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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Varaprasad et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,668,663).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM I:
Regarding claim 1, Varaprasad et al. teach a process of forming an electrochromic device
(Column 7 lines 44-67), the process comprising forming an electrochromic (EC) layer over the
substrate (Column 7 lines 44-45) according to one or more process parameters among a plurality
of process parameters (Column 8 lines 36-40 - for example thickness) to achieve a grey color
target in a dark state of an EC stack including the EC layer (Column 4 lines 50-59; Column 13
lines 27-35), the forming comprising:
providing a deposition material (Column 16 lines 13-18, lines 56-67; Column 17 lines 1-7
- sputtering or evaporation inherently require a source for deposition)
performing a deposition process using the deposition material to form the EC layer (Column 16 lines 13-18; Column 17 lines 1-7 - sputtering, evaporation); and
(It should be noted that only one process parameter can be chosen and in this case
thickness can be selected from among A-C below)
wherein forming the EC layer over the substrate according to the one or more process
parameters includes:
(A) Adjusting a substrate temperature to change a micro-structure of a sputter
depositing WOxEC layer to an amorphous WOx micro structure or a partially crystallized
in amorphous matrix WOx microstructure to achieve the grey color target in the dark
state,
(B) Utilizing a mixed metallic M:W target to introduce a dopant into the sputter deposited
WOxEC layer to achieve the grey color target in the dark state, wherein M =
niobium, or
(C) Adjusting a thickness of a sputter-deposited WOxEC layer to achieve the grey
color target in the dark state. (Column 8 lines 36-40)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varaprasad et
al. (U.S. Pat. 5,668,663) in view of Washizu et al. "Optical and electrochromic properties of RF
reactively sputtered WO3 films", Solid State Ionics 165 (2003) 175-180.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Varaprasad et al. teach a process of forming an electrochromic device
(Column 7 lines 44-67), the process comprising forming an electrochromic (EC) layer over the
substrate (Column 7 lines 44-45) according to one or more process parameters among a plurality
of process parameters (Column 8 lines 36-40 - for example thickness) to achieve a grey color
target in a dark state of an EC stack including the EC layer (Column 4 lines 50-59; Column 13
lines 27-35), the forming comprising:
providing a deposition material (Column 16 lines 13-18, lines 56-67; Column 17 lines 1-7
- sputtering or evaporation inherently require a source for deposition)
performing a deposition process using the deposition material to form the EC layer
(Column 16 lines 13-18; Column 17 lines 1-7 - sputtering, evaporation); and (It should be noted that only one process parameter can be chosen and in this case thickness can be selected from among A-C below)
wherein forming the EC layer over the substrate according to the one or more process parameters
includes:
(A) Adjusting a substrate temperature to change a micro-structure of a sputter depositing
WOxEC layer to an amorphous WOx micro structure or a partially crystallized in amorphous
matrix WOx microstructure to achieve the grey color target in the dark state,
(B) Utilizing a mixed metallic M:W target to introduce a dopant into the sputter deposited
WOxEC layer to achieve the grey color target in the dark state, wherein M =
niobium, or
(C) Adjusting a thickness of a sputter-deposited WOxEC layer to achieve the grey
color target in the dark state. (Column 8 lines 36-40)
The difference between Varaprasad et al. and claim 1 is that adjusting a substrate
temperature to change a micro-structure of a sputter depositing WOxEC layer to an amorphous
WOx microstructure or a partially crystallized in amorphous matrix WOx microstructure to
achieve the grey color target in the dark state is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding adjusting a substrate temperature to change a micro-structure of a sputter
depositing WOxEC layer to an amorphous WOx micro structure or a partially crystallized in
amorphous matrix WOx micro structure to achieve the grey color target in the dark state (Claim
1 ):
Varaprasad et al. teach utilizing a microstructure of amorphous, crystalline,
polycrystalline or combinations thereof for electrochromic solid films for example of tungsten
oxide. (Column 8 lines 41-47) Varaprasad et al. teach achieving a grey color target in a dark
state of an EC stack including the EC layer by using their disclosed films and thicknesses.
(Column 4 lines 50-59; Column 13 lines 27-35)
Washizu et al. teach Applicant's required temperatures to control color. Specifically
operating from room temperature to 500 degrees C. (See Figs.1, 4, 5a) The films deposited at
room temperature are amorphous. (See Results and Discussion)
Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Varaprasad et al. by utilizing temperature
control as taught by Washizu et al. to deposit films with the required micro structure to achieve a
grey color target in a dark state of an EC stack including the EC layer because it allows for
controlling the coloring of the film during the dark state.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein: the one or more process parameters comprise
a substrate temperature that is less than a high temperature threshold associated with a formation
of a crystallized WOx microstructure during sputtering of a target; forming the EC layer
comprises maintaining the substrate at the substrate temperature; and a WOx microstructural
change associated with maintaining the substrate at the substrate temperature during the
sputtering of the target results in the specific color target in the dark state compared to the
crystallized WOx microstructure.
Regarding claim 2:
Varaprasad et al. teach utilizing a microstructure of amorphous, crystalline,
polycrystalline or combinations thereof for electrochromic solid films for example of tungsten
oxide. (Column 8 lines 41-47) Varaprasad et al. teach achieving a grey color target in a dark
state of an EC stack including the EC layer by using their disclosed films and thicknesses.
(Column 4 lines 50-59; Column 13 lines 27-35)
Washizu et al. teach Applicant's required temperatures to control color. Specifically
operating from room temperature to 500 degrees C. (See Figs.1, 4, 5a) The films deposited at
room temperature are amorphous. (See Results and Discussion)
Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Varaprasad et al. by utilizing temperature
control as taught by Washizu et al. to deposit films with the required micro structure to achieve a
grey color target in a dark state of an EC stack including the EC layer because it allows for
controlling the coloring of the film during the dark state.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the EC layer has an amorphous WOx
microstructure when the substrate temperature is less than a low temperature threshold, and
wherein the EC layer has a partially crystallized in amorphous matrix WOx micro structure when
the temperature is greater than the low temperature threshold.
Varaprasad et al. teach utilizing a microstructure of amorphous, crystalline,
polycrystalline or combinations thereof for electrochromic solid films for example of tungsten
oxide. (Column 8 lines 41-47) Varaprasad et al. teach achieving a grey color target in a dark
state of an EC stack including the EC layer by using their disclosed films and thicknesses.
(Column 4 lines 50-59; Column 13 lines 27-35)
Washizu et al. teach Applicant's required temperatures to control color. Specifically
operating from room temperature to 500 degrees C. (See Figs.1, 4, 5a) The films deposited at
room temperature are amorphous. (See Results and Discussion)
Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Varaprasad et al. by utilizing temperature
control as taught by Washizu et al. to deposit films with the required micro structure to achieve a
grey color target in a dark state of an EC stack including the EC layer because it allows for
controlling the coloring of the film during the dark state.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the substrate temperature is less than 200 °C.
Regarding claim 4:
Varaprasad et al. teach utilizing a microstructure of amorphous, crystalline,
polycrystalline or combinations thereof for electrochromic solid films for example of tungsten
oxide. (Column 8 lines 41-47) Varaprasad et al. teach achieving a grey color target in a dark
state of an EC stack including the EC layer by using their disclosed films and thicknesses.
(Column 4 lines 50-59; Column 13 lines 27-35)
Washizu et al. teach Applicant's required temperatures to control color. Specifically
operating from room temperature to 500 degrees C. (See Figs.1, 4, 5a) The films deposited at
room temperature are amorphous. (See Results and Discussion)
Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Varaprasad et al. by utilizing temperature
control as taught by Washizu et al. to deposit films with the required micro structure to achieve a
grey color target in a dark state of an EC stack including the EC layer because it allows for
controlling the coloring of the film during the dark state.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the substrate temperature is in a range of 100
°C to 200 °C.
Varaprasad et al. teach utilizing a microstructure of amorphous, crystalline,
polycrystalline or combinations thereof for electrochromic solid films for example of tungsten
oxide. (Column 8 lines 41-47) Varaprasad et al. teach achieving a grey color target in a dark
state of an EC stack including the EC layer by using their disclosed films and thicknesses.
(Column 4 lines 50-59; Column 13 lines 27-35)
Washizu et al. teach Applicant's required temperatures to control color. Specifically
operating from room temperature to 500degrees C. (See Figs.1, 4, 5a) The films deposited at
room temperature are amorphous. (See Results and Discussion)
Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Varaprasad et al. by utilizing temperature
control as taught by Washizu et al. to deposit films with the required micro structure to achieve a
grey color target in a dark state of an EC stack including the EC layer because it allows for
controlling the coloring of the film during the dark state.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the substrate temperature is in a range of 160
°C to 190 °C.
Regarding claim 6:
Varaprasad et al. teach utilizing a microstructure of amorphous, crystalline,
polycrystalline or combinations thereof for electrochromic solid films for example of tungsten
oxide. (Column 8 lines 41-47) Varaprasad et al. teach achieving a grey color target in a dark
state of an EC stack including the EC layer by using their disclosed films and thicknesses.
(Column 4 lines 50-59; Column 13 lines 27-35)
Washizu et al. teach Applicant's required temperatures to control color. Specifically
operating from room temperature to 500 degrees C. (See Figs.1, 4, 5a) The films deposited at
room temperature are amorphous. (See Results and Discussion)
Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Varaprasad et al. by utilizing temperature
control as taught by Washizu et al. to deposit films with the required micro structure to achieve a
grey color target in a dark state of an EC stack including the EC layer because it allows for
controlling the coloring of the film during the dark state.
TEMPERATURE RANGES FROM CLAIMS 2-6:
It should be noted that for all temperatures claimed where the claimed range lies within
the prior art (i.e. room temperature to 500 degrees C) a prima facie case of obviousness exists -
See MPEP 2144.05 - In the case where the claimed ranges "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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range
was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range)In conclusion, the motivation for utilizing the features of Washizu et al. is that it allows
for controlling the coloring of the film to control transmission. (See Figs. 4, 5a)
Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Varaprasad et al. by utilizing temperature
control as taught by Washizu et al. to deposit films with the required micro structure to achieve a
grey color target in a dark state of an EC stack including the EC layer because it allows for
controlling the coloring of the film during the dark state.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Varaprasad et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,668,663) in view of Meshcheryakov et al. (WO 2020/018002 Al).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Varaprasad et al. teach a process of forming an electrochromic device
(Column 7 lines 44-67), the process comprising forming an electrochromic (EC) layer over the
substrate (Column 7 lines 44-45) according to one or more process parameters among a plurality
of process parameters (Column 8 lines 36-40 - for example thickness) to achieve a grey color
target in a dark state of an EC stack including the EC layer (Column 4 lines 50-59; Column 13
lines 27-35), the forming comprising:
providing a deposition material (Column 16 lines 13-18, lines 56-67; Column 17 lines 1-7
- sputtering or evaporation inherently require a source for deposition)
performing a deposition process using the deposition material to form the EC layer
(Column 16 lines 13-18; Column 17 lines 1-7 - sputtering, evaporation); and
(It should be noted that only one process parameter can be chosen)
wherein forming the EC layer over the substrate according to the one or more process
parameters includes:
(A) Adjusting a substrate temperature to change a micro-structure of a sputter depositing
WOxEC layer to an amorphous WOx micro structure or a partially crystallized in amorphous
matrix WOx microstructure to achieve the grey color target in the dark state,
(B) Utilizing a mixed metallic M:W target to introduce a dopant into the sputter deposited
WOxEC layer to achieve the grey color target in the dark state, wherein M =
niobium, or
(C) Adjusting a thickness of a sputter-deposited WOxEC layer to achieve the grey
color target in the dark state. (Column 8 lines 36-40)
The difference between Varaprasad et al. and claim 1 is that utilizing a mixed metallic
M:W target to introduce a dopant into the sputter-deposited WOxEC layer to achieve the grey
color target in the dark state, wherein M = niobium is not discussed.
Varaprasad et al. teach utilizing doped tungsten oxide as the electrochromic film.
(Column 8 lines 1-25) Varaprasad et al. teach achieving a grey color target in a dark state of an
EC stack including the EC layer by using their disclosed films and thicknesses. (Column 4 lines
50-59; Column 13 lines 27-35)
Meshcheryakov et al. teach utilizing a mixed metallic target to produce electrochromic
layers that have different tints such as gray. (Paragraphs 0033, 0034, 0056, 0057, 0063 - tints
of gray paragraph 0034) The dopant concentration is recognized to be from 5-10 wt% for Nb.
(Paragraph 0017)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Meshcheryakov et al. is that it allows for
producing films with various tints including gray. (See Abstract)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Varaprasad et al. by utilizing the features of
Meshcheryakov et al. because it allows for producing films with various tints including gray
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is that wherein: the composition of the deposition
material to achieve the grey color target comprises a mixed metallic target for sputtering;
forming the EC layer comprises:
providing the mixed metallic target for sputtering, the mixed metallic target including
tungsten (W) and a dopant (M) to form a mixed M:W target, wherein M corresponds to niobium
(Nb); and forming a doped electrochromic (EC) layer over the substrate, wherein forming the
doped EC layer includes sputtering the mixed metallic target, wherein utilizing the mixed M:W
target for sputtering results in a changed color target in a dark state compared to a WO x EC layer
formed by sputtering a W target.
Varaprasad et al. teach utilizing doped tungsten oxide as the electrochromic film.
(Column 8 lines 1-25) Varaprasad et al. teach achieving a grey color target in a dark state of an
EC stack including the EC layer by using their disclosed films and thicknesses. (Column 4 lines
50-59; Column 13 lines 27-35)
Meshcheryakov et al. teach utilizing a mixed metallic target to produce electrochromic
layers that have different tints such as gray. (Paragraphs 0033, 0034, 0056, 0057, 0063 - tints
of gray paragraph 0034) The dopant concentration is recognized to be from 5-10 wt% for Nb.
(Paragraph 0017)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Meshcheryakov et al. is that it allows for
producing films with various tints including gray. (See Abstract)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Varaprasad et al. by utilizing the features of
Meshcheryakov et al. because it allows for producing films with various tints including gray
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the mixed metallic target is one of: a mixed
Nb: W target, and wherein forming the doped EC layer includes heating of the substrate during
sputtering of the mixed Nb:W target such that a temperature of the substrate is within a
temperature range associated with the grey color target in the dark state; or a mixed Nb:W target,
and wherein a dopant concentration of Nb in the mixed Nb:W target is in a range of about 2 to 20
weight percent.
Varaprasad et al. teach utilizing doped tungsten oxide as the electrochromic film.
(Column 8 lines 1-25) Varaprasad et al. teach achieving a grey color target in a dark state of an
EC stack including the EC layer by using their disclosed films and thicknesses. (Column 4 lines
50-59; Column 13 lines 27-35)
Meshcheryakov et al. teach utilizing a mixed metallic target to produce electrochromic
layers that have different tints such as gray. (Paragraphs 0033, 0034, 0056, 0057, 0063 - tints
of gray paragraph 0034) The dopant concentration is recognized to be from 5-10 wt% for Nb.
(Paragraph 0017)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Meshcheryakov et al. is that it allows for
producing films with various tints including gray. (See Abstract)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Varaprasad et al. by utilizing the features of
Meshcheryakov et al. because it allows for producing films with various tints including gray
Claim(s) 1, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varaprasad
et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,668,663) in view of Rozbicki et al. (U.S. Pat. 11,187,954).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising: providing multiple tungsten (W)
targets associated with multiple WOx deposition stations; wherein the one or more deposition
process parameters to achieve the grey color target comprise selectively modifying another one
or more process parameters at one or more of the WOx deposition stations; wherein forming the
EC layer comprises: selectively modifying the other one or more process parameters at one or
more of the WOx deposition stations to produce a modified other one or more process
parameters, the modified other one or more process parameters resulting in reduced WOx
thickness relative to the other one or more process parameters; and
wherein the reduced WOx thickness and a counter-electrode (CE) layer thickness are selected such that with 25 mC/cm2 of mobile Lithium, an average coloration efficiency of WOx deposited to form the EC layer is less than an average coloration efficiency of the CE layer.
Rozbicki teach providing multiple tungsten (W) targets associated with multiple WOx
deposition stations (Rozbicki discloses in fig. 3D plural deposition stations [306a], [306b],
[306c] with each containing a target of tungsten ( col. 9, lines 8-67; col. 13, lines 44-63; col.
14, lines 1-29; col. 33, lines 27-45).
wherein the one or more deposition process parameters to achieve the grey color target
comprise selectively modifying another one or more process parameters at one or more of
the WOx deposition stations (Rozbicki et al. teach controlling the power to the stations for
controlling sputtering. (Column 29 lines 31-65));
wherein forming the EC layer comprises: selectively modifying the other one or more
process parameters at one or more of the WOx deposition stations to produce a modified other
one or more process parameters, the modified other one or more process parameters resulting
in reduced WOx thickness (controlling power) relative to the other one or more process
parameters (Rozbicki et al. teach controlling the power to the stations for controlling
sputtering. (Column 29 lines 31-65); Rozbicki et al. further discloses the EC layer [106] and
a counterelectrode (CE) layer [108] each contain distinct materials (col. 9, lines 8-67; col.
10, lines 1- 58; col. 13, lines 1-67; col. 14, lines 1-62), thus the EC layer [106] has a first
coloration efficiency and the CE layer [108] has a second coloration efficiency. Rozbicki
also discloses having different thicknesses for each of the EC and CE layers [106],[108] (Col.
13, lines 20-25; col. 18, lines 48-47), thus modifying a ratio of thicknesses, which in turn
modifies an average coloration efficiency associated with a combination of the first and
second coloration efficiencies.
and wherein the reduced WOx thickness and a counter-electrode (CE) layer thickness are
selected such that with 25 mC/cm2 of mobile Lithium, an average coloration efficiency of WOx
deposited to form the EC layer is less than an average coloration efficiency of the CE layer.
(The thickness control suggested by Rozbicki et al. suggest this limitation.)
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 10 AND 11:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the modified process parameters include
refraining from sputtering of one or more W targets at one or more of the WOx deposition
stations is not discussed (Claim 10) and wherein selectively modifying the other one or more
process parameters includes reducing power at one or more of the WOx deposition stations to
reduce a WOx deposition rate is not discussed (Claim 11).
Regarding claims 10, 11, Rozbicki et al. teach controlling the power to the stations for
controlling sputtering. (Column 29 lines 31-65)
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 12 AND 13:
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Rozbicki et al. further discloses in fig. 3 D a first
lithium layer station [307a] for forming a first lithium layer (i.e. Lil) over the EC layer formed in
EC layer station [806a], and a second lithium station [307b] for forming a second lithium layer
(i.e.Li2) over a counter-electrode (CE) layer formed in CE layer station [306c] (col. 36, lines 12-
35), wherein each of Lil and Li2 is deposited by sputtering ( col. 34, lines 5-9; col. 35, lines 22-
31 ). Rozbicki also discloses that each of the lithium stations [307 a ],[807b] has RF and/or DC
power source, power delivery mechanism, power supplies, and process parameters monitors for
controlling decreased power to a target in the first lithium station [307 a] to decrease an amount
of sputtered material for Lil and increased power to a target in the second lithium station [307b]
to increase an amount of sputtered material forLi2 (col. 35, lines 1-7 and54-67; col. 36, lines 1-
11).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
With respect to claim 14, Rozbicki further discloses the EC layer [106] and a counterelectrode (CE) layer [ 108] each contain distinct materials ( col. 9, lines 8-67; col. 10, lines 1-58; col. 13, lines 1-67; col. 14, lines 1-62), thus the EC layer [106] has a first coloration efficiency and the CE layer [108] has a second coloration efficiency. Rozbicki also discloses having different thicknesses for each of the EC and CE layers [106],[108] (col. 13, lines 20-25; col. 18, lines 48-47), thus modifying a ratio of thicknesses, which in tum modifies an average coloration efficiency associated with a combination of the first and second coloration
efficiencies.
The motivation for utilizing the features of Rozbicki et al. is that it allows for forming
electrochromic devices. (Column 1 lines 26-37)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Meshcheryakov et al. by utilizing the features of Rozbicki
et al. because it allows for forming electrochromic devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that the prior art does not teach correlating an EC layer thickness or adjusting an EC thickness achieving a grey color, Varaprasad teaches producing a gray state (Column 4
Line 55 and Column 13 line 34) by utilizing films in a thickness range of about 0.05 micrometer to 1.0 micrometers (Column 8 lines 36-40). Utilizing films within that range is adjusting to achieve the gray color.
In response to the argument that Meshcheryakov fail to teach producing an EC layer that has a grey color, it is argued that as Applicant points out that some of the dopants will produce films having a gray color. Selecting a dopant in a known series of dopants would have been obvious in order to produce a gray color.
In response to the argument that Varaprasad fails to teach adjusting the temperature of the substrate to change the microstructure of the layer, Varaprasad teaches that the film can be amorphous, crystalline, polycrystalline or a combination thereof. (Column 8 lines 41-43)
In response to the argument that Meshcheryakov fails to teach adjusting the temperature of the substrate to change the microstructure of the layer, Washizu et al. teach Applicant's required temperatures to control color. Specifically operating from room temperature to 500 degrees C. (See Figs.1, 4, 5a) The films deposited at room temperature are amorphous. (See Results and Discussion)
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 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
February 27, 2026