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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 26, 2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed May 26, 2026, with respect to claim rejections under 112 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are persuasive. The claim rejections under 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument (page 6 lines 6-11 and page 7 line 30-page 8 line 3) centered on Lam failing to disclose the being specifically located between the electronics module and the first panel and coupled to the first panel, as recited in claim 1, the examiner is unpersuaded. As previously noted, applicant is referencing figure 3. However, as set forth in previous Office Actions, the examiner referenced figure 9, which shows all of those features, see figure A below.
[AltContent: textbox (153 on/coupled to 112
and
153 between 112 & 145)][AltContent: textbox (photovoltaic module (153) )][AltContent: textbox (first panel (112))][AltContent: textbox (electronics module (145))]
PNG
media_image1.png
560
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Annotated version of Lam figure 9.
Regarding applicant’s argument (page 6 lines 11-12 and page 8 line 3-4 and page 9 lines 4-6) centered on Lam failing to disclose the new limitation in claim 1 of “wherein both the photovoltaic module and the electronics module form an edge of the insulating glazing unit”, the examiner is unpersuaded. As seen in figure A above the electronics module is at the edge of the device. Regarding the position of the photovoltaic module Lam clearly discloses in paragraph [0144]: “Where the device is a window, the PV-EHPS may be incorporated along an edge, in a corner or another less obtrusive portion of the window itself, without affecting the window.”
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Brown failing to disclose the feature wherein the second length is less than the first length, since Brown does not state the drawings are to scale, the examiner is unpersuaded. This argument was made, verbatim, in the remarks of February 12, 2026. The examiner responded in the Office action of February 26, 2026 on pages 3-4, including annotated figure B. Said response has not been acknowledged, addressed or refuted. The examiner maintains the response in the Office action of February 26, 2026 on pages 3-4, including annotated figure B.
Regarding applicant’s argument (page 8 lines 9-10 and page 9 lines 12-13) indicating that the rejection of claim 16 over Lam in view of Pertz failing to disclose the new limitation in claim 1 of “wherein both the photovoltaic module and the electronics module form an edge of the insulating glazing unit”, the examiner is unpersuaded. Claim 16 is an independent claim. Claim 16 does not have the limitation of “wherein both the photovoltaic module and the electronics module form an edge of the insulating glazing unit.” Applicant’s discussion of claim 1 on page 7 line 30-page 8 line 3 appears to be an inadvertent editing issue, further, in arguendo, see above.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on the combination of Lan and Pertz failing to disclose or teach “the second length is between 60% and 90% of the first length” as recited in claim 16, the examiner is unpersuaded. This argument was made, verbatim, in the remarks of February 12, 2026. The examiner responded in the Office action of February 26, 2026 on pages 5. Said response has not been acknowledged, addressed or refuted. The examiner maintains the response in the Office action of February 26, 2026 on page 5.
Regarding applicant’s statement “Lam is silent to the photovoltaic module being within the frame and specifically being located between the electronics module and the first panel and coupled to the first panel” and “Perez does not cure the deficiencies of Lam”, the examiner is unpersuaded. As previously noted, no claim recites “the photovoltaic module being within the frame”. Indeed, the term “frame” (or any synonymous terms) does not appear in any claim. 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). Regarding the photovoltaic module being located between the electronics module and the first panel and coupled to the first panel, see discussion above and figure A above.
Regarding applicant indicating that claims 18 and 19 depend from claim 16 and that the examiner rejected them as anticipated (102-type rejection) and 18-19 are allowable since 16 is allowable, the examiner is unpersuaded. As the examiner respectfully and previously noted that claims 18 and 19 depend from claim 1 and that the rejections were made as single reference obviousness (103-type) rejection.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lam et al. US Patent Application Publication 2013/0278989, of record.
Regarding claim 1 Lam discloses an insulated glazing unit (title e.g. figure 9 variable transmittance window 150), comprising: a first panel (e.g. first pane 112); a second panel (e.g. second pane 114); an electrochromic device (e.g. variable transmittance optical filter 116) coupled to the first panel (see figure 9); an electronics module (e.g. control system 145 & wire 152) coupled to the second panel (see figure 9); and a photovoltaic module (e.g. energy-harvesting power source/EHPS 153) coupled to the electronics module, the electrochromic device, and the first panel (e.g. via 152), wherein the photovoltaic module is located between the electronics module and the first panel (e.g. 153 is between 145 and 112), and wherein the photovoltaic module is coupled to the first panel (e.g. 153 is on the inside surface of 112) , and wherein both the photovoltaic module (e.g. 153) and the electronics module (e.g. 145 & 152) form an edge (e.g. see figure 9 where 145 is at the edge & paragraph [0144] “[w]here the device is a window, the PV-EHPS may be incorporated along an edge”) of the insulating glazing unit (e.g. 150).
Regarding claim 2 Lam discloses the insulated glazing unit of claim 1, as set forth above. Lam further discloses wherein the electrochromic device (e.g. details of variable transmittance optical filter 116 can be seen in figure 1 general variable transmittance optical filter 20), comprises: a substrate (e.g. first transparent substrate 22); a first transparent conductive layer (e.g. first transparent conductive layer 24) on the substrate (see figure 1); a second transparent conductive layer (e.g. second transparent conductive layer 28); an electrochromic layer between the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer; a counter electrode layer between the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer; and an electrolyte layer between the electrochromic layer and the counter electrode layer (e.g. switching material 30 & paragraph [0080] “the switching material may be an electrochromic … Electrochromic technology typically involves applying thin coatings of electrochromic materials to two transparent electrodes and sandwiching an electrolyte material in between”).
Regarding claim 3 Lam discloses the insulated glazing unit of claim 2, as set forth above. Lam further discloses wherein the electrochromic layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of WO3, V2O5, MoO3, Nb2O5, TiO2, CuO, Ni2O3, NiO, Ir2O3, Cr2O3, Co2O3, Mn2O3, mixed oxides (e.g., W-Mo oxide, W-V oxide), lithium, aluminum, zirconium, phosphorus, nitrogen, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, astatine, boron, a borate with or without lithium, a tantalum oxide with or without lithium, a lanthanide-based material with or without lithium, another lithium-based ceramic material, or any combination thereof (e.g. paragraph [0080] “materials include tungsten oxide, polyaniline, viologens, polyoxotungstates or the like”).
Regarding claim 4 Lam discloses the insulated glazing unit of claim 3, as set forth above. Lam further discloses wherein the substrate comprises a material selected from the group consisting of glass, sapphire, aluminum oxynitride, spinel, polyacrylic compound, polyalkene, polycarbonate, polyester, polyether, polyethylene, polyimide, polysulfone, polysulfide, polyurethane, polyvinylacetate, another suitable transparent polymer, co-polymer of the foregoing, float glass, borosilicate glass, or any combination thereof (e.g. paragraph [0070] “suitable materials that can be used as a substrate in embodiments of the present invention include, but are not limited to, glass, plastics and thermoplastic polymers. Suitable thermoplastic polymers include polyesters (PE), polycarbonates, polyamides, polyurethanes, polyacrylonitriles, polyacrylacids, (e.g. poly(methacrylic acid), including polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyolefins (PO) or copolymers or heteropolymers of any one or more of the above, or copolymers or blends of any one or more of the above with poly(siloxane)s, poly(phosphazenes)s, or latex. Examples of polyesters include homopolymers or copolymers of aliphatic, semi-aromatic or aromatic monomeric units, for example polycondensed 4-hydroxybenzoic acid and 6-hydroxynapthalene-2-carboxylic acid (VECTRAN.TM.), polyethylene napthalate (PEN), polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), polyethylene adipate (PEA), polycaprolactone (PCL) polylactic acid (PLA), polyglycolic acid (PGA) or the like”).
Regarding claim 5 Lam discloses the insulated glazing unit of claim 2, as set forth above. Lam further discloses wherein the first transparent conductive layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of indium oxide, indium tin oxide, doped indium oxide, tin oxide, doped tin oxide, zinc oxide, doped zinc oxide, ruthenium oxide, doped ruthenium oxide, silver, gold, copper, aluminum, and any combination thereof (e.g. paragraph [0076] “Exemplary conductive materials include layers of doped indium tin oxide, doped tin oxide, doped zinc oxide, antimony tin oxide, polyaniline, graphene, PEDOT (poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)), PEDOT:PSS (poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) poly(styrenesulfonate)), and polypyrrole, as well as thin, substantially transparent metallic layers such as gold, silver, aluminum, and nickel alloy”).
Regarding claim 6 Lam discloses the insulated glazing unit of claim 2, as set forth above. Lam further discloses wherein the second transparent conductive layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of indium oxide, indium tin oxide, doped indium oxide, tin oxide, doped tin oxide, zinc oxide, doped zinc oxide, ruthenium oxide, doped ruthenium oxide and any combination thereof (e.g. paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 7 Lam discloses the insulated glazing unit of claim 2, as set forth above. Lam further discloses wherein the counter electrode layer comprises an inorganic metal oxide electrochemically active material (e.g. paragraph [0080] “tungsten oxide”), selected from a group consisting of WO3, V2O5, MoO3, Nb2O5, TiO2, CuO, Ir2O3, Cr2O3, Co2O3, Mn2O3, Ta2O5, ZrO2, HfO2, Sb2O3,a lanthanide-based material with or without lithium, another lithium-based ceramic material, a nickel oxide (NiO, Ni2O3, or combination of the two), and Li, nitrogen, Na, H, or another ion, any halogen, or any combination thereof (e.g. paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 8 Lam discloses the insulated glazing unit of claim 1, as set forth above. Lam further discloses it is further comprising an insulating layer (e.g. sealed gap 118) between the photovoltaic module and the electronics module (see figure 9).
Regarding claim 9 Lam discloses the insulated glazing unit of claim 1, as set forth above. Lam further discloses it is further comprising a lamination interlayer (e.g. paragraph [0151] discusses unshown interlayer materials) between the first panel and the electrochromic device (axiomatic e.g. see inter alia paragraph [0152] and paragraph [0152] discussing optical filter being laminated with an interlayer).
Regarding claim 20 Lam discloses the insulated glazing unit of claim 1, as set forth above. Lam further discloses it further comprising a spacer (e.g. spacer 120) between the first panel and the second panel (see figure 9).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0243206, of record.
Regarding claim 11 Brown discloses an insulated glazing unit (title e.g. figure 10E), comprising: a first panel (e.g. outboard lite 1000a) having a first length (inherent feature of a panel); a second panel (e.g. inboard lite 1000b) having a second length (inherent feature of a panel), wherein the second length is less than the first length (figure 10E shows1 1000b being smaller than 1000a); an electrochromic device coupled to the first panel (paragraph [0141] indicates 1000a with bus bar leads 1025a-1025b is an electrochromic lite); and an electronics module (e.g. dock/base 1007 and inter alia paragraph [0129] discloses 1007 may include a programmable chip) coupled to the second panel (see figure 10E).
Regarding claim 12 Brown discloses the insulated glazing unit of claim 11, as set forth above. Brown further discloses wherein the electronics module further comprises a removable front panel (inter alia paragraph [0023] “In some cases, a cover is provided over the dock” & paragraph [0097] “cover can be removed”).
Regarding claim 13 Brown discloses the insulated glazing unit of claim 12, as set forth above. Brown further discloses wherein the removable front panel extends into a visible area of the electrochromic device (inter alia paragraph [0023] “the cover extends no more than about 0.1 inches from a surface on which the dock is positioned”).
Regarding claim 14 Brown discloses the insulated glazing unit of claim 11, as set forth above. Brown further discloses wherein the electronics module (e.g. 145 & 152) abuts one end of the electrochromic device (e.g. 116) on a first end and in part forms an outside edge of the insulated glazing unit (see figure 9).
Regarding claim 15 Brown discloses the insulated glazing unit of claim 11 including the electronics module being coupled to the second panel, as set forth above. Brown further discloses wherein the electronics module is coupled to (see figure 10E) and below the second panel (as set forth in the 112 section above, this limitation is interpreted to be establish the direction of “below” using two elements – as successfully argued by applicant – one could define “below” the relative positions of electronics module and the electrochromic device as seen in figure 10E).
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al. US Patent Application Publication 2013/0278989, of record, in view of Pertz US Patent 2,052,244, of record.
Regarding claim 16 Lam discloses an insulated glazing unit (title e.g. figure 9 variable transmittance window 150), comprising: a first panel (e.g. 112) having a first length (inherent feature of a panel); a second panel (e.g. 114) having a second length (inherent feature of a panel); an electrochromic device (e.g. 116) coupled to the first panel (see figure 9); an electronics module (e.g. 145) coupled to the second panel (see figure 9); and a photovoltaic module (e.g. 153) coupled to the electronics module (e.g. via wires 152), wherein the photovoltaic module is located between the electronics module and the first panel (e.g. 153 is between 145 and 112), and wherein the photovoltaic module is coupled to the first panel (e.g. 153 is on the inside surface of 112).
Lam does not disclose the second length is between 60% and 90% of the first length.
Pertz teaches a similar insulated glazing unit (title e.g. figure 2) including a first panel (e.g. glass panel 4), a second panel (e.g. glass panel 5); and further teaches the first panel has a length greater than the second panel (see figure 2) for the purpose of having the edge of the first panel projects out past the edge of the second panel to provides a glazing or clamping margin (inter alia column 1 lines 32-36 & column 2 lines 20-23). 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 insulated glazing unit as disclosed by Lam to have the second length be less than the first length as taught by Pertz for the purpose of having the edge of the first panel projects out past the edge of the second panel to provides a glazing or clamping margin.
Pertz does not disclose the second length is between 60% and 90% of the first length. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case the combination of Lam as modified by Pertz disclose an insulated glazing unit including an electrochromic device, an electronics module, a photovoltaic module and a larger first panel, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to choose a particular ratio of sizes for the purpose of achieving a sufficient margin for glazing given a particular size window. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the insulated glazing unit as disclosed by the combination of Lam as modified by Pertz to have the second length is between 60% and 90% of the first length for the purpose of achieving a sufficient margin for glazing given a particular size window and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al. US Patent Application Publication 2013/0278989, of record.
Regarding claims 18-19 Lam figure 9 discloses the insulated glazing unit of claim 1, as set forth above. Lam further discloses wherein the electrochromic device has a first width (inherent feature of an electrochromic device), the first panel has a second width (inherent feature of a panel).
Lam figure 9 does not disclose wherein the first width is the same as the second width, as required by claim 18; or in the alternative wherein the first width is between 50% and 99% the second width, as required by claim 19.
Lam teaches similar embodiments of insulated glazing units (e.g. figures 16 & 18) including a first panel (e.g. first pane 369) with an electrochromic device (e.g. variable transmittance optical filter 368 or 384) on the first panel (see figures 16 & 18), a second panel (e.g. second pane 366), and further teaches an embodiment (e.g. figure 18) where the electrochromic device (e.g. 384) is the same size as the first panel and another embodiment (e.g. figure 16) where the electrochromic device (e.g. 368) is smaller than the first panel. One would be motivated to choose either embodiment based on design/engineering decisions. For example, one might choose to have the electrochromic device and the first panel be the same size as a matter of simplified production of having a first panel/electrochromic layer cut from a larger pre-made panel. On the other hand, one might choose to have the electrochromic device be smaller to save money and reduce voltage required and/or transition time, since the edges of the first panel are covered by the frame and are not part of the viewing area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the insulated glazing unit as disclosed by the combination of Lam figure 9 to have either the first width is the same as the second width, or in the alternative, the first width is less than the second width as further taught by Lam figures 16 and 18 for the purpose of satisfying design/engineering/operating consideration, such as cost and/or operating conditions.
Lam figure 16 does not explicitly teach the first width is between 50% and 99% the second width, as required by claim 19. However figure 16 suggests that width is greater than 50% and less than 99% the width of the first panel. 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. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the insulated glazing unit as disclosed by the combination of Lam figure 9 as modified by Lam figures 16 to have either the first width is the same as the second width, or in the alternative, the first width is between 50% and 99% as suggested by figure 16 and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Byker et al. US Patent 5,805,330; in regards to a similar device, see figures 1-4.
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 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 June 17, 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.
Prosecution Insights