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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 5th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The objection to claims 18-19 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 1-19 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The double patenting rejection over U.S. Patent No. 12,278,300 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s timely filed terminal disclaimer.
The rejections over based over Hoya et al. are maintained.
New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 20, Applicant recites, “which optionally includes a UV protective coating”. Its unclear if the UV protective coating is required or not. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoya et al. (US 2016/0060443 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Hoya et al. discloses a photovoltaic module (Figure 4) comprising:
a front layer disposed on a sunlight facing side of the photovoltaic module (Figure 4, #32 – II-10 – Paragraph 0209, 0211 & 0245),
a cell assembly comprising a plurality of photovoltaic cells (Fig. 4, #5);
a sealing material at least partially encapsulating the cell assembly wherein apportion of the sealing material is positioned between the front layer and the cell assembly (Fig. 4, #32 – II-10 “inner” layers – Paragraph 1008 – there may be two or more layers of 32 present, in this case the inner layer reads on “the sealing material at least partially encapsulating the cell assembly wherein a portion of the sealing material is positioned between the front layer and the cell assembly).
Hoya et al. discloses that the front layer comprises a layer II-10 that can comprises a propylene-based copolymer B10 at 100 parts by weight (Paragraph 0209 – II-10 is mapped as the polypropylene composition), wherein the polypropylene composition can comprise approximately 95% polypropylene and approximately 5.47 % ethylene when the polypropylene represents 92 mol % and when the ethylene is 8 mol % (Paragraph 0990), the calculation is shown below:
w
t
%
p
o
l
y
p
r
o
p
y
l
e
n
e
=
(
92
%
*
42.08
g
m
o
l
)
92
%
*
42.08
g
m
o
l
+
(
8
%
*
28.05
g
m
o
l
)
=
94.5
%
w
t
%
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
=
(
8
%
*
28.05
g
m
o
l
)
92
%
*
42.08
g
m
o
l
+
(
8
%
*
28.05
g
m
o
l
)
=
5.5
%
In the alternative, the ethylene is represented by a α-olefin having 4 to 20 carbon atoms (Paragraph 0989) and there is no restriction on its weight percentage based on the total weight of the random copolymer.
In regards to the limitations that “the front layer exhibiting an average light transmission of at least 65% in the wavelength range of 350 nm to 1200 nm as determined in accordance with ASTM D1003 13” and “wherein the front layer is configured to provide both high light transmission and enhanced durability in outdoor environmental conditions”, Hoya et al. teaches the same polypropylene composition as recited by Applicant in claim 1, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “the front layer exhibiting an average light transmission of at least 65% in the wavelength range of 350 nm to 1200 nm as determined in accordance with ASTM D1003 13” and “wherein the front layer is configured to provide both high light transmission and enhanced durability in outdoor environmental conditions”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In view of Claim 3, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hoya et al. teaches that the sealing material comprises a polyolefin elastomer composition comprising an ethylene-alpha-olefin (Paragraph 0209 – II-10 “inner” layers – Paragraph 1000 – comprises a copolymer if propylene/ethylene/alpha olefin).
In view of Claim 4, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Hoya et al. teaches that the alpha olefin can be in an amount less than 40 weight percent based on weight of the ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymer (Paragraph 0973).
In view of Claim 5, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. In regards to the limitation, that, “the sealing layer has a transmission of the sealing layer for light in the wavelength range of 350 nm to 1200 nm as determined according to ASTM D1003-13 of at least 65%”, Hoya et al. teaches the same polypropylene composition as recited by Applicant in claim 1, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “the sealing layer has a transmission of the sealing layer for light in the wavelength range of 350 nm to 1200 nm as determined according to ASTM D1003-13 of at least 65%”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In view of Claim 6, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hoya et al. teaches a back layer (Fig. 4, #2 or #41), wherein the cell assembly is located between the front (Fig. 4, #32) and the back layer (Fig. 4, #2 or #41)
In view of Claim 7, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Hoya et al. teaches that the back layer (Fig. 4, #41 – Paragraph 0244 – I-10) can comprise a propylene (Paragraph 0211).
In view of Claim 8, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Hoya et al. discloses a back layer (Fig. 4, #2) wherein the sealing material (Fig. 4, #32) is arranged between and in direct contact with the front layer (Fig. 4, #31) and the plurality of photovoltaic cells (Fig. 4, #5) and a second portion of the sealing layer (Fig. 4, #42) is arranged between and in direction contact with the back layer (Fig. 4, #41) and the plurality of photovoltaic cells (Fig. 4, #5).
In view of Claim 10, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hoya et al. teaches that the front layer comprises antioxidants include a phenolic and phosphite additive (Paragraph 0913-0916).
In view of Claim 11, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Hoya et al. discloses that the ethylene a olefin copolymer in the polyolefin elastomer composition is crosslinked (Paragraph 0004).
In view of Claim 12, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. In regards to the limitation that, “the random copolymer is a propylene-ethylene copolymer having a molecular weight distribution of at least 5.0 and at most 10.0, wherein molecular weight distribution of is calculated by dividing the weight average molecular weight by the number average molecular weight and wherein weight average molecular weight and number average molecular weight are measured according to ASTM D6474-12”, Hoya et al. teaches the same polypropylene composition as recited by Applicant in claim 1, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “the random copolymer is a propylene-ethylene copolymer having a molecular weight distribution of at least 5.0 and at most 10.0, wherein molecular weight distribution of is calculated by dividing the weight average molecular weight by the number average molecular weight and wherein weight average molecular weight and number average molecular weight are measured according to ASTM D6474-12”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In view of Claim 13, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hoya et al. teaches that the random copolymer is propylene-ethylene Hoya et al. teaches that the melt flow rate is in the range of 0.017 to 8.3 dg/min (Paragraph 0951-0953).
In regards to the limitations, “determined using IS01133:2011, at 2.16kg and 230°C”, Hoya et al. teaches the same polypropylene composition as recited by Applicant in claim 1, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “determined using IS01133:2011, at 2.16kg and 230°C”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In view of Claim 14, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Hoya et al. discloses that the sealing material comprises at least linear alpha olefin having 3 to 20 carbon atoms (Paragraph 0211 – it is an ethylene based copolymer, wherein the other monomer is selected from propylene, butene, hexene which correspond to alpha-olefin copolymers).
In view of Claim 15, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Hoya et al. teaches the density of the ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymer is within the range of 0.85-0.905 g/cm3 (Paragraph 0093).
In view of Claim 17, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hoya et al. teaches that the alpha olefin can be in an amount less than 40 weight percent based on weight of the ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymer (Paragraph 0973).
Hoya et al. teaches a back layer on the opposite side of the cell assembly from the front layer that comprises a polypropylene (Fig. 4, #41 & Paragraph 0243-0244 & 0941).
In view of Claim 18, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hoya et al. teaches the structure can be used on a roof (Paragraph 0067).
In view of Claim 20, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hoya et al. teaches that the layers are external layers to the front of the solar cells (Fig. 4, layer 32 is external to the solar cells 5).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoya et al. (US 2016/0060443 A1) in view of Maeyama et al. (US 2016/0002440 A1).
In view of Claim 9, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hoya et al. teaches that the first polypropylene compositions further comprise a mixture of light stabilizing additives that can include light stabilizers, UV absorbers/synergists, antioxidants include a phenolic and phosphite additive (Paragraph 0913-0916).
Hoya et al. does not disclose that the hindered amines are high and low molecular weight tertiary amines.
Maeyama et al. teaches that hindered amines are selected from high and low molecular weight tertiary amines that advantageously scavenge radical species harmful to the polymer (Paragraph 0082-0084). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include these high and low molecular weight tertiary amines as the hindered amines of Hoya et al. for the advantage of scavenging radical species harmful to the polymer.
In regards to the limitation “measured by ASTM D6474-12”. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoya et al. (US 2016/0060443 A1) in view of Aarnio-Winterhof et al. (US 2019/0177520 A1).
In view of Claim 16, Hoya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hoya et al. discloses that the sealing layer comprises at least 95wt% polyolefins (Paragraph 0941 – both components propylene and ethylene are olefins and thus meet this limitation of at least 95 wt%). Van Giesen et al. discloses that the front layer comprises at least 90 wt% of the polypropylene and at most 10 wt% ethylene (Paragraph 0018).
In regards to the limitation that “the front layer comprises at least 95wt% of the first polypropylene composition”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Van Giesen et al. because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Modified Hoya et al. does not disclose that the back layer comprises at least 95% polyolefin.
Aarnio-Winterhof et al. teaches a back layer comprises at least 95% polyolefin (Paragraph 0020) that is used as a back layer in a photovoltaic module (Paragraph 0041-0043). Aarnio-Winterhof et al. teaches that using these a heterophasic copolymer leads to the following desirable properties: advantageous water intake property, high thermal and mechanical stability (expressed e.g. HDT) both during lamination, if needed when producing the article, and at end use application, and/or, also preferably, a very advantageous shrinkage behavior and dimensional stability as indicated by CLTE measurements (Paragraph 0053). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a back layer comprises at least 95% polyolefin in Hoya et al. for the advantage of at least one of the following desirable properties: advantageous water intake property, high thermal and mechanical stability (expressed e.g. HDT) both during lamination, if needed when producing the article, and at end use application, and/or, also preferably, a very advantageous shrinkage behavior and dimensional stability as indicated by CLTE measurements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Hoya et al. does not disclose a sealing material at least partially encapsulating the cell assembly wherein a portion of the sealing material is positioned between the front layer and the cell assembly. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Hoya et al. discloses that a sealing material at least partially encapsulating the cell assembly wherein apportion of the sealing material is positioned between the front layer and the cell assembly (Fig. 4, #32 – II-10 “inner” layers – Paragraph 1008 – there may be two or more layers of 32 present, in this case the inner layer reads on “the sealing material at least partially encapsulating the cell assembly wherein a portion of the sealing material is positioned between the front layer and the cell assembly).
Additionally, Hoya et al. discloses in a broader teaching this limitation. For example, Hoya et al. discloses an additional sealing layer may be present between the layers 31-32, or 41-42 (Paragraph 1011), and that these layers may be disposed such that they are positioned to encapsulate the solar cells between the layers 31-32 or 41-42 (Paragraph 1012). Accordingly, for the reasons stated above this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights