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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 02/11/2026. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
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.
Claims 29, 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westfall et al. (USP No. 6,515,787), hereinafter “Westfall”.
Regarding claim 29, Westfall discloses an electrochromic device (10) (see Fig. 5, Col. 6, Line 4) comprising: a first bus bar (41) electrically connected to a transparent conductor layer (30) having a rectangular profile (see Fig. 5, Col. 6, Lines 34-36), wherein: the first bus bar (41) comprises a first segment between a second segment and a third segment (see annotated Fig. 5 below), the first segment has a first thickness less than a second thickness of the second segment (see Fig. 5), and the first bus bar (41) controls tint of the electrochromic device (Col. 6, Lines 45-48, Col. 8, Lines 33-41).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, Westfall discloses wherein the transparent conductor layer is a first transparent conductor layer (30), and the electrochromic device further comprising a second bus bar (43) electrically connected to a second transparent conductor layer (80), wherein the second bus bar (43) comprises a fourth segment (43A-B interface) between a fifth segment (43A) and a sixth segment (43B) (Col. 7, Lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 32, Westfall discloses further comprising a substrate (20) with a first side, a second side, a third side, and a fourth side, wherein: the first side is opposite to the second side, the third side is orthogonal to the first side, and the fourth side is opposite the third side (see Figs. 5, 6).
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.
Claims 31 and 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westfall (USP No. 6,515,787) in view of Bergh et al. (USPG Pub No. 2014/0043667), hereinafter “Bergh”.
Regarding claim 31, Westfall discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the fourth segment has a fourth thickness that is less than a fifth thickness of the fifth segment. In the same field of endeavor, Bergh discloses wherein the fourth segment has a fourth thickness that is less than a fifth thickness of the fifth segment (see Figs. 5C, 5D, 6C, 6D, 7B, 8B, 14C, 14D, 15C, 15D, 16C, 17C, 18C, 19C, Paragraphs 67, 69). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Westfall with wherein the fourth segment has a fourth thickness that is less than a fifth thickness of the fifth segment of Bergh for the purpose of providing graded distribution for the desired optical effect (Paragraph 3). Such a modification would have involved a change in the size and shape of a component. A change in size and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987).
Regarding claim 33, Westfall further discloses wherein: the first bus bar (41) is along a first side of a substrate, and the second bus bar (43) is along a second side of the substrate opposite the first side (see Figs. 5, 6). Due to the “U” shape of the first bus bar (41), a portion of it is located on the opposite side of the substrate where the second bus bar (43) is placed.
Regarding claim 34, Westfall discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify further comprising a first voltage supply terminal electrically connected to the first bus bar. Although this feature is well known in the art, Bergh is presented to provide further evidence of this knowledge. In the same field of endeavor, Bergh discloses further comprising a first voltage supply terminal electrically connected to the first bus bar (Paragraphs 54, 64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Westfall with further comprising a first voltage supply terminal electrically connected to the first bus bar of Bergh for the purpose of supplying power (Paragraph 64).
Regarding claim 35, Westfall and Bergh teach the electrochromic device set forth above for claim 34, Bergh further discloses wherein the first voltage supply terminal is connected to the first segment of the first bus bar (Paragraphs 54, 64, 67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the electrochromic device of Westfall with the teachings of Bergh for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 34.
Regarding claim 36, Westfall discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify further comprising a second voltage supply terminal electrically connected to the second bus bar. Although this feature is well known in the art, Bergh is presented to provide further evidence of this knowledge. In the same field of endeavor, Bergh discloses further comprising a second voltage supply terminal electrically connected to the second bus bar (Paragraphs 54, 64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Westfall with further comprising a second voltage supply terminal electrically connected to the second bus bar of Bergh for the purpose of supplying power (Paragraph 64).
Regarding claim 37, Westfall and Bergh teach the electrochromic device set forth above for claim 36, Bergh further discloses wherein the second voltage supply terminal is connected to the fourth segment of the second bus bar (Paragraphs 54, 64, 67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the electrochromic device of Westfall with the teachings of Bergh for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 36.
Claim 38, 39 and 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westfall (USP No. 6,515,787) in view of Murphy et al. (USPG Pub No. 2012/0300280), hereinafter “Murphy”.
Regarding claim 38, Westfall discloses an electrochromic device (10) (see Fig. 5, Col. 6, Line 4) comprising: a first bus bar (41) comprising a first segment, a second segment, and a third segment (each segment of the U-shaped bus bar 41), the first bus bar in direct electrical contact with a transparent conductor layer (30) having a rectangular profile (see Fig. 5, Col. 6, Lines 34-36), wherein: the first segment is between the second segment and the third segment (see annotated Fig. 5 above), and wherein the transparent conductor layer (30) comprises a metal oxide (Col. 2, Lines 9-11). Westfall discloses the claimed invention except for and the first segment is perforated and/or has a resistance different than a resistance of the second segment and a resistance of the third segment. In the same field of endeavor, Murphy discloses and the first segment is perforated and/or has a resistance different than a resistance of the second segment and a resistance of the third segment (Paragraph 75 – “pores of at least a portion of the bus bar”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Westfall with and the first segment is perforated and/or has a resistance different than a resistance of the second segment and a resistance of the third segment of Murphy for the purpose of configuring the bus bar to have the desired conductivity by placing a preferred material in the pores (Paragraphs 9, 19).
Regarding claim 39, Westfall further discloses wherein the first segment, the second segment, and the third segment have varying thickness and/or width (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 46, Westfall and Murphy teach the electrochromic device set forth above for claim 38, Murphy further discloses wherein the first segment is perforated (Paragraph 75 – “pores of at least a portion of the bus bar”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Warren and Rukavina with is perforated of Murphy for the purpose of configuring the bus bar to have the desired conductivity by placing a preferred material in the pores (Paragraphs 9, 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the electrochromic device of Westfall with the teachings of Murphy for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 38.
Claims 40, 42, 45 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rukavina (USPG Pub No. 2007/0002421) in view of O’Shaughnessy (USPG Pub No. 2007/0002422).
Regarding claim 40, Rukavina discloses an electrochromic window (10) (see Figs. 1, 4) comprising: an electrochromic device disposed on a transparent substrate (20/30) (see Figs. 1, 4), the electrochromic device comprising a first transparent conductor layer (29) and a second transparent conductor layer (39) (Paragraph 25); two bus bars (60) disposed along opposing edges (20b and 20d) of the electrochromic device, wherein a first bus bar (60 at 20b) of the two bus bars comprises two or more portions spaced from each other, and a second bus bar (60 at 20d) of the two bus bars comprises two or more portions spaced from each other (see Figs. 1, 4); and a powering mechanism (64, 65) comprising two or more power leads in electrical communication with the first and second bus bars (see Figs. 1, 4); wherein the two or more portions of the first bus bar (60 at 20b) are in electrical communication with each other by a first portion of the first transparent conductor layer (29) between the two or more portions of the first bus bar (see Figs. 1, 4, Paragraph 26), herein the two or more portions of the second bus bar (60 at 20d) are in electrical communication with each other by a second portion of the first transparent conductor layer (29) between the two or more portions of the second bus bar (see Figs. 1, 4, Paragraph 26), wherein the electrochromic device is configured to establish tint gradient zones (Paragraph 53). Rukavina discloses the claimed invention except for and wherein the first portion of the first transparent conductor layer comprises a resistive element. In the same field of endeavor, O’Shaughnessy discloses and wherein the first portion of the first transparent conductor layer comprises a resistive element (132) (Paragraph 77). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the window of Rukavina with and wherein the first portion of the first transparent conductor layer comprises a resistive element of O’Shaughnessy for the purpose of controlling the flow rate of current through the layers (Paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 42, Rukavina further discloses wherein the two or more portions of the first bus bar (60) and the two or more portions of the second bus bar (60) are configured to create two or more tinting zones, respectively (see Fig. 4, Paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 45, Rukavina further discloses wherein the two or more portions of the first bus bar (60) are spaced from each other in a longitudinal direction of the two or more portions of the first bus bar (60), and the two or more portions of the second bus bar (60) are spaced from each other in a longitudinal direction of the two or more portions of the second bus bar (60) (see Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 47, Rukavina and O’Shaughnessy teach the electrochromic device set forth above for claim 40, O’Shaughnessy further discloses wherein the first portion of the first transparent conductor layer is positioned between the two or more portions of the first bus bar to slow current flow between ends of the two or more portions of the first bus bar (see Fig. 6, Paragraph 77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the electrochromic device of Rukavina with the teachings of O’Shaughnessy for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 40.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rukavina (USPG Pub No. 2007/0002421) in view of O’Shaughnessy (USPG Pub No. 2007/0002422) as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Bhatnagar et al. (USPG Pub No. 2012/0147449), hereinafter “Bhatnagar”.
Regarding claim 43, Rukavina and O’Shaughnessy disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify further comprising: a spacer, and a mate lite. In the same field of endeavor, Bhatnagar discloses further comprising: a spacer, and a mate lite (Paragraph 27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the window of Rukavina and O’Shaughnessy with further comprising: a spacer, and a mate lite of Bhatnagar for the purpose of providing IGUs that avoid electrical shorting (Paragraph 28).
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rukavina (USPG Pub No. 2007/0002421) in view of O’Shaughnessy (USPG Pub No. 2007/0002422) as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Westfall (USP No. 6,515,787).
Regarding claim 44, Rukavina and O’Shaughnessy disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the two or more portions of the first bus bar have varying thickness and/or width, and wherein the two or more portions of the second bus bar have varying thickness and/or width. In the same field of endeavor, Westfall discloses wherein the two or more portions of the first bus bar (41) have varying thickness and/or width, and wherein the two or more portions of the second bus bar (42) have varying thickness and/or width (see annotated Fig. 5 above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Westfall with wherein the two or more portions of the first bus bar have varying thickness and/or width, and wherein the two or more portions of the second bus bar have varying thickness and/or width of Westfall for the purpose of distributing power to the first conductive layer for the desired optical effect (Col. 6, Lines 45-47). Such a modification would have involved a change in the size and shape of a component. A change in size and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 29-40 and 42-47 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 3/21/2026