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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/033,208 filed on April 21, 2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
The amended claims submitted May 21, 2026 in response to the office action mailed February 25, 2026 are under consideration. Claims 1-2 and 5-11 are amended and pending. Claims 3-4 are cancelled.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasa et al. US 2019/0285960 A1 (hereafter Sasa) in view of JP 2002-062540 A (cited in an IDS, hereafter JP 540, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation due to the image quality of the copy provided by applicant), Foller et al. US 2010/0134866 A1 (hereafter Foller), Yoshinaga et al. US 5,834,145 (hereafter Yoshinaga), Kojima et al. JP 2006-030820 A (hereafter Kojima), and Saenger-Nayver et al. US 2018/0017823 A1 (of record, hereafter Saenger-Nayver) as evidenced by Browne “Interference.” Chap. 32 in Schaum's Outline of Physics for Engineering and Science. 4th ed. (hereafter Browne).
Regarding claim 1, Sasa teaches “An electrochromic element (electrochromic device 10) comprising:
a first substrate (a first substrate 1) and a second substrate (second substrate 2); and
an electrochromic film (first electrode 3, second electrode 4, electrolyte layer 5, first electrochromic layer 6, second electrochromic layer 7) disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (see Fig. 1A),
wherein the electrochromic film includes a layered structure comprising a first electrode layer (first electrode 3), an electrochromic layer (electrolyte layer 5, first electrochromic layer 6, second electrochromic layer 7), and a second electrode layer (second electrode 4),
wherein the electrochromic layer includes an oxidation layer (first electrochromic layer 6, paragraph [0108]: “The first electrochromic layer comprises a material colorable by an oxidation reaction”), an electrolyte layer (electrolyte layer 5), and a reduction layer (second electrochromic layer 7, paragraph [0109]: “The second electrochromic layer comprises a material colorable by a reduction reaction”),
wherein the first substrate is a polycarbonate substrate (paragraph [0118]: “a resin substrate made of polycarbonate resin”), the first electrode layer is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0125]: “transparent electrode” or paragraph [0127]: “the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 each comprise ITO”) having a film thickness (paragraph [0127]: “the average thicknesses of each of the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 is preferably about 50 to 500 nm.”), the second substrate is a polycarbonate substrate (paragraph [0118]: “a resin substrate made of polycarbonate resin”), and the second electrode layer is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0125]: “transparent electrode” or paragraph [0127]: “the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 each comprise ITO”) having a film thickness (paragraph [0127]: “the average thicknesses of each of the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 is preferably about 50 to 500 nm.”),
wherein the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer are each a single layer (see Fig. 1a, electrodes 3 and 4 are single layers with no discussion of being made of multiple layers) having a refractive index (paragraph [0127]: “the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 each comprise ITO” which has a refractive index of 1.8 to 2.07 as evidenced by Saenger-Nayver Table 1 low-n ITO and high-n ITO have a refractive index of 1.84 and 2.07 respectively) … which is higher than a refractive index of each of the first substrate, the second substrate… respectively (paragraph [0118]: “a resin substrate made of polycarbonate resin” which has a lower refractive index than ITO, at least because ITO is the material of the electrode layers in the instant application, and polycarbonate is the material of the substrate in the present claim.)
However, Sasa fails to explicitly teach “the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer… having a refractive index of 2.1 which is higher than a refractive index of each of… the oxidation layer, the electrolyte layer, and the reduction layer, respectively, and wherein refractive indexes of the oxidation layer, the electrolyte layer, and the reduction layer are 1.4 or more and 1.7 or less.”
Note, however, that Sasa teaches the same or similar materials for each of the electrode layers, the oxidation layer, the electrolyte layer, and the reduction layer as the instant application, see the following table:
layer
material
PGPub of instant application
Sasa
first and second electrodes
ITO
[0008] “In the present invention, it is preferable that the electrode layer be a transparent electrode layer made of ITO”
[0069] “ITO (refractive index=2.1) was used as the electrode layer”
[0125] “The materials for the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4… tin-doped indium oxide (ITO).”
oxidation layer
radically polymerizable compound including triarylamine
[0047] “the material of the oxidation layer 8 is not limited, but can be selected from among, for example, a composition containing a radically polymerizable compound including triarylamine.”
[0069] a triarylamine compound (refractive index=1.64) was used for the oxidation layer
[0108] “The first electrochromic layer comprises a material colorable by an oxidation reaction. The material colorable by an oxidation reaction is not particularly limited, but is preferably a polymerized product of a composition containing a triarylamine-containing radical polymerizable compound”
electrolyte layer
gel containing alkali metal salts, alkali earth-metal salts or quarternary ammonium salts
[0048] The electrolyte layer 9 is preferably in the form of gel in order to maintain high ionic conductivity. Although it is not limited, inorganic ion salts such as alkali metal salt and alkaline earth metal salt, and existing electrolyte materials such as a quaternary ammonium salt and acid can be used.
[0069] an organic gel-like material (a mixture of a plurality of organic salts and polymers, refractive index=1.50) was used for the electrolyte layer.
[0226] “The electrolyte need not necessarily be a low-viscosity liquid and may be in the form of a gel,”
[0220] “Examples of the electrolyte include, but are not limited to: inorganic ion salts such as alkali metal salts and alkali-earth metal salts”
[0221]” In addition, ionic liquids can also be used as the electrolyte.”
[0222] “Specific examples of cationic components in such organic ionic liquids include, but are not limited to… aliphatic quaternary ammonium salts (e.g., trimethylpropylammonium salt, trimethylhexylammonium salt, and triethylhexylammonium salt).
reduction layer
viologen compound
[0069] a viologen compound (refractive index=1.45) was used for the reduction layer
[0109] The second electrochromic layer comprises a material colorable by a reduction reaction. Examples thereof include, but are not limited to, viologen compounds
For the first and second electrodes, Sasa teaches that they are made of ITO, but does not specify the refractive index thereof, which could be as low as 1.84 or as high as 2.07 as taught by Saenger-Nayver (Table 1).
For the oxidation layer, electrolyte layer and reduction layer one cannot immediately infer the refractive indexes of these layers based purely on the compositions disclosed because these compositions describe classes of compounds not a single material. However, Sasa does teach the same class of compositions as the instant application, just being silent as to the desired refractive indexes thereof.
Saenger-Nayver teaches an electrochromic application (e.g. paragraph [0022]) where an anti-reflective coating can also be the electrode (see paragraph [0040]). Saenger-Nayver further teaches that ITO within such an application can have a refractive index of 2.07 (i.e. 2.1) see Table 1.
Yoshinaga teaches (col. 12 lines 3-7): “a charge transport layer composed of the triarylamine compound and polycarbonate resin described above… showed a refractive index of 1.59.”
Kojima teaches (page 4 last paragraph): “when a polymer electrolyte and a conductive polymer are used for the electrochromic layer, The refractive index is usually between 1.4 and 1.6, and can be made substantially the same as the refractive index of the protective layer, so that reflection of light can be suppressed.”
Foller teaches (paragraphs [0066]): “n-Heptyl viologen tetrafluoroborate (0.1584 g) was dissolved into the product of Step 3 (5.0 g) resulting in a clear colorless solution. To the solution was added DMPZ (0.0631 g) and the color of the clear solution became greenish. The refractive index of the resulting solution was 1.4844.”
It is a well-established proposition that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
In the instant case, Sasa teaches the same classes of materials for the oxidation, electrolyte and reduction layers as were disclosed in the instant application, but is silent regarding the specific choices thereof having refractive indexes between 1.4 and 1.7. Yoshinaga, Kojima and Foller teach examples of materials in these classes which have refractive indexes between 1.4 and 1.7. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the particular materials for the oxidation, electrolyte and reduction layers, materials with refractive indexes between 1.4 and 1.7 all of which are less than the refractive index of the ITO electrodes as taught by Yoshinaga, Kojima and Foller in the electrochromic element of Sasa since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Furthermore, Sasa teaches ITO as the material of the electrode layers but is silent regarding the choice of the refractive index of these ITO layers. Saenger Nayver teaches that ITO can be formed such that it has a high refractive index of 2.07 (i.e. 2.1). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a type of ITO with a refractive index of 2.1 as taught by Saenger-Nayver in the electrochromic element of Sasa since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Note that the appropriateness of ITO as the material of the electrode layers is already established by Sasa. Thus the above choice of high-n ITO is merely choosing amongst possible ITO material characteristics.
However, Sasa does not explicitly teach “(A)… the first electrode layer … having a film thickness of 123.5 nm or more and 136.5 nm or less, (B) the second electrode layer … having a film thickness of 120.5 nm or more and 138 nm or less, and (C) the first electrode layer … having a film thickness of 123.5 nm or more and 136.5 nm or less… and the second electrode layer … having a film thickness of 120.5 nm or more and 138 nm or less…
wherein a luminous reflectance of a first interface between the first electrode layer and the first substrate side is 1.0% or less, and a luminous reflectance of a second interface between the second electrode layer and the second substrate side is 1.0% or less.”
Note, however, that Sasa does teach (paragraph [0119]): “The substrate may have a surface coating such as … an antireflection layer, for improving … visibility.” Additionally, Sasa teaches (paragraph [0127]): “in a case in which the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 each comprise ITO, the average thicknesses of each of the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 is preferably about 50 to 500 nm.”
JP 540 teaches “An … element (Figs. 1-3 and 16) comprising:
a first substrate and a second substrate (substrates 11 and 12); and
… a layered structure comprising a first electrode layer (transparent electrode 21) … and a second electrode layer (transparent electrode 22) …
wherein the first substrate is a polycarbonate substrate (paragraph [0049]: “As a specific example, the substrates 11 and 12 are made of polycarbonate”), the first electrode layer is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0049]: “the transparent electrodes 21 and 22 are made of ITO with a refractive index of 1.9”) having a film thickness of 123.5 nm or more (paragraph [0041]: “a physical film thickness of 146 nm”)… the second substrate is a polycarbonate substrate (paragraph [0049]: “As a specific example, the substrates 11 and 12 are made of polycarbonate”), and the second electrode layer is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0049]: “the transparent electrodes 21 and 22 are made of ITO with a refractive index of 1.9”) having a film thickness of 120.5 nm or more (paragraph [0041]: “a physical film thickness of 146 nm”)…
a luminous reflectance of a first interface between the first electrode layer and the first substrate side is 1.0% or less (paragraph [0041]: “FIG. 16 shows the calculation results of the reflection spectrum during dark display when transparent electrodes 21, 22 are formed from ITO having a refractive index of 1.9, with a physical film thickness of 146 nm and an optical film thickness of 277.5 nm (λ is 555 nm).” In Fig. 16 the reflectance is less than 0.01 at least in the wavelength range from 460 nm to 680 nm, and less than 0.02 from 425 nm to 700 nm. Since this reflectance includes both of the electrode/substrate interfaces, the total luminous reflectance of one interface between the electrode layer and the substrate side in the visible range is 1.0% or less), and a luminous reflectance of a second interface between the second electrode layer and the second substrate side is 1.0% or less (paragraph [0041]: “FIG. 16 shows the calculation results of the reflection spectrum during dark display when transparent electrodes 21, 22 are formed from ITO having a refractive index of 1.9, with a physical film thickness of 146 nm and an optical film thickness of 277.5 nm (λ is 555 nm).” In Fig. 16 the reflectance is less than 0.01 at least in the wavelength range from 460 nm to 680 nm, and less than 0.02 from 425 nm to 700 nm. Since this reflectance includes both of the electrode/substrate interfaces, the total luminous reflectance of one interface between the electrode layer and the substrate side in the visible range is 1.0% or less).”
However, JP 540 does not specifically provide an example with “(A) … the first electrode layer … having a film thickness of 123.5 nm or more and 136.5 nm or less, (B)… the second electrode layer … having a film thickness of 120.5 nm or more and 138 nm or less, and (C) … the first electrode layer … having a film thickness of 123.5 nm or more and 136.5 nm or less… and the second electrode layer … having a film thickness of 120.5 nm or more and 138 nm or less.”
However, JP 540 teaches paragraph [0013]: “the present invention is capable of sufficiently reducing the reflectance”
[0016] “the optical film thickness of the transparent electrode of each display element is set to half the antireflection wavelength within the visible wavelength range”
[0019]: “reflection of incident light at the transparent electrode increases the reflectance”
[0028]: “The transparent electrodes 21 and 22 are made of a conductive oxide having light transmitting properties, such as ITO (Indium Tin Oxide), SnO2, or ZnO:Al. These materials are formed into films on the substrates 11 and 12 by deposition, sputtering, ion plating, or the like, and then processed into a desired shape by photolithography or the like to form the transparent electrodes 21 and 22 . At this time, the optical thickness of the transparent electrodes 21 and 22 is controlled to λ/2.”
[0031]: “The selective reflection wavelength range …is set to be within the visible wavelength range of 400 to 700 nm.”
Thus, although JP 540 teaches an exemplary selective reflection wavelength of 555 nm and an ITO later with a refractive index of 1.9 leading to a thickness of 146.1, JP 540 also teaches that the selective reflection wavelength can be in the range of 400 to 700 nm. A choice of λ=540 nm would then have λ/2=270 nm. With ITO having a refractive index of 2.1 as chosen in view of Saenger-Nayver above, the physical thickness of an ITO layer with an optical thickness of 270 nm = (270 nm)/2.1=128.6 nm or (270 nm)/2.07=130.4 both of which are within both of the above claimed ranges. Alternatively, simply changing the type of ITO to a high index choice with n=2.1 and the same selective reflection wavelength of 555 nm would lead to a physical thickness of 555/(2x2.1)=132.1 nm which is also within both of the above claimed ranges.
It is worth noting that in Chapter 11 section 32.3, Browne teaches the principles under which interference between the light that would be reflected off of two successive surfaces would destructively cancel out and result in an antireflective effect.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
460
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
54
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
30
714
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
36
716
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
20
716
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The condition for minimum reflection for m=1 can be rewritten as t=λ/(2n), which is the same expression taught in JP 540.
How this would work in the device of Sasa can be understood as follows. For the interface of substrate 1 with electrode 3, both the refractive indices of layers 1 and 6 are lower than that of layer 3, thus we are in the same scenario depicted in Browne. Therefor the potential reflections off the interface between 1 and 3 will interfere with the potential reflections off the interface of 3 with 6 when t=λ/(2n). Similarly, both the refractive indices of layers 7 and 2 are lower than that of layer 4, which is again in the same scenario depicted in Browne. Thus, the potential reflections off the interface between 2 and 4 will interfere with the potential reflections off the interface of 7 with 4 when t=λ/(2n).
PNG
media_image7.png
260
506
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefor, when the condition for destructive interference (minimum reflection) is met, for the potential reflection at the interface between the substrates 1 and 2 and the electrode layers 3 and 4, there is another potential reflection at an adjacent interface that destructively interferes with it resulting in a minimum reflectance.
Thus the Sasa combination discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness of the first electrode layer being between 123.5 to 136.5 nm and/or the thickness of the second electrode layer being between 120.5 to 138 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the selective reflection wavelength to be about 540 nm or 555 nm, such that the thickness of the ITO electrode layers with a refractive index of 2.1 (2.07) are within the claimed ranges since 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). In the current instance, the selective reflection wavelength and the corresponding thickness of the electrodes are art recognized results effective variables in that they are chosen to reduce unwanted reflections at the substrate/electrode interfaces over a range of wavelengths close to the selected wavelength as taught by JP 540. Thus one would have been motivated to optimize λ or the electrode thicknesses because they are art-recognized result-effective variables and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because 540 nm is not far away from the exemplary wavelength of 555 nm in JP 540, Sasa already teaches that the electrode thickness can be in the 50 to 500 nm range and an ordinary skilled artisan would have been familiar with the principles explained in Browne that determine the conditions for destructive interference at thin film layers.
The above combination achieves the claimed function of “a luminous reflectance of a first interface between the first electrode layer and the first substrate side is 1.0% or less, and a luminous reflectance of a second interface between the second electrode layer and the second substrate side is 1.0% or less for at least the following reasons. First, JP 540 Fig. 16 demonstrates that when transparent electrodes 21, 22 are formed from ITO having a refractive index of 1.9, with a physical film thickness of 146 nm and an optical film thickness of 277.5 nm (λ is 555 nm) the reflectance is less than 0.01 at least in the wavelength range from 460 nm to 680 nm, thus the total luminous reflectance in the visible range is 1.0% or less. Secondly, the material of the first and second substrate, the oxidation, electrolyte and reduction layers and the material and thickness of the transparent electrode layers of the Sasa combination are substantially the same as those of the instant application, and thus they must produce the same result. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”
Regarding claim 2, the Sasa combination introduced for claim 1 further teaches “The electrochromic element according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer is a transparent electrode layer made of ITO (Sasa paragraph [0127]: “the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 each comprise ITO”, JP 540 paragraph [0041]: “transparent electrodes 21, 22 are formed from ITO”), and a luminous reflectance of an interface between ITO and at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate is 1.0% or less (see explanation for this function in claim 1 above).”
Regarding claim 7, the Sasa combination teaches “The electrochromic element according to claim 1,” and Sasa further teaches “further comprising an antireflection layer provided between: (i) at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate, and (ii) the electrochromic film (paragraph [0119]: “[0119] The substrate may have a surface coating such as a transparent insulating layer, a UV cut layer, and/or an antireflection layer”. Sasa does not explicitly state which surface of the two surfaces of each substrate it is that the antireflection layer is positioned on. However, this is a genus with only two species, either the antireflection layer is between the substrate and the electrochromic film or the antireflection layer is on the exterior surface. Since there are only two species, an ordinary skilled artisan would at once envisage both positions, including the antireflection layer being between the substrate and the electrochromic film. Thus Sasa anticipates an antireflection layer in the claimed position.1)
Regarding claim 8, the Sasa combination teaches the electrochromic element according to claim 1 and Sasa further teaches “A spectacle lens (e.g. paragraph [0025]: “electronic dimming eyeglasses” and paragraph [0308]: “electronic dimming eyeglasses”) comprising the electrochromic element according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above and paragraph [0308]: “An electrochromic device was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1 except that a resin lens was used as the substrate. The electrochromic device was attached to a lens to prepare a light control lens 13. The light control lens 13 was incorporated in an eyeglass frame, thus preparing electronic dimming eyeglasses (FIG. 3).”), wherein the first substrate and the second substrate are lens substrates (In Fig. 3 and paragraph [0308] the electrochromic device is applied to a resin lens substrate. Thus both substrates are “lens substrates” in that they are substrates, that together with the electrochromic and electrode layers, that make up electronic dimming eyeglass lenses.).”
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasa et al. US 2019/0285960 A1 (hereafter Sasa) in view of JP 2002-062540 A (cited in an IDS, hereafter JP 540, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation due to the image quality of the copy provided by applicant) Foller et al. US 2010/0134866 A1 (hereafter Foller), Yoshinaga et al. US 5,834,145 (hereafter Yoshinaga), Kojima et al. JP 2006-030820 A (hereafter Kojima), Saenger-Nayver et al. US 2018/0017823 A1 (of record, hereafter Saenger-Nayver) as evidenced by Browne “Interference.” Chap. 32 in Schaum's Outline of Physics for Engineering and Science. 4th ed. (hereafter Browne) and Matsumoto et al. US 2005/0130063 A1 (hereafter Matsumoto).
Regarding claim 5, Sasa teaches “An electrochromic element (electrochromic device 10) comprising:
a first substrate (a first substrate 1) and a second substrate (second substrate 2); and
an electrochromic film (first electrode 3, second electrode 4, electrolyte layer 5, first electrochromic layer 6, second electrochromic layer 7) disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (see Fig. 1A),
wherein the electrochromic film includes a layered structure comprising a first electrode layer (first electrode 3), an electrochromic layer (electrolyte layer 5, first electrochromic layer 6, second electrochromic layer 7), and a second electrode layer (second electrode 4),
wherein the electrochromic layer includes an oxidation layer (first electrochromic layer 6, paragraph [0108]: “The first electrochromic layer comprises a material colorable by an oxidation reaction”), an electrolyte layer (electrolyte layer 5), and a reduction layer (second electrochromic layer 7, paragraph [0109]: “The second electrochromic layer comprises a material colorable by a reduction reaction”),
wherein the first substrate is a plastic substrate (paragraph [0118]: “a resin substrate made of … acrylic resin … polyvinyl chloride”) having a refractive index of 1.5 (acrylic resin has a refractive index of 1.5 to 1.55 and polyvinyl chloride has a refractive index of about 1.53 as evidenced by Matsumoto paragraph [0091]), the first electrode layer is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0125]: “transparent electrode” or paragraph [0127]: “the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 each comprise ITO”) having a film thickness (paragraph [0127]: “the average thicknesses of each of the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 is preferably about 50 to 500 nm.”) … the second substrate is a plastic substrate (paragraph [0118]: “a resin substrate made of … acrylic resin … polyvinyl chloride”) having a refractive index of 1.5 (acrylic resin has a refractive index of 1.5 to 1.55 and polyvinyl chloride has a refractive index of about 1.53 as evidenced by Matsumoto paragraph [0091]), and the second electrode layer is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0125]: “transparent electrode” or paragraph [0127]: “the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 each comprise ITO”) having a film thickness (paragraph [0127]: “the average thicknesses of each of the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 is preferably about 50 to 500 nm.”)…
wherein the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer are each a single layer (see Fig. 1a, electrodes 3 and 4 are single layers with no discussion of being made of multiple layers) having a refractive index (paragraph [0127]: “the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 each comprise ITO” which has a refractive index of 1.8 to 2.07 as evidenced by Saenger-Nayver Table 1 low-n ITO and high-n ITO have a refractive index of 1.84 and 2.07 respectively.) which is higher than a refractive index of each of the first substrate, the second substrate … respectively (paragraph [0118]: “a resin substrate made of … acrylic resin … polyvinyl chloride” where acrylic resin has a refractive index of 1.5 to 1.55 and polyvinyl chloride has a refractive index of about 1.53 as evidenced by Matsumoto paragraph [0091]. Thus the refractive indexes of the first and second electrode layers are higher than the refractive indexes of the first and second substrates.).”
However, Sasa fails to explicitly teach “the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer… having a refractive index of 2.1 which is higher than a refractive index of each of … the oxidation layer, the electrolyte layer, and the reduction layer, respectively, and wherein refractive indexes of the oxidation layer, the electrolyte layer, and the reduction layer are 1.4 or more and 1.7 or less.”
Note, however, that Sasa teaches the same or similar materials for each of the electrode layers, the oxidation layer, the electrolyte layer, and the reduction layer as the instant application, see the following table:
layer
material
PGPub of instant application
Sasa
first and second electrodes
ITO
[0008] “In the present invention, it is preferable that the electrode layer be a transparent electrode layer made of ITO”
[0069] “ITO (refractive index=2.1) was used as the electrode layer”
[0125] “The materials for the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4… tin-doped indium oxide (ITO).”
oxidation layer
radically polymerizable compound including triarylamine
[0047] “the material of the oxidation layer 8 is not limited, but can be selected from among, for example, a composition containing a radically polymerizable compound including triarylamine.”
[0069] a triarylamine compound (refractive index=1.64) was used for the oxidation layer
[0108] “The first electrochromic layer comprises a material colorable by an oxidation reaction. The material colorable by an oxidation reaction is not particularly limited, but is preferably a polymerized product of a composition containing a triarylamine-containing radical polymerizable compound”
electrolyte layer
gel containing alkali metal salts, alkali earth-metal salts or quarternary ammonium salts
[0048] The electrolyte layer 9 is preferably in the form of gel in order to maintain high ionic conductivity. Although it is not limited, inorganic ion salts such as alkali metal salt and alkaline earth metal salt, and existing electrolyte materials such as a quaternary ammonium salt and acid can be used.
[0069] an organic gel-like material (a mixture of a plurality of organic salts and polymers, refractive index=1.50) was used for the electrolyte layer.
[0226] “The electrolyte need not necessarily be a low-viscosity liquid and may be in the form of a gel,”
[0220] “Examples of the electrolyte include, but are not limited to: inorganic ion salts such as alkali metal salts and alkali-earth metal salts”
[0221]” In addition, ionic liquids can also be used as the electrolyte.”
[0222] “Specific examples of cationic components in such organic ionic liquids include, but are not limited to… aliphatic quaternary ammonium salts (e.g., trimethylpropylammonium salt, trimethylhexylammonium salt, and triethylhexylammonium salt).
reduction layer
viologen compound
[0069] a viologen compound (refractive index=1.45) was used for the reduction layer
[0109] The second electrochromic layer comprises a material colorable by a reduction reaction. Examples thereof include, but are not limited to, viologen compounds
For the first and second electrodes, Sasa teaches that they are made of ITO, but does not specify the refractive index thereof, which could be as low as 1.84 or as high as 2.07 as taught by Saenger-Nayver (Table 1).
For the oxidation layer, electrolyte layer and reduction layer one cannot immediately infer the refractive indexes of these layers based purely on the compositions disclosed because these compositions describe classes of compounds not a single material. However, Sasa does teach the same class of compositions as the instant application, just being silent as to the desired refractive indexes thereof.
Saenger-Nayver teaches an electrochromic application (e.g. paragraph [0022]) where an anti-reflective coating can also be the electrode (see paragraph [0040]). Saenger-Nayver further teaches that ITO within such an application can have a refractive index of 2.07 (i.e. 2.1) see Table 1.
Yoshinaga teaches (col. 12 lines 3-7): “a charge transport layer composed of the triarylamine compound and polycarbonate resin described above… showed a refractive index of 1.59.”
Kojima teaches (page 4 last paragraph): “when a polymer electrolyte and a conductive polymer are used for the electrochromic layer, The refractive index is usually between 1.4 and 1.6, and can be made substantially the same as the refractive index of the protective layer, so that reflection of light can be suppressed.”
Foller teaches (paragraphs [0066]): “n-Heptyl viologen tetrafluoroborate (0.1584 g) was dissolved into the product of Step 3 (5.0 g) resulting in a clear colorless solution. To the solution was added DMPZ (0.0631 g) and the color of the clear solution became greenish. The refractive index of the resulting solution was 1.4844.”
It is a well-established proposition that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
In the instant case, Sasa teaches the same classes of materials for the oxidation, electrolyte and reduction layers as were disclosed in the instant application, but is silent regarding the specific choices thereof having refractive indexes between 1.4 and 1.7. Yoshinaga, Kojima and Foller teach examples of materials in these classes which have refractive indexes between 1.4 and 1.7. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the particular materials for the oxidation, electrolyte and reduction layers, materials with refractive indexes between 1.4 and 1.7 all of which are less than the refractive index of the ITO electrodes as taught by Yoshinaga, Kojima and Foller in the electrochromic element of the Sasa combination since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Furthermore, Sasa teaches ITO as the material of the electrode layers but is silent regarding the choice of the refractive index of these ITO layers. Saenger Nayver teaches that ITO can be formed such that it has a high refractive index of 2.07 (i.e. 2.1). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a type of ITO with a refractive index of 2.1 as taught by Saenger-Nayver in the electrochromic element of Sasa since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Note that the appropriateness of ITO as the material of the electrode layers is already established by Sasa. Thus the above choice of high-n ITO is merely choosing amongst possible ITO material characteristics.
However, Sasa does not explicitly teach “(A) … the first electrode layer … having a film thickness of 125 nm or more and 135 nm or less, (B) the second electrode layer … having a film thickness of 124.5 nm or more and 134 nm or less, and (C) … the first electrode layer … having a film thickness of 125 nm or more and 135 nm or less, … the second electrode layer … having a film thickness of 124.5 nm or more and 134 nm or less…
wherein a luminous reflectance of a first interface between the first electrode layer and the first substrate side is 1.0% or less, and a luminous reflectance of a second interface between the second electrode layer and the second substrate side is 1.0% or less.”
Note, however, that Sasa does teach (paragraph [0119]): “The substrate may have a surface coating such as … an antireflection layer, for improving … visibility.” Additionally, Sasa teaches (paragraph [0127]): “in a case in which the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 each comprise ITO, the average thicknesses of each of the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 is preferably about 50 to 500 nm.”
JP 540 teaches “An … element (Figs. 1-3 and 16) comprising:
a first substrate and a second substrate (substrates 11 and 12); and
… a layered structure comprising a first electrode layer (transparent electrode 21) … and a second electrode layer (transparent electrode 22) …
wherein one of (A) – (C) is satisfied:
(A) the first substrate is a plastic substrate (paragraph [0049]: “As a specific example, the substrates 11 and 12 are made of polycarbonate”)… the first electrode layer is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0049]: “the transparent electrodes 21 and 22 are made of ITO with a refractive index of 1.9”) having a film thickness of 125 nm or more (paragraph [0041]: “a physical film thickness of 146 nm”)…
(B) the second substrate is a plastic substrate (paragraph [0049]: “As a specific example, the substrates 11 and 12 are made of polycarbonate”)… and the second electrode layer is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0049]: “the transparent electrodes 21 and 22 are made of ITO with a refractive index of 1.9”) having a film thickness of 124.5 nm or more (paragraph [0041]: “a physical film thickness of 146 nm”)…
(C) the first substrate is a plastic substrate (paragraph [0049]: “As a specific example, the substrates 11 and 12 are made of polycarbonate”)… the first electrode layer is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0049]: “the transparent electrodes 21 and 22 are made of ITO with a refractive index of 1.9”) having a film thickness of 125 nm or more (paragraph [0041]: “a physical film thickness of 146 nm”)… the second substrate is a plastic substrate (paragraph [0049]: “As a specific example, the substrates 11 and 12 are made of polycarbonate”)… and the second electrode layer is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0049]: “the transparent electrodes 21 and 22 are made of ITO with a refractive index of 1.9”) having a film thickness of 124.5 nm or more (paragraph [0041]: “a physical film thickness of 146 nm”)…
a luminous reflectance of a first interface between the first electrode layer and the first substrate side is 1.0% or less (paragraph [0041]: “FIG. 16 shows the calculation results of the reflection spectrum during dark display when transparent electrodes 21, 22 are formed from ITO having a refractive index of 1.9, with a physical film thickness of 146 nm and an optical film thickness of 277.5 nm (λ is 555 nm).” In Fig. 16 the reflectance is less than 0.01 at least in the wavelength range from 460 nm to 680 nm, and less than 0.02 from 425 nm to 700 nm. Since this reflectance includes both of the electrode/substrate interfaces, the total luminous reflectance of one interface between the electrode layer and the substrate side in the visible range is 1.0% or less), and a luminous reflectance of a second interface between the second electrode layer and the second substrate side is 1.0% or less (paragraph [0041]: “FIG. 16 shows the calculation results of the reflection spectrum during dark display when transparent electrodes 21, 22 are formed from ITO having a refractive index of 1.9, with a physical film thickness of 146 nm and an optical film thickness of 277.5 nm (λ is 555 nm).” In Fig. 16 the reflectance is less than 0.01 at least in the wavelength range from 460 nm to 680 nm, and less than 0.02 from 425 nm to 700 nm. Since this reflectance includes both of the electrode/substrate interfaces, the total luminous reflectance of one interface between the electrode layer and the substrate side in the visible range is 1.0% or less).”
However, JP 540 does not specifically provide an example with “(A) the first electrode layer … having a film thickness of 125 nm or more and 135 nm or less, (B)… the second electrode layer … having a film thickness of 124.5 nm or more and 134 nm or less, and (C) the first electrode layer … having a film thickness of 125 nm or more and 135 nm or less… the second electrode layer … having a film thickness of 124.5 nm or more and 134 nm or less.”
However, JP 540 teaches paragraph [0013]: “the present invention is capable of sufficiently reducing the reflectance”
[0016] “the optical film thickness of the transparent electrode of each display element is set to half the antireflection wavelength within the visible wavelength range”
[0019]: “reflection of incident light at the transparent electrode increases the reflectance”
[0028]: “The transparent electrodes 21 and 22 are made of a conductive oxide having light transmitting properties, such as ITO (Indium Tin Oxide), SnO2, or ZnO:Al. These materials are formed into films on the substrates 11 and 12 by deposition, sputtering, ion plating, or the like, and then processed into a desired shape by photolithography or the like to form the transparent electrodes 21 and 22 . At this time, the optical thickness of the transparent electrodes 21 and 22 is controlled to λ/2.”
[0031]: “The selective reflection wavelength range …is set to be within the visible wavelength range of 400 to 700 nm.”
Thus, although JP 540 teaches an exemplary selective reflection wavelength of 555 nm and an ITO later with a refractive index of 1.9 leading to a thickness of 146.1, JP 540 also teaches that the selective reflection wavelength can be in the range of 400 to 700 nm. A choice of λ=540 nm would then have λ/2=270 nm. With ITO having a refractive index of 2.1 as chosen in view of Saenger-Nayver above, the physical thickness of an ITO layer with an optical thickness of 270 nm = (270 nm)/2.1=128.6 nm or (270 nm)/2.07=130.4 both of which are within both of the above claimed ranges. Alternatively, simply changing the type of ITO to a high index choice with n=2.1 and the same selective reflection wavelength of 555 nm would lead to a physical thickness of 555/(2x2.1)=132.1 nm which is also within both of the above claimed ranges.
It is worth noting that in Chapter 11 section 32.3, Browne teaches the principles under which interference between the light that would be reflected off of two successive surfaces would destructively cancel out and result in an antireflective effect.
PNG
media_image2.png
460
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
268
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
54
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
30
714
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
36
716
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
20
716
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The condition for minimum reflection for m=1 can be rewritten as t=λ/(2n), which is the same expression taught in JP 540.
How this would work in the device of Sasa can be understood as follows. For the interface of substrate 1 with electrode 3, both the refractive indices of layers 1 and 6 are lower than that of layer 3, thus we are in the same scenario depicted in Browne. Therefor the potential reflections off the interface between 1 and 3 will interfere with the potential reflections off the interface of 3 with 6 when t=λ/(2n). Similarly, both the refractive indices of layers 7 and 2 are lower than that of layer 4, which is again in the same scenario depicted in Browne. Thus, the potential reflections off the interface between 2 and 4 will interfere with the potential reflections off the interface of 7 with 4 when t=λ/(2n).
PNG
media_image7.png
260
506
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefor, when the condition for destructive interference (minimum reflection) is met, for the potential reflection at the interface between the substrates 1 and 2 and the electrode layers 3 and 4, there is another potential reflection at an adjacent interface that destructively interferes with it resulting in a minimum reflectance.
Thus the Sasa – JP 540 combination discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness of the first electrode layer being between 125 to 135 nm and/or the thickness of the second electrode layer being between 124.5 to 134 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the selective reflection wavelength to be about 540 nm or 555 nm, such that the thickness of the ITO electrode layers with a refractive index of 2.1 (2.07) are within the claimed ranges since 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). In the current instance, the selective reflection wavelength and the corresponding thickness of the electrodes are art recognized results effective variables in that they are chosen to reduce unwanted reflections at the substrate/electrode interfaces over a range of wavelengths close to the selected wavelength as taught by JP 540. Thus one would have been motivated to optimize λ or the electrode thicknesses because they are art-recognized result-effective variables and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because 540 nm is not far away from the exemplary wavelength of 555 nm in JP 540, Sasa already teaches that the electrode thickness can be in the 50 to 500 nm range and an ordinary skilled artisan would have been familiar with the principles explained in Browne that determine the conditions for destructive interference at thin film layers.
The above combination achieves the claimed function of “a luminous reflectance of a first interface between the first electrode layer and the first substrate side is 1.0% or less, and a luminous reflectance of a second interface between the second electrode layer and the second substrate side is 1.0% or less for at least the following reasons. First, JP 540 Fig. 16 demonstrates that when transparent electrodes 21, 22 are formed from ITO having a refractive index of 1.9, with a physical film thickness of 146 nm and an optical film thickness of 277.5 nm (λ is 555 nm) the reflectance is less than 0.01 at least in the wavelength range from 460 nm to 680 nm, thus the total luminous reflectance in the visible range is 1.0% or less. Secondly, the material of the first and second substrate, the oxidation, electrolyte and reduction layers and the material and thickness of the transparent electrode layers of the Sasa combination are substantially the same as those of the instant application, and thus they must produce the same result. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”
Regarding claim 6, Sasa teaches “An electrochromic element (electrochromic device 10) comprising:
a first substrate (a first substrate 1) and a second substrate (second substrate 2); and
an electrochromic film (first electrode 3, second electrode 4, electrolyte layer 5, first electrochromic layer 6, second electrochromic layer 7) disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (see Fig. 1A),
wherein the electrochromic film includes a layered structure comprising a first electrode layer (first electrode 3), an electrochromic layer (electrolyte layer 5, first electrochromic layer 6, second electrochromic layer 7), and a second electrode layer (second electrode 4),
wherein the electrochromic layer includes an oxidation layer (first electrochromic layer 6, paragraph [0108]: “The first electrochromic layer comprises a material colorable by an oxidation reaction”), an electrolyte layer (electrolyte layer 5), and a reduction layer (second electrochromic layer 7, paragraph [0109]: “The second electrochromic layer comprises a material colorable by a reduction reaction”),
wherein the first substrate is a plastic substrate (paragraph [0118]: “a resin substrate made of … phenol resin”) having a refractive index of 1.7 (phenol resin has a refractive index of about 1.7 as evidenced by Matsumoto paragraph [0091]), and the first electrode layer is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0125]: “transparent electrode” or paragraph [0127]: “the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 each comprise ITO”) having a film thickness (paragraph [0127]: “the average thicknesses of each of the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 is preferably about 50 to 500 nm.”) … the second substrate is a plastic substrate (paragraph [0118]: “a resin substrate made of … phenol resin”) having a refractive index of 1.7 (phenol resin has a refractive index of about 1.7 as evidenced by Matsumoto paragraph [0091]), and the second electrode layer is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0125]: “transparent electrode” or paragraph [0127]: “the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 each comprise ITO”) having a film thickness (paragraph [0127]: “the average thicknesses of each of the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 is preferably about 50 to 500 nm.”)…
wherein the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer are each a single layer (see Fig. 1a, electrodes 3 and 4 are single layers with no discussion of being made of multiple layers) having a refractive index (paragraph [0127]: “the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4 each comprise ITO” which has a refractive index of 1.8 to 2.07 as evidenced by Saenger-Nayver Table 1 low-n ITO and high-n ITO have a refractive index of 1.84 and 2.07 respectively) … which is higher than a refractive index of each of the first substrate, the second substrate… respectively (paragraph [0118]: “a resin substrate made of polycarbonate resin” which has a lower refractive index than ITO, at least because ITO is the material of the electrode layers in the instant application, and polycarbonate is the material of the substrate in the present claim.)
However, Sasa fails to explicitly teach “the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer… having a refractive index of 2.1 which is higher than a refractive index of each of … the oxidation layer, the electrolyte layer, and the reduction layer, respectively, and wherein refractive indexes of the oxidation layer, the electrolyte layer, and the reduction layer are 1.4 or more and 1.7 or less.”
Note, however, that Sasa teaches the same or similar materials for each of the electrode layers, the oxidation layer, the electrolyte layer, and the reduction layer as the instant application, see the following table:
layer
material
PGPub of instant application
Sasa
first and second electrodes
ITO
[0008] “In the present invention, it is preferable that the electrode layer be a transparent electrode layer made of ITO”
[0069] “ITO (refractive index=2.1) was used as the electrode layer”
[0125] “The materials for the first electrode 3 and the second electrode 4… tin-doped indium oxide (ITO).”
oxidation layer
radically polymerizable compound including triarylamine
[0047] “the material of the oxidation layer 8 is not limited, but can be selected from among, for example, a composition containing a radically polymerizable compound including triarylamine.”
[0069] a triarylamine compound (refractive index=1.64) was used for the oxidation layer
[0108] “The first electrochromic layer comprises a material colorable by an oxidation reaction. The material colorable by an oxidation reaction is not particularly limited, but is preferably a polymerized product of a composition containing a triarylamine-containing radical polymerizable compound”
electrolyte layer
gel containing alkali metal salts, alkali earth-metal salts or quarternary ammonium salts
[0048] The electrolyte layer 9 is preferably in the form of gel in order to maintain high ionic conductivity. Although it is not limited, inorganic ion salts such as alkali metal salt and alkaline earth metal salt, and existing electrolyte materials such as a quaternary ammonium salt and acid can be used.
[0069] an organic gel-like material (a mixture of a plurality of organic salts and polymers, refractive index=1.50) was used for the electrolyte layer.
[0226] “The electrolyte need not necessarily be a low-viscosity liquid and may be in the form of a gel,”
[0220] “Examples of the electrolyte include, but are not limited to: inorganic ion salts such as alkali metal salts and alkali-earth metal salts”
[0221]” In addition, ionic liquids can also be used as the electrolyte.”
[0222] “Specific examples of cationic components in such organic ionic liquids include, but are not limited to… aliphatic quaternary ammonium salts (e.g., trimethylpropylammonium salt, trimethylhexylammonium salt, and triethylhexylammonium salt).
reduction layer
viologen compound
[0069] a viologen compound (refractive index=1.45) was used for the reduction layer
[0109] The second electrochromic layer comprises a material colorable by a reduction reaction. Examples thereof include, but are not limited to, viologen compounds
For the first and second electrodes, Sasa teaches that they are made of ITO, but does not specify the refractive index thereof, which could be as low as 1.84 or as high as 2.07 as taught by Saenger-Nayver (Table 1).
For the oxidation layer, electrolyte layer and reduction layer one cannot immediately infer the refractive indexes of these layers based purely on the compositions disclosed because these compositions describe classes of compounds not a single material. However, Sasa does teach the same class of compositions as the instant application, just being silent as to the desired refractive indexes thereof.
Saenger-Nayver teaches an electrochromic application (e.g. paragraph [0022]) where an anti-reflective coating can also be the electrode (see paragraph [0040]). Saenger-Nayver further teaches that ITO within such an application can have a refractive index of 2.07 (i.e. 2.1) see Table 1.
Yoshinaga teaches (col. 12 lines 3-7): “a charge transport layer composed of the triarylamine compound and polycarbonate resin described above… showed a refractive index of 1.59.”
Kojima teaches (page 4 last paragraph): “when a polymer electrolyte and a conductive polymer are used for the electrochromic layer, The refractive index is usually between 1.4 and 1.6, and can be made substantially the same as the refractive index of the protective layer, so that reflection of light can be suppressed.”
Foller teaches (paragraphs [0066]): “n-Heptyl viologen tetrafluoroborate (0.1584 g) was dissolved into the product of Step 3 (5.0 g) resulting in a clear colorless solution. To the solution was added DMPZ (0.0631 g) and the color of the clear solution became greenish. The refractive index of the resulting solution was 1.4844.”
It is a well-established proposition that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
In the instant case, Sasa teaches the same classes of materials for the oxidation, electrolyte and reduction layers as were disclosed in the instant application, but is silent regarding the specific choices thereof having refractive indexes between 1.4 and 1.7. Yoshinaga, Kojima and Foller teach examples of materials in these classes which have refractive indexes between 1.4 and 1.7. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the particular materials for the oxidation, electrolyte and reduction layers, materials with refractive indexes between 1.4 and 1.7 all of which are less than the refractive index of the ITO electrodes as taught by Yoshinaga, Kojima and Foller in the electrochromic element of the Sasa combination since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Furthermore, Sasa teaches ITO as the material of the electrode layers but is silent regarding the choice of the refractive index of these ITO layers. Saenger Nayver teaches that ITO can be formed such that it has a high refractive index of 2.07 (i.e. 2.1). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a type of ITO with a refractive index of 2.1 as taught by Saenger-Nayver in the electrochromic element of Sasa since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Note that the appropriateness of ITO as the material of the electrode layers is already established by Sasa. Thus the above choice of high-n ITO is merely choosing amongst possible ITO material characteristics.
However, Sasa does not explicitly teach “(A) the first electrode layer … having a film thickness of 125.5 nm or more and 134.5 nm or less, (B)… the second electrode layer … having a film thickness of 118 nm or more and 140 nm or less, and (C) the first electrode layer … having a film thickness of 125.5 nm or more and 134.5 nm or less, … the second electrode layer … having a film thickness of 118 nm or more and 140 nm or less…
wherein a luminous reflectance of a first interface between the first electrode layer and the first substrate side is 1.0% or less, and a luminous reflectance of a second interface between the second electrode layer and the second substrate side is 1.0% or less.”
JP 540 teaches “An … element (Figs. 1-3 and 16) comprising:
a first substrate and a second substrate (substrates 11 and 12); and
… a layered structure comprising a first electrode layer (transparent electrode 21) … and a second electrode layer (transparent electrode 22) …
wherein one of (A) – (C) is satisfied:
(A) the first substrate is a plastic substrate (paragraph [0049]: “As a specific example, the substrates 11 and 12 are made of polycarbonate”)… the first electrode layer is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0049]: “the transparent electrodes 21 and 22 are made of ITO with a refractive index of 1.9”) having a film thickness of 125.5 nm or more (paragraph [0041]: “a physical film thickness of 146 nm”)…
(B) the second substrate is a plastic substrate (paragraph [0049]: “As a specific example, the substrates 11 and 12 are made of polycarbonate”)… and the second electrode layer is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0049]: “the transparent electrodes 21 and 22 are made of ITO with a refractive index of 1.9”) having a film thickness of 118 nm or more (paragraph [0041]: “a physical film thickness of 146 nm”)… and
(C) the first substrate is a plastic substrate (paragraph [0049]: “As a specific example, the substrates 11 and 12 are made of polycarbonate”)… the first electrode layer is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0049]: “the transparent electrodes 21 and 22 are made of ITO with a refractive index of 1.9”) having a film thickness of 125.5 nm or more (paragraph [0041]: “a physical film thickness of 146 nm”)… the second substrate is a plastic substrate (paragraph [0049]: “As a specific example, the substrates 11 and 12 are made of polycarbonate”)… and the second electrode layer is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0049]: “the transparent electrodes 21 and 22 are made of ITO with a refractive index of 1.9”) having a film thickness of 118 nm or more (paragraph [0041]: “a physical film thickness of 146 nm”)…
a luminous reflectance of a first interface between the first electrode layer and the first substrate side is 1.0% or less (paragraph [0041]: “FIG. 16 shows the calculation results of the reflection spectrum during dark display when transparent electrodes 21, 22 are formed from ITO having a refractive index of 1.9, with a physical film thickness of 146 nm and an optical film thickness of 277.5 nm (λ is 555 nm).” In Fig. 16 the reflectance is less than 0.01 at least in the wavelength range from 460 nm to 680 nm, and less than 0.02 from 425 nm to 700 nm. Since this reflectance includes both of the electrode/substrate interfaces, the total luminous reflectance of one interface between the electrode layer and the substrate side in the visible range is 1.0% or less), and a luminous reflectance of a second interface between the second electrode layer and the second substrate side is 1.0% or less (paragraph [0041]: “FIG. 16 shows the calculation results of the reflection spectrum during dark display when transparent electrodes 21, 22 are formed from ITO having a refractive index of 1.9, with a physical film thickness of 146 nm and an optical film thickness of 277.5 nm (λ is 555 nm).” In Fig. 16 the reflectance is less than 0.01 at least in the wavelength range from 460 nm to 680 nm, and less than 0.02 from 425 nm to 700 nm. Since this reflectance includes both of the electrode/substrate interfaces, the total luminous reflectance of one interface between the electrode layer and the substrate side in the visible range is 1.0% or less).”
However, JP 540 does not specifically provide an example with “(A)… the first electrode layer … having a film thickness of 125.5 nm or more and 134.5 nm or less, … (B) the second electrode layer … having a film thickness of 118 nm or more and 140 nm or less, and (C) … the first electrode layer … having a film thickness of 125.5 nm or more and 134.5 nm or less, … the second electrode layer … having a film thickness of 118 nm or more and 140 nm or less.”
However, JP 540 teaches paragraph [0013]: “the present invention is capable of sufficiently reducing the reflectance”
[0016] “the optical film thickness of the transparent electrode of each display element is set to half the antireflection wavelength within the visible wavelength range”
[0019]: “reflection of incident light at the transparent electrode increases the reflectance”
[0028]: “The transparent electrodes 21 and 22 are made of a conductive oxide having light transmitting properties, such as ITO (Indium Tin Oxide), SnO2, or ZnO:Al. These materials are formed into films on the substrates 11 and 12 by deposition, sputtering, ion plating, or the like, and then processed into a desired shape by photolithography or the like to form the transparent electrodes 21 and 22 . At this time, the optical thickness of the transparent electrodes 21 and 22 is controlled to λ/2.”
[0031]: “The selective reflection wavelength range …is set to be within the visible wavelength range of 400 to 700 nm.”
Thus, although JP 540 teaches an exemplary selective reflection wavelength of 555 nm and an ITO later with a refractive index of 1.9 leading to a thickness of 146.1, JP 540 also teaches that the selective reflection wavelength can be in the range of 400 to 700 nm. A choice of λ=540 nm would then have λ/2=270 nm. With ITO having a refractive index of 2.1 as chosen in view of Saenger-Nayver above, the physical thickness of an ITO layer with an optical thickness of 270 nm = (270 nm)/2.1=128.6 nm or (270 nm)/2.07=130.4 both of which are within both of the above claimed ranges. Alternatively, simply changing the type of ITO to a high index choice with n=2.1 and the same selective reflection wavelength of 555 nm would lead to a physical thickness of 555/(2x2.1)=132.1 nm which is also within both of the above claimed ranges.
It is worth noting that in Chapter 11 section 32.3, Browne teaches the principles under which interference between the light that would be reflected off of two successive surfaces would destructively cancel out and result in an antireflective effect.
PNG
media_image2.png
460
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
268
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
54
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
30
714
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
36
716
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
20
716
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The condition for minimum reflection for m=1 can be rewritten as t=λ/(2n), which is the same expression taught in JP 540.
How this would work in the device of Sasa can be understood as follows. For the interface of substrate 1 with electrode 3, both the refractive indices of layers 1 and 6 are lower than that of layer 3, thus we are in the same scenario depicted in Browne. Therefor the potential reflections off the interface between 1 and 3 will interfere with the potential reflections off the interface of 3 with 6 when t=λ/(2n). Similarly, both the refractive indices of layers 7 and 2 are lower than that of layer 4, which is again in the same scenario depicted in Browne. Thus, the potential reflections off the interface between 2 and 4 will interfere with the potential reflections off the interface of 7 with 4 when t=λ/(2n).
PNG
media_image7.png
260
506
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, when the condition for destructive interference (minimum reflection) is met, for the potential reflection at the interface between the substrates 1 and 2 and the electrode layers 3 and 4, there is another potential reflection at an adjacent interface that destructively interferes with it resulting in a minimum reflectance.
Thus, the Sasa – JP 540 combination discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness of the first electrode layer being between 125.5 to 134.5 nm and/or the thickness of the second electrode layer being between 118 to 140 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the selective reflection wavelength to be about 540 nm or 555 nm, such that the thickness of the ITO electrode layers with a refractive index of 2.1 (2.07) are within the claimed ranges since 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). In the current instance, the selective reflection wavelength and the corresponding thickness of the electrodes are art recognized results effective variables in that they are chosen to reduce unwanted reflections at the substrate/electrode interfaces over a range of wavelengths close to the selected wavelength as taught by JP 540. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize λ or the electrode thicknesses because they are art-recognized result-effective variables and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because 540 nm is not far away from the exemplary wavelength of 555 nm in JP 540, Sasa already teaches that the electrode thickness can be in the 50 to 500 nm range and an ordinary skilled artisan would have been familiar with the principles explained in Browne that determine the conditions for destructive interference at thin film layers.
The above combination achieves the claimed function of “a luminous reflectance of a first interface between the first electrode layer and the first substrate side is 1.0% or less, and a luminous reflectance of a second interface between the second electrode layer and the second substrate side is 1.0% or less for at least the following reasons. First, JP 540 Fig. 16 demonstrates that when transparent electrodes 21, 22 are formed from ITO having a refractive index of 1.9, with a physical film thickness of 146 nm and an optical film thickness of 277.5 nm (λ is 555 nm) the reflectance is less than 0.01 at least in the wavelength range from 460 nm to 680 nm, thus the total luminous reflectance in the visible range is 1.0% or less. Secondly, the material of the first and second substrate, the oxidation, electrolyte and reduction layers and the material and thickness of the transparent electrode layers of the Sasa combination are substantially the same as those of the instant application, and thus they must produce the same result. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasa et al. US 2019/0285960 A1 (hereafter Sasa) in view of JP 2002-062540 A (cited in an IDS, hereafter JP 540, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation due to the image quality of the copy provided by applicant), Foller et al. US 2010/0134866 A1 (hereafter Foller), Yoshinaga et al. US 5,834,145 (hereafter Yoshinaga), Kojima et al. JP 2006-030820 A (hereafter Kojima), and Saenger-Nayver et al. US 2018/0017823 A1 (of record, hereafter Saenger-Nayver) as evidenced by Browne “Interference.” Chap. 32 in Schaum's Outline of Physics for Engineering and Science. 4th ed. (hereafter Browne) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Mizuno et al. JP H07152053 (hereafter Mizuno, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, the Sasa combination teaches “The electrochromic element according to claim 1,” and Sasa further teaches “wherein the reduction layer includes a viologen-based compound (paragraph [0109] “The second electrochromic layer comprises a material colorable by a reduction reaction. Examples thereof include, but are not limited to, viologen compounds and dipyridine compounds”), the oxidation layer includes a triarylamine compound (paragraph [0108]: “[0108] The first electrochromic layer comprises a material colorable by an oxidation reaction. The material colorable by an oxidation reaction is not particularly limited, but is preferably a polymerized product of a composition containing a triarylamine-containing radical polymerizable compound”), and the electrolyte layer includes an organic (paragraph [0221]: “as the electrolyte. In particular, organic ionic liquids are preferable”) gel material (paragraph [0226]: “The electrolyte … may be in the form of a gel… The electrolyte in the form of a gel or solid is advantageous for improving strength and reliability of the device.).”
Note that in the combination of references for claim 1, the following choices were introduced:
Foller was relied on for teaching the reduction layer. In particular, Foller as introduced above teaches (claim 9) “the reduction layer includes a viologen-based compound (paragraph [0066]: "n-Heptyl viologen tetrafluoroborate (0.1584 g) was dissolved into the product of Step 3 (5.0g) resulting in a clear colorless solution. To the solution was added DMPZ (0.0631 g) and the color of the clear solution became greenish. The refractive index of the resulting solution was 1.4844.").”
Yoshinaga was introduced for teaching the oxidation layer. In particular, Yoshinaga as introduced above teaches (claim 9) “the oxidation layer includes a triarylamine compound (col. 12 lines 3-7): "a charge transport layer composed of the triarylamine compound and polycarbonate resin described above... showed a refractive index of 1.59.").
With regard to Kojima, relied upon for the refractive index of the electrolyte, Kojima does not specifically teach (claim 9) “the electrolyte layer includes an organic gel material.” However, Sasa already teaches that both organic and a gel material are preferrable (see paragraphs [0221]-[0226].
Thus the combination of references teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9, however, fails to simultaneously teach (claim 1) “wherein refractive indexes of … the electrolyte layer… are 1.4 or more and 1.7 or less” and (claim 9) “the electrolyte layer includes an organic gel material.”
Mizuno teaches an electrochromic device having first and second transparent electrode layers 41 and 44, an electrochromic layer 42 and an electrolyte layer 43.
Mizuno teaches (claim 9) “the electrolyte layer includes an organic gel material (page 5 first paragraph: “As a material for forming the electrolyte layer 43, … organic gel, and polymer electrolyte may be used. In this case, these materials may be used alone, or some of them may be combined. The refractive index of the electrolyte layer 43 is preferably close to the refractive index of the electrochromic layer 42. Therefore, a material having a refractive index close to that of the electrochromic layer 42 is selected, or a plurality of materials are combined to adjust the refractive index of the electrolyte layer 43.).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an organic gel material as the electrolyte in the device of the Sasa combination as taught by Mizuno because Sasa teaches that both organic electrolytes and gel-like electrolytes are preferred (Sasa paragraphs [0221]-[0226]).
In this combination it would still have been obvious to choose a refractive index of the electrolyte to be between 1.4 and 1.6 as taught by Foller, because Mizuno teaches that the composition of the electrolyte layer should be chosen so that the refractive index of the electrolyte is close to the refractive index of the electrochromic material (Mizuno page 5 first paragraph) and the two electrochromic layers in the combination had refractive indexes of 1.59 (Yoshinaga col. 12 lines 3-7) and 1.4844 (Foller paragraph [0066]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasa et al. US 2019/0285960 A1 (hereafter Sasa) in view of JP 2002-062540 A (cited in an IDS, hereafter JP 540, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation due to the image quality of the copy provided by applicant) Foller et al. US 2010/0134866 A1 (hereafter Foller), Yoshinaga et al. US 5,834,145 (hereafter Yoshinaga), Kojima et al. JP 2006-030820 A (hereafter Kojima), Saenger-Nayver et al. US 2018/0017823 A1 (of record, hereafter Saenger-Nayver) as evidenced by Browne “Interference.” Chap. 32 in Schaum's Outline of Physics for Engineering and Science. 4th ed. (hereafter Browne) and Matsumoto et al. US 2005/0130063 A1 (hereafter Matsumoto) as applied to claims 5 and 6 above and further in view of Mizuno et al. JP H07152053 (hereafter Mizuno, where reference will be made to the attached machine translation).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the Sasa combination teaches the electrochromic element according to claims 5 and 6, and Sasa further teaches “wherein the reduction layer includes a viologen-based compound (paragraph [0109] “The second electrochromic layer comprises a material colorable by a reduction reaction. Examples thereof include, but are not limited to, viologen compounds and dipyridine compounds”), the oxidation layer includes a triarylamine compound (paragraph [0108]: “[0108] The first electrochromic layer comprises a material colorable by an oxidation reaction. The material colorable by an oxidation reaction is not particularly limited, but is preferably a polymerized product of a composition containing a triarylamine-containing radical polymerizable compound”), and the electrolyte layer includes an organic (paragraph [0221]: “as the electrolyte. In particular, organic ionic liquids are preferable”) gel material (paragraph [0226]: “The electrolyte … may be in the form of a gel… The electrolyte in the form of a gel or solid is advantageous for improving strength and reliability of the device.).”
Note that in the combination of references for claims 5 and 6, the following choices were introduced:
Foller was relied on for teaching the reduction layer. In particular, Foller as introduced above teaches (claim 9) “the reduction layer includes a viologen-based compound (paragraph [0066]: "n-Heptyl viologen tetrafluoroborate (0.1584 g) was dissolved into the product of Step 3 (5.0g) resulting in a clear colorless solution. To the solution was added DMPZ (0.0631 g) and the color of the clear solution became greenish. The refractive index of the resulting solution was 1.4844.").”
Yoshinaga was introduced for teaching the oxidation layer. In particular, Yoshinaga as introduced above teaches (claim 9) “the oxidation layer includes a triarylamine compound (col. 12 lines 3-7): "a charge transport layer composed of the triarylamine compound and polycarbonate resin described above... showed a refractive index of 1.59.").
With regard to Kojima, relied upon for the refractive index of the electrolyte, Kojima does not specifically teach (claim 9) “the electrolyte layer includes an organic gel material.” However, Sasa already teaches that both organic and a gel material are preferrable (see paragraphs [0221]-[0226].
Thus the combination of references teaches all of the limitations of claims 5, 6, 10 and 11, however, fails to simultaneously teach (claims 5, 6) “wherein refractive indexes of … the electrolyte layer… are 1.4 or more and 1.7 or less” and (claims 10, 11) “the electrolyte layer includes an organic gel material.”
Mizuno teaches an electrochromic device having first and second transparent electrode layers 41 and 44, an electrochromic layer 42 and an electrolyte layer 43.
Mizuno teaches (claims 10 and 11) “the electrolyte layer includes an organic gel material (page 5 first paragraph: “As a material for forming the electrolyte layer 43, … organic gel, and polymer electrolyte may be used. In this case, these materials may be used alone, or some of them may be combined. The refractive index of the electrolyte layer 43 is preferably close to the refractive index of the electrochromic layer 42. Therefore, a material having a refractive index close to that of the electrochromic layer 42 is selected, or a plurality of materials are combined to adjust the refractive index of the electrolyte layer 43.).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an organic gel material as the electrolyte in the device of the Sasa combination as taught by Mizuno because Sasa teaches that both organic electrolytes and gel-like electrolytes are preferred (Sasa paragraphs [0221]-[0226]).
In this combination it would still have been obvious to choose a refractive index of the electrolyte to be between 1.4 and 1.6 as taught by Foller, because Mizuno teaches that the composition of the electrolyte layer should be chosen so that the refractive index of the electrolyte is close to the refractive index of the electrochromic material (Mizuno page 5 first paragraph) and the two electrochromic layers in the combination had refractive indexes of 1.59 (Yoshinaga col. 12 lines 3-7) and 1.4844 (Foller paragraph [0066]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the first paragraph of page 7 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant states that support for the amendments to the claims may be found throughout the original application, for example in paragraphs [0056]. The examiner agrees that the current claims have written description support in the specification as filed, for example in paragraphs [0056] and [0069].
Under heading I on page 7 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant first notes the previous grounds of rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-8 and states that they will be traversing these rejections. No specific argument is made in this paragraph.
In the last paragraph of page 7 of 10 and the first two paragraphs of page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes portions of claims 1, 5 and 6 that they will be arguing that the applied references do not teach or suggest. In particular, limitations drawn to the thicknesses of the electrode layers, that the electrode layers are each a single layer, the refractive indices of the various layers and the luminous reflectances achieved. No specific argument is made in these paragraphs.
In the third paragraph of page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant summarizes the position of the office that it would have been obvious to modify the ITO electrodes of Sasa to have a refractive index of 2.1 based on the teachings of Saenger-Nayver regarding ITO electrodes with a high refractive index of 2.07, which the Office Action rounds up to 2.1. The Office Action also relies on the refractive index of 2.1, as allegedly taught by Saenger-Nayver, to calculate an electrode thickness within the claimed ranges based on the teachings of JP540. The full reasoning behind each of these findings is present in the rejection maintained above, but this is an adequate summation. The applicant then introduces that they will be arguing that the application of Saenger-Nayver is improper.
In the first sentence of the last paragraph of page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the configuration in Saenger-Nayver of a multilayered electrode of ITO/Ag/ITO is “fundamentally different from” the claimed features of claim 1. In response to applicant's argument that the electrodes in Saenger-Nayver do not meet the newly claimed feature of “a single layer”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, Saenger-Nayver is not being relied upon for providing the electrode structure. Rather, the primary reference, Sasa, already has single layer ITO electrodes and Saenger-Nayver is merely relied upon for introducing the fact that a variety of refractive indexes can be achieved for an ITO layer, including a refractive index of 2.07 (which is 2.1 to the number of significant digits claimed).
In the second sentence of the last paragraph of page 8 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant notes that claims 1, 5 and 6 require that the electrochromic element achieves “a luminous reflectance of a first interface between the first electrode layer and the first substrate is 1.0% or less, and a luminous reflectance of a second interface between the second electrode layer and the second substrate is 1.0% or less” which is not accomplished by the device of Saenger-Nayver. This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. The conclusion that this functional limitation is met did not rely upon Saenger-Nayver alone. Rather, JP 540, which is relied upon for the thicknesses of the electrode layers that achieves the necessary destructive interference, achieves a luminous reflectance at both interfaces of less than 1.0% (paragraph [0041]: "FIG. 16 shows the calculation results of the reflection spectrum during dark display when transparent electrodes 21, 22 are formed from ITO having a refractive index of 1.9, with a physical film thickness of 146 nm and an optical film thickness of 277.5 nm (À is 555 nm)." In Fig. 16 the reflectance is less than 0.01 at least in the wavelength range from 460 nm to 680 nm, and less than 0.02 from 425 nm to 700 nm. Since this reflectance includes both of the electrode/substrate interfaces, the total luminous reflectance of one interface between the electrode layer and the substrate side in the visible range is 1.0% or less). Additionally, the fact that the material of the first and second substrate, the oxidation, electrolyte and reduction layers and the material and thickness of the transparent electrode layers of the Sasa combination are substantially the same as those of the instant application, means that they must produce the same result. See MPEP §2114(I)). In particular, the quarter-wavelength thicknesses of the electrodes at an interface from a higher refractive index material (the electrodes) to a lower refractive index material (the electrochromic layers or the substrate) will produce destructive interference for a range of wavelengths around the target wavelength, and thus will achieve the same resulting low reflectance as the claimed device and as JP 540. In other words, there is no reason why this functional result would need to be disclosed in Saenger-Nayver.
From the last two lines of page 8 of 10 through line 5 of page 9 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that because the reflectances, Yr, of the embodiments with low-n and high-n ITO were the same, and the transmittance of the high-n ITO embodiment is less, that Saenger-Nayver “does not affirmatively support the use of ITO having a refractive index of 2.07.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. In paragraph [0060] Saenger-Nayver teaches “It is understood that these general trends will hold with different materials that have different refractive indices and that local optimizations may be used to balance the desired sheet resistance, reflectance, absorption, and transmittance for a given application.” Thus Saenger-Nayver motivates the ordinary skilled artisan to play around with and optimize the materials and refractive indexes of the layers of the device in order to achieve the properties desired in a particular application. This would clearly include the choice of the refractive index of ITO in any such device.
In lines 6-12 of page 9 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that claim 1 defines the thicknesses of the first and second substrates and the refractive index of the first and second electrode layers being 2.1 and argues that “By virtue of these combined features, the luminous reflectance of the first interface between the first electrode layer and the first substrate and the luminous reflectance of the second interface between the second electrode layer and the second substrate can each be reduced to 1.0% or less.” Firstly, this appears to be an accidental misstatement about the claim which recites the thicknesses of the electrode layers, not the substrates. That being said, the examiner acknowledges with appreciation the admission by the applicant that the functional feature of the luminous reflectance is indeed the inherent result of the claimed structures.
In lines 12-18 of page 9 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues “This would have been surprising over the teachings of the applied references. Indeed, like the other applied references, Saenger-Nayver does not teach or suggest a configuration in which the luminous reflectance is suppressed to 1.0% or less through integrated control of the material and film thickness of each substrate, together with the structure and refractive index of each electrode layer. Consequently, the electrochromic element of the present claims would not have been obvious over the applied references.” This argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons. Again, the applicant accidentally misstates that the claim recites the thicknesses of the substrate. Secondly, grouping all the other references in with Saenger-Nayver in not disclosing controlling the thickness and refractive index of the electrode layers in conjunction with the refractive indexes of the adjacent layers is not accurate. Both JP 540 and Browne teach the use of a quarter-wavelength thickness to minimize reflectance through destructive interference at an interface between a higher index layer and a lower index layer. Thus, each recited limitation on the materials, thicknesses and resulting functions of claim 1 are taught by the prior art and the claim taken as a whole is obvious as supported by the detailed Graham v. John Deere analysis of each limitation that was not explicitly taught in Sasa.
In the last paragraph of section I on page 9 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant concludes that claims 1-2 and 5-11 are no obvious over the applied references for the foregoing reasons. These arguments have been addressed above.
In section II on pages 9 and 10 of 10 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant alleges that claims 9-11 distinguish over the applied references. The applicant does not explain what, in particular, is missing, however, the examiner does agree that an additional reference Mizuno was needed to more firmly establish an organic gel electrolyte with a refractive index between 1.4 and 1.7.
No further arguments are made after this paragraph.
Conclusion
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 CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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 L 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 See MPEP § 2131.02(III). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).
Prosecution Insights