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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 3, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
The Restriction of December 20, 2022 was made final and has been maintained.
Claims 1-14 are under examination.
Claims 15-20 are non-elected with traverse and have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-14 are 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 1, lines 14, 15, the phrase “a sputter-deposited WOx EC layer” is unclear because it is uncertain if it is meant to refer back to “an electrochromic (EC) layer” of line 4.
Claim 1, lines 19, 20, the phrase “a sputter-deposited WOx EC layer” is unclear because it is uncertain if it is meant to refer back to “an electrochromic (EC) layer” of line 4.
Claim 1, line 23, the phrase “a sputter-deposited WOx EC layer” is unclear because it is uncertain if it is meant to refer back to “an electrochromic (EC) layer” of line 4.
Claim 2, line 5, should the phrase “the EC layer” refer to “the sputter-deposited WOx EC layer”?
Claim 3, line 1, should the phrase “the EC layer” refer to “the sputter-deposited WOx EC layer”?
Claim 3, line 3, should the phrase “the EC layer” refer to “the sputter-deposited WOx EC layer”?
Claim 7, line 3, should the phrase “a mixed metallic target” refer to “the mixed metallic M:W target”?
Claim 7, line 4, should the phrase “the EC layer” refer to “the sputter-deposited WOx EC layer”?
Claim 7, line 5, should both occurrences of “the mixed metallic target” be “the mixed metallic M:W target”?
Claim 7, lines 6 and 7, is the phrase “including tungsten (W) and a dopant (M) to form a mixed M:W target, wherein M corresponds to niobium (Nb)” already included at lines 18-22 already?
Claim 7, line 8, is the phrase “a doped electrochromic (EC) layer” already conceptually present at lines 19, 20 of claim 1.
Claim 7, lines 9 and 10, the phrase “the mixed metallic target” should “the mixed metallic M:W target”.
Claim 7, line 11, the phrase “the mixed M:W target” should be “the mixed metallic M:W target”.
Claim 7, lines 11 and 12, should “changed color target” by “grey color target”?
Claim 9, line 5, should “the EC layer” be “the sputter-deposited WOx EC layer”?
Claim 9, line 6, should “a reduced EC layer thickness” be “a reduced sputter-deposited WOx EC layer thickness”?
Claim 9, lines 6 and 7, should “a standard EC layer thickness” be “a standard WOx EC layer thickness”?
Claim 9, lines 9 and 10, should “the reduced WOx thickness” be “the reduced WOx EC layer thickness”?
Claim 9, line 12, should “the EC layer” be “the WOx EC layer”?
Claim 12, line 2, should “the EC layer” be “the WOx EC layer”?
Claim 12, line 3, should “the EC layer” be “the WOx EC layer”?
Claim 12, line 4, it is unclear the connection of “sputtering process parameters” and “sputter-deposited metallic Li” to the forming in line 2. Should the forming be sputtering?
Claim 13, lines 4 and 5, it is unclear the connection of “sputtering process parameters” and “sputter-deposited metallic Li” to the forming in line 2. Should the forming be sputtering?
Claim 14, line 1, should “the EC layer” be “the WOx EC layer”?
Claim 14, line 3, should “thicknesses the” be “thicknesses of the”?
Claim 14, line 4, should “the EC layer” be “the WOx EC layer”?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-14 are allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including wherein forming the EC layer over the substrate according to the selected one or more process parameter values includes:
adjusting a substrate temperature according to the selected one or more process parameter values to change a micro-structure of a sputter-deposited WOx EC layer to an amorphous WOₓ microstructure or a partially crystallized in amorphous matrix WOx microstructure to produce the grey color in the dark state,
utilizing, according to the selected one or more process parameter values, a mixed metallic M:W target to introduce a dopant into a sputter-deposited WOx EC layer according to the selected one or more process parameter values to produce the grey color in the dark state, wherein M = niobium (Nb), or
adjusting a thickness of a sputter-deposited WOx EC layer according to the selected one or more process parameter values to produce the grey color target in the dark state.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 12, 2026 have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. New 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been made. Non-elected product claims have been withdrawn based on restriction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off..
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights