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 § 112
Claim 9 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.
Claim 9 recites “the metal oxide layer is not part of a multilayer optical film.” The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is being disclaimed. Parent claim 1 recites “A multilayer article comprising […] a metal oxide layer directed attached to a major surface of the substrate layer […] wherein the article exhibits an average transmission of […] light over a wavelength bandwidth of at least 30 nanometers having a wavelength between at least 200 nm and 400 nm of 10% or less […].” A plain reading of claim 1 is a multilayer film comprising the metal oxide layer, wherein the film is defined by optical properties. Therefore, the metal oxide layer appears to intrinsically be “a part of a multilayer optical film” and so it is not clear how claim 9 can require the metal oxide to not be part of such a film or what feature(s) are being disclaimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-12, 15-16, 18, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (US 2017/0198177).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, and 8:
Olson discloses an assembly (article) comprising a first polymeric substrate, a barrier film, a pressure sensitive adhesive layer, and a second polymeric film [0006]. The substrate comprises fluoropolymer [0073]. The barrier film comprises a metal oxide layer [0061; 0068-0070]. Olson teaches an oxide layer having a thickness of 2-50 nm is placed on the substrate [0080]. The adhesive layer is placed on the metal oxide layer [0082]. The assembly reflects or absorbs at least 50 percent of incident UV light over at least a 30 nm range in a wavelength of 300-400 nm, including wherein materials absorb at least 90% of incident light in a wavelength range of 180-400 nm [0011; 0084].
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the thickness of the metal oxide layer, including over values falling within the presently claimed range, to provide such a layer in accordance with Olson’s teaching, and thereby arrive at the claimed film. Furthermore, although Olson is silent with regard to a specific angle of incident light, one of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the disclosure, would be motivated to block as much incident UV light as possible, including over angles falling within the claimed ranges, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4:
Olson teaches the metal of the metal oxide comprises titanium, aluminum, tantalum, etc. [0068].
Regarding claim 7:
Olson teaches transmission of visible light (above 400 nm) of at least about 75% [0041; 0055; 0057; 0086].
Regarding claim 9:
The present claim is indefinite as explained in the rejection under 35 USC 112. The examiner submits the layer of metal oxide taught by Olson meets the requirements of the claimed metal oxide layer because it is otherwise the same as claimed.
Regarding claim 10-12:
Olson discloses a pressure sensitive adhesive, including those comprising silicone, polyisobutylene, etc. [0006; 0040].
Regarding claim 15-16:
Olson discloses fluoropolymer, including polyvinylidene difluoride and polytetrafluoroethylene [0073].
Regarding claim 18:
Olson discloses the substrate is 0.01-1 mm (10-1,000 µm) [0078]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the thickness, including over values within the presently claimed range, to provide the dimension and other properties (mechanical strength, flexibility, etc.) as desired for a given end use.
Regarding claim 23:
Given that Olson otherwise suggests a multilayer article comprising the same materials as presently claimed, the examiner submits such prior art article meets the claimed requirements because it comprises the same materials.
Claim(s) 13-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (US 2017/0198177) in view of Weigel et al. (US 2012/0003451).
Regarding claims 13-14:
Olson discloses an assembly as previously explained. Olson teaches the adhesive has strong peel strength [0038; 0091].
Olson is silent with regard to a specific peel strength. The reference, however, teaches the adhesive is useful in a multilayer stack as disclosed by Weigel (Olson [0058; 0077]). Weigel teaches example stacks have peel forces in the range of 3.2-75.3 N/cm (326-7,678 g/cm) [0222].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the adhesive strength of Olson’s adhesive, including over values within the presently claimed ranges, to provide a multilayer article having the desired cohesion between layers as known in the art.
Regarding claim 17:
Olson teaches the substrate comprises any of various polymers [0073].
Olson is silent with regard to a silicone thermoplastic polymer. The reference, however, teaches the substrate comprises multilayer optical films as disclosed by Weigel (Olson [0077]). Weigel teaches such films comprise various polymers, including thermoplastic silicone polymer [0037; 0048-0050].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use thermoplastic silicone polymer in the substrate of Olson to provide such a substrate in accordance with its teachings.
Claim(s) 19-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (US 2017/0198177) in view of Hebrink et al. (US 2014/0083481).
Regarding claims 19-20 and 22:
Olson discloses an assembly as previously explained. Olson teaches film is used in a solar device [0057; 0083].
Olson is silent with regard to a substrate comprising a microstructure surface as presently claimed.
Such features were known in the art to have utility. For example, Hebrink discloses photovoltaic modules comprising a multilayer optical film comprising a textured layer on a surface thereof to provide improved power output [abstract; 0002; 0076]. The textured layer comprises peaks and valleys, wherein peaks have heights of at least 10 µm, a spacing of at least 10 µm, and can be V-shaped with apex angles of greater than 90° [0076-0081]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from this teaching that the amount of flat area would be related to the improved power output.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a textured layer as taught by Hebrink, including features falling within the claimed requirements, to provide a photovoltaic module having improved power output.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 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 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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
