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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 1, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed April 1, 2026, with respect to claim rejection under 112(b) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendment are persuasive. The claim rejection under 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed April 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments centered on Noh (and/or Cassidy or Yashiro) failing to disclose different organic polymer materials having different colors (point 1) the examiner is unpersuaded. Regarding applicant’s statement regarding Noh paragraph [0046] (emphasis in remarks):
Thus, Noh et al. state that the organic material can include a "polymer-based electrochromic material" among a variety of other compounds that are not strictly organic, such as the ruthenium-based and rare earth element compounds. For example, rare earth element compounds are generally considered inorganic compounds. Therefore, one may question if Noh et al. specifically disclose the recited "polymer-based electrochromic material" to be an organic compound. It is indisputable, however, that Noh et al. fail to provide any examples of such organic material including a "polymer-based electrochromic material." Indeed, the only polymers provided by Noh et al. in paragraph [0048] are NOT electrochromic material.
Regarding paragraph [0048], as previously stated, the examiner agrees that inorganic electrochromic particles (e.g. WO3) mixed with a non-electrochromic polymer (e.g. PVA) would not read on the claimed organic EC material. However, as previously stated, paragraph [0046] explicitly states the EC material may be organic. Further paragraph [0046] list several possible organic EC materials, which substantially laps applicant’s list of possible organic EC materials. For example, instant application paragraph [0100] list of example EC materials of “viologen, thiophene, pyridine, anthraquinone, imides, pyridine, and derivatives of the above” and Noh paragraph [0046] list example EC materials of “viologen, a pyridine-based compound, an aminoquinone-based compound, a rare earth element compound, phthalocyanine, a ruthenium-based compound, a leuco dye-based compound or a polymer-based electrochromic material”. Particularly, both list viologen, pyridine and anthraquinone. Just because the prior art has other options, e.g. inorganic materials, does not lessen the disclosure of organic EC materials. It has been held “[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123.
Regarding applicant’s statement “Noh et al. never teaches - nor suggests - the use of three different organic polymer electrochromic materials” (emphasis in remarks), the examiner is unpersuaded. As previously stated, Noh discloses three different color pixels (e.g. 230R, 230G & 230B). In describing reference numbers 230R, 230G and 230B in paragraph [0053] Noh states (emphasis added by examiner):
When an electric field is applied to the first electrode 120, electrons (or holes) are supplied to the red, green and blue electrochromic materials 230R, 230G and 230B, respectively, and colors of the electrochromic materials 230R, 230G and 230B are developed. For example, in a case in which the green electrochromic material 230G is supplied with the electrons (or the holes), green light is emitted and light of wavelengths other than the wavelength of the green light are all absorbed.
Particularly, the use of the plural “materials” when referring to 230R, 230G and 230B as a group and the use of the singular “material” when referring to 230G alone indicate that 230R, 230G and 230B are different materials. This usage of material/materials is consistent throughout the specification, see paragraphs [0052, 0063 & 0071]. Additionally, figure 1 shows 230R, 230G and 230B having different hatching1, which further bolsters2 the fact that different materials are used in each of the subpixels.
Regarding applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill could make more than the claimed invention, e.g. a device using inorganic EC materials, the examiner is unpersuaded. Summarizing above: Noh explicitly states the EC material may be organic and provides list of exemplar materials including organic EC materials (e.g. viologen, a pyridine-based compound, an aminoquinone-based compound, phthalocyanine, a leuco dye-based compound or a polymer-based electrochromic material). Noh alternatively allowing for more than the invention of claim 1 does not lessen, in any way, the fact that the invention of claim 1 being anticipated by Noh. It has been held “[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123.
Regarding applicant’s statement “the skilled artisan - based on the teachings of Noh et al. and the complete lack of guidance in selecting electrochromic material - cannot not at once envisage the instantly claimed combination of three different organic polymer electrochromic materials” the examiner3 is unpersuaded. As discussed above, Noh explicitly discloses each of these features. And while Noh’s example fails to use/have all of these features it does not remove the explicit disclosure of these features. It has been held “[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123. Furthermore, It is further noted that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” and a person of ordinary skill will be able to put different elements together taking into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007), see MPEP 2141. As evidence, references showing one skilled in the art would be of a level to envisage the claimed combination of three different organic polymer electrochromic materials using Noh are listed in the conclusion.
Regarding arguments centered on Noh’s (and/or Cassidy or Yashiro) full-color EC device having a single EC material – i.e. failing to disclose different materials for each subpixel (point 2) the examiner is unpersuaded. Applicant argues Noh’s exemplar embodiment in paragraphs [0051-53] “illustrate a full-color EC device based on a single electrochromic material” (emphasis in remarks). As set forth above, Noh is consistent throughout the specification that in describing three different color pixels e.g. 230R, 230G & 230B (each differently hatched in figure 1) it uses of the plural “materials” when referring to 230R, 230G and 230B as a group and uses of the singular “material” when referring to one of subpixels individually, which clearly discloses that 230R, 230G and 230B are different materials. For clarity, the examiner is interpreting different material compositions in the same family of materials to be different materials. For example: 1-methyl-4,4'-bipyridinium, i.e.
PNG
media_image1.png
70
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; and 1,1'-dihexyl-4,4'-bipyridinium, i.e.
PNG
media_image2.png
80
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; and 1,1'-dibenzyl-[4,4'-bipyridine]-1,1'-diium, i.e.
PNG
media_image3.png
94
538
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, while each being in the viologen family are interpreted to be different material compositions.
Regarding applicant’s assertion that Noh’s disclosure of an exemplary embodiment in paragraphs [0051-53] with an EC material that “includes viologen” is a single material, the examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner has not relied on the exemplary embodiment in paragraphs [0051-53]. Further, viologens are a family of organic compounds with the formula (C5H4NR)2n+. Different color EC materials, i.e. a red EC material, a green EC material and a blue EC material (as disclosed by Noh as set forth above), may each be a member of the viologen family. Applicant admits this is known in the art, see the instant application specification page 1 lines 21-26 (emphasis added by examiner):
Many different types of materials are reported to exhibit electrochromism. Examples of inorganic materials include certain metal oxides, such as tungsten-oxide (WO.sub.3). An example of an organic electrochromic compound is viologen. US2017/0192334 discloses different derivatives of viologen having different colors, in particular derivatives having red, green and blue color are disclosed.
Thus, while the examiner is not relying on the material composition in the exemplary embodiment in paragraphs [0051-53] three different EC materials including viologen does not contradict any of the limitations in the independent claim.
Regarding applicant’s discussion that a full-color display with different color subpixels all composed of the same EC material is possible using the exemplary embodiment in paragraphs [0051-53], the examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner agrees that a single member of the viologen family can be driven from transparent to two different colors by changing the voltage. However, two is not three. Applicant proposes using violet as red. Violet is not red. Red and violet are on opposite sides of the visible light spectrum. Further, applicant proposes that green would be obtainable by combining a blue transition (radical cation V+ state) and a yellow transition (undriven V0 state). This situation is not possible with Noh’s disclosure. For example, to have blue and yellow layered together would require two EC material layers on top of each other, one driven to a radical cation V+ state and the other layer being electrically separate and undriven to a achieve the neutral V0 state. There is absolutely nothing in Noh to support such a structure. Further, in arguendo, while the exemplary embodiment in paragraphs [0051-53] (not relied upon) in paragraph [0052] discloses “when an electric field is not applied to the first electrode 120, the red, green and blue portions 230R, 230G and 230B, respectively, e.g., red, green and blue electrochromic materials 230R, 230G and 230B, are all transparent.” That is to say, in the exemplary embodiment the undriven V0 state is clear to enable white light penetration. Clear is not yellow. Applicant has not indicated any single EC material that is capable of a red transition and a blue transition and a green transition and is clear in the undriven V0 state capable of being arrayed in the structure seen in figure 1, particularly each of the subpixels having a single material layer electrically coupled to a single electrode. On the other hand, different EC material compositions in the viologen family could be used to generate red, blue and green colors in subpixels with a single material layer associated with a single electrode, as evidenced by: Noh exemplary embodiment in paragraphs [0051-53]; instant application page 1 lines 19-26; Yashiro paragraph [0062] “different electrochromic compounds may be included in the electrochromic layers 13a, 13b, and 13c so as to color and decolor different colors”; and An paragraph [0056-58] disclosing different viologens being used to create different colors, e.g. red is from
PNG
media_image1.png
70
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, green is from
PNG
media_image2.png
80
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and blue is from
PNG
media_image3.png
94
538
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding arguments centered on Noh (and/or Cassidy or Yashiro) does not disclose deposition of different electrochromic materials on different subpixels (point 3), the examiner is unpersuaded. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not be able to make the device of Noh based on the disclosure of Noh. This is an enablement argument. Prior art is presumed to be enabled, see MPEP 2121. The examiner contends that one skilled in the art would know how to deposit different EC materials to create the layer 230 comprising different subpixels 230R, 230G and 230B each of different materials, e.g. using inkjet/spray printing. Further, in arguendo, different materials can be applied in spin coating using masking and/or etching.
Regarding arguments centered on electrodeposition as claimed results in structural differences (point 4), the examiner is unpersuaded. Applicant and the examiner appear to be in agreement that electrodeposition is a process limitation in a device claim. It has been held that the presence of process limitations in a product claim, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over the prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 135 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). Furthermore, the patentability of a product does not depend upon its method of production. If the product in a product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, then the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed Cir 1985). See MPEP 2113. Further it is noted that applicant has withdrawn, without traverse, Group II, directed to a method of manufacturing. In this case, the device could have been made by other methods of manufacturing, e.g. inkjet/spray printing or spin coating using masking and/or etching. There are no claimed structural or functional features claimed that could not be achieved by a different manufacturing method. Regarding applicant’s discussion regarding structural differences of covalent bonds versus van der Waals interactions leading to better adhesion – the claims have no limitations regarding the bonds formed or benefits resulting from any particular bond type. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, in this case, the specification has no hint of any covalent bond structure or resulting adhesion benefits over an interface formed with van der Waals interactions, i.e. adding such a limitation would amount to introducing prohibited new matter.
Regarding applicant’s argument that with regard to claim 8, that paragraph [0046] “just recites ‘a polymer-based electrochromic material,’ without disclosing any of organic polymer electrochromic materials specifically recited in claim 8, the examiner is unpersuaded. Claim 8 requires:
wherein said electrodeposited organic polymer electrochromic materials comprise one or more selected from the group consisting of polyviologen, polytriphenylamine, polythiophene, poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT), polypyridine, polypyrol, polyaniline, polyimides, polymeric aromatic ketones, polyanthraquinone, polymeric heterocycles, polyamides, polynorbornene, polycarbazoles, polythiocarbazoles and their derivatives.
Noh paragraph [0046] states (emphasis added by examiner):
The electrochromic material may be an inorganic material or, alternatively, an organic material. The inorganic material may include, for example, tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide and iridium oxide, while the organic material may include, for example, viologen, a pyridine-based compound, an aminoquinone-based compound, a rare earth element compound, phthalocyanine, a ruthenium-based compound, a leuco dye-based compound or a polymer-based electrochromic material, while alternative exemplary embodiments are not limited thereto. In an alternative exemplary embodiment, one or more of the above-listed materials may be mixed and used as the electrochromic material.
Particularly, the lapping list of electrochromic materials that may be mixed reads on the limitation. For example, a viologen – an organic salt – could be mixed with an organic polymer-based electrochromic. While Noh has other options/embodiments it has been held “[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123. Furthermore, It is further noted that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”, see MPEP 2141.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noh et al. 2010/0202035, of record.
Regarding claim 1 Noh discloses a full-color electrochromic device (title e.g. electrochromic device 1 including electrochromic layer 230 comprising red portion 230R, green portion 230G & blue portion 230B) comprising: a plurality of pixels (e.g. combination of 230 & patterned second electrode 220), wherein each pixel comprises first, second and third subpixels (e.g. 230R, 230G, 230B and respective portions of 220), wherein each subpixel comprises a subpixel electrode (e.g. portions of 220) and an organic electrochromic material (paragraph [0046] “electrochromic material may be … an organic material ... for example, viologen, a pyridine-based compound, an aminoquinone-based compound, a rare earth element compound, phthalocyanine, a ruthenium-based compound, a leuco dye-based compound or a polymer-based electrochromic material”), wherein said first subpixel (e.g. 230R) comprises a first organic electrochromic material (paragraph [0046]), wherein said second subpixel (e.g. 230G) comprises a second organic electrochromic material (paragraph [0046]), and wherein said third subpixel (e.g. 230B) comprises a third organic electrochromic material (paragraph [0046]), said first, second and third organic electrochromic materials are different organic materials (the use of the plural “materials” when referring to 230R, 230G and 230B as a group and the use of the singular “material” when referring to 230G or 230B alone indicate that 230R, 230G and 230B are different materials, which is consistent throughout the specification, see paragraphs [0052-53, 0063 & 0071], additionally, figure 1 shows 230R, 230G and 230B having different hatching, further it is inherent that different material compositions would be required for the RGB-type display with the structure with 230 in a single layer seen in figure 1 to achieve the required function of having a red subpixel, a green subpixel and a blue subpixel) having different colors (paragraphs [0044-45] e.g. red, green & blue); a first substrate (e.g. second substrate 210) comprising an active matrix comprising electrically conducting lines and active components (inter alia paragraph [0044] discusses patterned electrode providing power to switch individual pixels), for providing electrical current to said subpixel electrodes (axiomatic), wherein an active component is provided for each of said subpixels (e.g. 230R, 230G & 230B), wherein one active component is electrically connected to one subpixel electrode (inter alia paragraph [0044]), and wherein a predetermined subpixel electric potential is established via said active component (inherent for proper operation); a second substrate (e.g. first substrate 110), wherein said first and second substrates have opposed first and second outside surfaces (e.g. see figure 1); one or more counter electrode (e.g. first electrode 120 and/or carbon nano-structured electrode layer 130) connected to said second substrate (paragraph [0035] “first electrode 120 is disposed on the first substrate 110” see figure 1); and, an ion conducting material (e.g. electrolyte layer 180 ) for transporting ions between said subpixels and said one or more counter electrode (axiomatic), wherein said ion conducting material comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of: at least one solvent comprising dissolved ions, an ionic liquid, a liquid crystal, and an ionic liquid crystal (e.g. paragraph [0050] “180 may include, for example, a solution obtained by dissolving an electrolyte salt, such as lithium salt, potassium salt, sodium salt and/or ammonium salt, in an aqueous solvent or, alternatively, a non-aqueous organic solvent ... non-aqueous solvent may include carbonates, alcohols and ethers, … ionic organic solvents of methylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, ethylmethyl carbonate, .gamma.-butyrolactone, ethylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, and imidazolium-based ionic liquid”), wherein said ion conducting material is provided continuously within a common space (e.g. see figure 1), wherein at least said first, second and third subpixels (e.g. 230R, 230G & 230B, respectively) are provided within said common space (e.g. see figure 1) and are in contact with said ion conducting material (necessary for operation e.g. see figure 1); wherein said electrochromic device is configured to establish said predetermined subpixel electric potential between any one specific subpixel and said one or more counter electrode (necessary for device to work4), and wherein said first organic electrochromic material (e.g. 230R), said second organic electrochromic material (e.g. 230G) and said third organic electrochromic material materials (e.g. 230B) are electrodeposited (no patentable weight5) organic polymer electrochromic materials (paragraph [0046] “electrochromic material may be … an organic material ... for example, viologen, a pyridine-based compound, an aminoquinone-based compound, a rare earth element compound, phthalocyanine, a ruthenium-based compound, a leuco dye-based compound or a polymer-based electrochromic material”) obtained by electropolymerization (no patentable weight6) on said subpixel electrodes (e.g. see figure 1).
Regarding claim 3 Noh disclose the electrochromic device of claim 1, as set forth above. Noh further discloses wherein said first subpixel (e.g. 203R) comprises an organic electrochromic material (paragraph [0046]) having a red color when exposed to a particular voltage (paragraph [0044] “red portion 230R”), said second subpixel (e.g. 230G) comprises an organic electrochromic material (paragraph [0046]) having a green color when exposed to a particular voltage (paragraph [0044] “green portion 230G”), and said third subpixel (e.g. 230B) comprises an organic electrochromic material (paragraph [0046]) having a blue color when exposed to a particular voltage (paragraph [0044] “blue portion 230B”).
Regarding claim 6 Noh disclose the electrochromic device of claim 1, as set forth above. Noh further discloses wherein a plurality of pixels (e.g. 230R, 230G & 230B) is provided within said common space (see figure 1) and/or is in contact with said ion conducting material (e.g. 180).
Regarding claim 7 Noh disclose the electrochromic device of claim 1, as set forth above. Noh further discloses wherein said electrodeposited organic polymer electrochromic materials comprise one or more selected from the group consisting of: electrodeposited viologen, electrodeposited triphenylamine, electrodeposited thiophene, electrodeposited 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene, electrodeposited pyridine, electrodeposited aniline, electrodeposited imides, electrodeposited aromatic ketones, electrodeposited anthraquinone, electrodeposited amides, electrodeposited norbornene-based compounds, electrodeposited carbazoles, electrodeposited thiocarbazoles, electrodeposited pyrol, and electrodeposited derivatives of the aforementioned (paragraph [0046] “electrochromic material may be … an organic material ... for example, viologen, a pyridine-based compound, an aminoquinone-based compound, a rare earth element compound, phthalocyanine, a ruthenium-based compound, a leuco dye-based compound or a polymer-based electrochromic material”)
Regarding claim 8 Noh disclose the electrochromic device of claim 1, as set forth above. Noh further discloses wherein said electrodeposited organic polymer electrochromic materials comprise one or more selected from the group consisting of polyviologen, polytriphenylamine, polythiophene, poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT), polypyridine, polypyrol, polyaniline, polyimides, polymeric aromatic ketones, polyanthraquinone, polymeric heterocycles, polyamides, polynorbornene, polycarbazoles, polythiocarbazoles and their derivatives (paragraph [0046] “electrochromic material may be … an organic material ... for example, viologen, a pyridine-based compound, an aminoquinone-based compound, a rare earth element compound, phthalocyanine, a ruthenium-based compound, a leuco dye-based compound or a polymer-based electrochromic material … one or more of the above-listed materials may be mixed and used as the electrochromic material”).
Regarding claim 18 Noh disclose the electrochromic device of claim 1, as set forth above. Noh further discloses it lacks separation walls, parts, borders and/or regions parts for electrically separating the pixels and/or subpixels (see figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0202035, of record, in view of Cassidy US Patent Application Publication 2007/0171148, of record.
Regarding claim 2 Noh disclose the electrochromic device of claim 1, as set forth above. Noh does not disclose it is comprising an insulating layer provided between said first substrate and said subpixel electrodes, wherein said subpixel electrodes are deposited on said insulating layer, wherein said active matrix comprises electrically conducting vias extending across said insulating layer, and wherein a via is provided to connect an individual active component with an individual subpixel electrode.
Cassidy teaches a similar electrochromic device (title e.g. figure 4 active matrix electrochromic device 400) including a first and second substrate (e.g. substrates 410 & 465) multiple subpixels (e.g. pixels D, E, F & G) with electrochromic materials (e.g. layer 460) of different colors (inter alia paragraph [0040] “electrochormophores that appear red, green, and blue in a reduced state and transparent in an oxidized state”) on subpixel electrodes (e.g. transparent conductor 430) attached to active components (e.g. active components 405) a counter electrode (e.g. transparent conductor 470) and an ion transporting layer (e.g. electrolyte 420); and further teaches an insulating layer (e.g. insulating layer 415) provided between said first substrate (e.g. 410) and said subpixel electrodes (e.g. 410) for the purpose of protecting the active components from the possible corrosive effects of the electrolyte (paragraph [0028]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the electrochromic device as disclosed by Noh to have an insulating layer provided between said first substrate and said subpixel electrodes, wherein said subpixel electrodes are deposited on said insulating layer, wherein said active matrix comprises electrically conducting vias extending across said insulating layer, and wherein a via is provided to connect an individual active component with an individual subpixel electrode as taught by Cassidy for the purpose of protecting the active components from the possible corrosive effects of the electrolyte.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0202035, of record, in view of Yashiro et al. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0154892, of record.
Regarding claims 9-10 Noh disclose the electrochromic device of claim 7, as set forth above. Noh does not disclose wherein said electrodeposited organic polymer electrochromic material chosen from said one or more selected from the group is a derivative comprising one or more substituents, which substituents are selected independently from organic substituents comprising from 1-50 carbons and 0-20 heteroatoms, as required by claim 9; or wherein said one or more substituents are selected from aliphatic and aromatic substituents, esters and amines of aliphatic and aromatic moieties, wherein in said aliphatic or aromatic substituent or moiety one or more hydrogens are optionally replaced independently by one or more selected from phosphonate (—PO(OH)2), boronic acid (—B(OH)2), —OH, —COOH, —NH.sub.2, —NO2, aminoxide —N+(R)2—O-), halogen, and —(CH2)n—Si(OR3)3, R and R3 are independently selected from C1-C10 alkyl, preferably C1-C5 alkyl, as required by claim 10.
Yashiro teaches a similar full-color electrochromic device (e.g. figure 3 display device 30 paragraph [0062] “different electrochromic compounds may be included in the electrochromic layers 13a, 13b, and 13c so as to color and decolor different colors”) where the electrochromic materials are chosen from organic polymers (inter alia paragraph [0082] “organic electrochromic compounds of azobenzene-based, anthraquinone-based, diarylethene-based, dihydroprene-based, styryl-based, styrylspiropyran-based, spirooxiazine-based, spirothiopyran-based, thioindigo-based, tetrathiafulvalene-based, terephralic acid-based, triphenylmethane-based, triphenylamine-based, naphthopyran-based, viologen-based, pyrazoline-based, phenazine-based, phenylenediamine-based, phenoxazine-based, phenothiazine-based, phthlocyanine-based, fluiran-based, fulgide-based, benzopyran-based, metallocene-based and the like, and an electro conductive polymer compound such as polyanilline, polythiophene and the like may be used”); and further teaches said electrodeposited organic polymer electrochromic material chosen from said one or more selected from the group (e.g. paragraph [0083] gives an exemplar of dipyridine-based compound, i.e. a polypyridine) is a derivative comprising one or more substituents, which substituents are selected independently from organic substituents comprising from 1-50 carbons and 0-20 heteroatoms and wherein said one or more substituents are selected from aliphatic and aromatic substituents, esters and amines of aliphatic and aromatic moieties, wherein in said aliphatic or aromatic substituent or moiety one or more hydrogens are optionally replaced independently by one or more selected from phosphonate (—PO(OH)2), boronic acid (—B(OH)2), —OH, —COOH, —NH.sub.2, —NO2, aminoxide —N+(R)2—O-), halogen, and —(CH2)n—Si(OR3)3, R and R3 are independently selected from C1-C10 alkyl, preferably C1-C5 alkyl (paragraph [0084] “an alkyl group having a carbon number in a range from 1 to 8 or an aryl group having a carbon number in a range from 1 to 8 and may have respective independent substituent groups ... a substituent group selected from a group consisting of COOH, PO(OH)2, and Si(OCkH2k+1)3 … an aryl group having a carbon number in a range from 2 to 20 or a heterocyclic ring and may include a substituent group”) for the purpose of having a preferred material with excellent color values (paragraph [0083]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the electrochromic device as disclosed by Noh to have said electrodeposited organic polymer electrochromic material chosen from said one or more selected from the group is a derivative comprising one or more substituents, which substituents are selected independently from organic substituents comprising from 1-50 carbons and 0-20 heteroatoms; and wherein said one or more substituents are selected from aliphatic and aromatic substituents, esters and amines of aliphatic and aromatic moieties, wherein in said aliphatic or aromatic substituent or moiety one or more hydrogens are optionally replaced independently by one or more selected from phosphonate (—PO(OH)2), boronic acid (—B(OH)2), —OH, —COOH, —NH.sub.2, —NO2, aminoxide —N+(R)2—O-), halogen, and —(CH2)n—Si(OR3)3, R and R3 are independently selected from C1-C10 alkyl, preferably C1-C5 alkyl as taught by Yashiro for the purpose of having a preferred material with excellent color values.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mortimer et al. “Electrochromic organic and polymeric materials for display applications” Displays 27 (2006) 2–18; in regards to electrochromic organic and polymeric materials for display applications, see whole document.
Alesanco et al. “Multicolor Electrochromics: Rainbow-Like Devices” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 14795−14801; in regards to use of organic polymeric materials for display applications, see whole document.
Shah et al. “Viologen-Based Electrochromic Materials: From Small Molecules, Polymers and Composites to Their Applications” Polymers 2019, 11, 1839; in regards to use of organic polymeric materials for display applications, see whole document.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 April 9, 2026
1 It has been held the drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125.
2 It has been held that “the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2125.
3 The examiner is assuming the double negative “cannot not at once envisage” is a typographical error – since it would be arguing that one “can at once envisage” the claimed combination – and the examiner will treat “cannot not” as “could not”.
4 Prior art presumed assumed to be operable. When the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable. Once such a reference is found, the burden is on applicant to rebut the presumption of operability. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980. Also see In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 103 USPQ2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 2012). MPEP 2121.
5 Regarding “electrodeposited” electrodeposition is process step. The claim is directed to a device, a.k.a. a product. It has been held that the presence of process limitations in a product claim, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over the prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 135 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). Furthermore, the patentability of a product does not depend upon its method of production. If the product in a product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, then the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed Cir 1985). See MPEP 2113. In this case, the layer could be deposited by other means e.g. inkjet/spray printing or spin coating using masking and/or etching. There are no claimed structural or functional features claimed that could not be achieved by a different manufacturing method. To avoid excessive footnotes and to improve readability all further occurrences of “electrodeposited” materials will be treated the same for the same reasons.
6 Regarding “obtained by electropolymerization” is process step. The claim is directed to a device, a.k.a. a product. It has been held that the presence of process limitations in a product claim, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over the prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 135 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). Furthermore, the patentability of a product does not depend upon its method of production. If the product in a product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, then the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed Cir 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Prosecution Insights