would read on the multilayer fluoropolymer film of claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 with respect to the rejections over Hetzler and Hetzler in view of Huang have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, the applicant argues that, while Hetzler mentions that their films may be used to make laminated articles, the structural substrate itself is not a disclosed element of the polymer film.
This is not persuasive for at least the reason that the structural substrate is required neither to be a film nor to be part of the film. Rather, the claims are drawn to a "composite article" that comprises the substrate and the multilayer fluoropolymer film bonded together by a low-melt fluoropolymer adhesion layer comprising PVDF. This illustrated by the teachings in Hetzler that the polymer film (which may comprise three fluoropolymer layers - see Figure 2) is laminated to a manufactured article by rolling or pressing the first layer of the film (i.e., the layer with a melting point of less than 135 oC) onto the article such that the first layer contacts the article (see paragraph 0010). The first layer of the film corresponds to the low-melt fluoropolymer adhesion layer of the claims, the other two fluoropolymer layers correspond to the multilayer fluoropolymer film, and the manufactured article corresponds to the structural substrate of the claims.
The applicant further argues that Hetzler discloses numerous options of polymers for the first and second polymer layers and that PVDF is merely one of multi-member lists of fluoropolymer. The applicant alleges that selecting PVDF from the lists constitutes impermissible picking and choosing that does not establish anticipation.
This is not persuasive since the courts have held that a reference that clearly names the claimed species anticipates the claim no matter how many other species are named and that even a generic disclosure will anticipate a claimed species when the species can be at once envisaged from the disclosure. See MPEP 2131.02. In this case, Hetzler explicitly recites that layer 106 (i.e., the layer with a melting point of less than 135 oC corresponding to the low-melt fluoropolymer adhesion layer of the claims) "may be formed of PVDF or THV" (see paragraph 0019). That is, not only does Hetzler expressly recite PVDF as a material for the layer with a melting point less than 135 oC, but one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage the use of PVDF as a material for the layer with a melting point less than 135 oC based on the limited number (two) of disclosed polymers. Therefore, although Hetzler does not show an Example employing PVDF as the material for the layer having a melting point of less than 135 oC, the reference still anticipates the use of PVDF as the material for the layer having a melting point of less than 135 oC.
With respect to claim 18, the examiner accepts the applicant's interpretation that PVDF-HFP is not copolymer comprising vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene but rather a copolymer consisting only of vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene. As such, the disclosure of the use of THV as the material for the layer having a melting point of less than 135 oC does not read on claim 18. Therefore, the anticipation rejection of claim 18 has been withdrawn. However, the obviousness rejection of claim 18 has been maintained since Hetzler teaches that the first fluoropolymer may be a copolymer of monomers including vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene (paragraph 0011) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a copolymer formed from any of the explicitly recited monomers as the first fluoropolymer.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Hetzler, the applicant again argues that while Hetzler mentions that their films may be used to make laminated articles, the structural substrate itself is not a disclosed element of the polymer film. The applicant argues that the Office has not articulated any reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a structural substrate to Hetzler stand-alone film to arrive at the composite article of the claims.
This is not persuasive for at least the reason that the structural substrate is required neither to be a film nor to be part of the film. Rather, the claims are drawn to a "composite article" that comprises the substrate and the multilayer fluoropolymer film bonded together by a low-melt fluoropolymer adhesion layer comprising PVDF. This illustrated by the teachings in Hetzler that the polymer film (which may comprise three fluoropolymer layers - see Figure 2) is laminated to a manufactured article by rolling or pressing the first layer of the film (i.e., the layer with a melting point of less than 135 oC) onto the article such that the first layer contacts the article (see paragraph 0010). The first layer of the film corresponds to the low-melt fluoropolymer adhesion layer of the claims, the other two fluoropolymer layers correspond to the multilayer fluoropolymer film, and the manufactured article corresponds to the structural substrate of the claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a structural substrate to the film of Hetzler as this is the only use for the film disclosed by Hetzler, with the lamination of the film onto a substrate being explicitly taught in Hetzler.
The applicant further argues that Hetzler discloses numerous options of polymers for the first and second polymer layers and that PVDF is merely one of multi-member lists of fluoropolymer. The applicant alleges the Office has not provided any articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected PVDF from among the multi-member lists to arrive at a low-melt fluoropolymer adhesion layer comprising PVDF as recited in claims 1 and 12.
This is not persuasive because the examiner has provided an articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected PVDF from among the multi-member lists to arrive at a low-melt fluoropolymer adhesion layer comprising PVDF as recited in claims 1 and 12. Namely, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use PVDF as the first fluoropolymer since Hetzler explicitly teaches the use of PVDF as the first fluoropolymer.
With respect to claim 18, the applicant argues that THV - a terpolymer of tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene, and vinylidene fluoride - is distinguished from PVDF-HFP by the presence of an additional monomer (i.e., tetrafluoroethylene). The examiner accepts this position and has thus withdrawn the anticipation rejection of claim 18. However, the obviousness rejection of claim 18 is maintained since Hetzler explicitly teaches that the first fluoropolymer (i.e., the fluoropolymer corresponding to the low-melt fluoropolymer of claim 18) may be a copolymer of monomers including vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene (paragraph 0011). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a copolymer formed from any of the explicitly recited monomers, including vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene, as the first fluoropolymer.
With respect to claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 alone over Hetzler, the applicant argues the generic teaching in Hetzler that the polymer film may include additional fluoropolymer layers overlying the second fluoropolymer does not disclose or provide any reason to arrive at a distinct transition layer that contacts both the multilayer fluoropolymer film and the low-melt fluoropolymer adhesion layer.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The addition of additional fluoropolymer layers (plural) overlying the second fluoropolymer layer (i.e., the fluoropolymer layer having a melting point that is greater than 135 oC) would necessarily result in a film comprising, in order: (i) a fluoropolymer layer having a melting point that is less than 135 oC, (ii) a fluoropolymer having a melting point that is greater than 135 oC, (iii) a first additional fluoropolymer layer, and (iv) a second additional fluoropolymer layer. Layer (i) reads on the low-melt fluoropolymer adhesion layer of the claims; layer (ii) reads on the transition layer of the claims; layers (iii) and (iv) read on the multilayer fluoropolymer film of the claims.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Huang in view of Hetzler, the applicant argues that Huang is directed to sealing a solar cell module using an adhesive layer that is not a fluoropolymer, and the moisture barrier and weatherability layers are merely optionally additional films that can be further formed on the substrate as needed. The applicant alleges that the rationale the film of Hetzler would be selected based on its suitability for its intended use is conclusory and contains no reason why one of ordinary skill would have incorporated the fluoropolymer film of Hetzler into the electrical-interconnection sealing structure of Huang.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. Huang teaches a solar cell, to the top surface of which may be applied a moisture barrier or weather-ability layer (paragraph 0056). Hetzler is directed to a polymeric film providing protection from exposure to the environment and moisture for manufactured articles to which the film is laminated (paragraph 0002). Hetzler further teaches that a photovoltaic cell is a suitable example of a manufactured article (paragraph 0010). It would have been obvious to use the film of Hetzler for a purpose for which it was intended to be used (e.g., the moisture/weather resistant film of the solar cell of Huang). Rather than being conclusory, this mirrors motivation approved by the courts to support a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Additionally, the applicant argues that the combination of Huang and Hetzler does not teach or suggest the claims because Hetzler does not teach or suggest a low-melt fluoropolymer layer comprising PVDF or PVDF-HFP, repeating the logic set forth above.
This is likewise not found persuasive for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday mornings, Eastern time.
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, Callie Shosho, can be reached on 571 272-1123. 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.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights