DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Comments
In view of the amendments, the objection of claim 11 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. (USP No. 4,187,004), hereinafter “Yano”, in view of Nishimura et al. (USP No. 4,188,095), hereinafter “Nishimura”.
Regarding claim 1, Yano discloses a method for manufacturing an electrochromic device (see Figs. 2, 5-7), the method comprising: forming a first electrode (4) on a first substrate (1); forming an electrochromic layer (3) on the first electrode (4) (see Figs. 2, 5-7); etching the electrochromic layer (3) to form electrochromic pixel patterns (3) (see Figs. 2, 5-7, Col. 4, Lines 61-68); etching the first electrode (4) to form fine pattern electrodes including first fine pattern electrode portions (4) and second fine pattern electrode portions (4) (see Figs. 2, 5-7, Col. 4, Lines 61-68); forming an insulation film (10) on upper surfaces of the second fine pattern electrode portions (4) (see Figs. 2, 5-7); and forming an electrolyte layer (5/8) on the insulation film (10) and on the electrochromic pixel patterns (3) (see Figs. 2, 5-7, Col. 5, Lines 21-23), wherein a width of each of the first fine pattern electrode portions (4) is greater than a width of each of the second fine pattern electrode portions (4) (see Figs.6, 7 – “width” as a parameter is not provided with any language to specify the dimension; Figs. 6, 7 show the outer sections of electrode 4 that are wider than the inner section of 4), wherein the electrochromic pixel patterns (3) expose the upper surfaces of the second fine pattern electrode portions (4) (see Figs. 2, 6, 7 – the electrochromic pixel patterns 3 do not fully cover electrode portions 4, thus leaving sections of electrode portions exposed), wherein the electrochromic pixel patterns (3) are disposed on upper surface of the first fine pattern electrode portions (4) (see Figs. 2, 5-7). Yano discloses the claimed invention except for a flexible substrate, and wherein the etching of the first electrode and the etching of the electrochromic layer are performed in a single process. In the same field of endeavor, Nishimura discloses a flexible substrate (Col. 4, Lines 42-43), and wherein the etching of the first electrode and the etching of the electrochromic layer are performed in a single process (Col. 4, Lines 57-59). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Yano with a flexible substrate, and wherein the etching of the first electrode and the etching of the electrochromic layer are performed in a single process of Nishimura for the purpose of providing the same pattern for the electrode and electrochromic layer (Col. 3, Lines 35-39), and also for providing a device which consumes less power and has a long operating life (Col. 3, Lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 3, Yano further discloses wherein the insulation film (10) does not cover upper surfaces of the electrochromic pixel patterns (3) (see Figs. 6, 7).
Regarding claim 5, Yano and Nishimura teach the method set forth above for claim 1, Nishimura further discloses wherein the forming of electrochromic pixel patterns and the forming of fine pattern electrodes are performed by a single laser etching process (Col. 4, Lines 57-59). It is known in the art that a “photoetching process” is inclusive of light exposure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Yano with the teachings of Nishimura for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Yano further discloses wherein the forming of an insulation film (10) is performed by an e-beam vacuum deposition method using a mask (Col. 5, Lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 8, Yano further discloses wherein the insulation film (10) comprises a silicon oxide (SiO2) or a metal oxide (Col. 5, Lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 9, Yano discloses further comprising: forming a second electrode (7) on a lower surface of a second substrate (2) (see Figs. 2, 5-7); forming an ion storage layer (6) on a lower surface of the second electrode (7) (Col. 5, Lines 10-23); and coupling the electrolyte layer (5) and the ion storage layer (6) (see Figs. 2, 5-7, Col. 5, Lines 10-23). Yano and Nishimura teach the method set forth above for claim 1, Nishimura further discloses a second flexible substrate (Col. 4, Lines 42-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Yano with the teachings of Nishimura for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Yano further discloses further comprising forming a counter electrode connection portion (wire/lead/terminal of 7, 14) (see Figs. 1, 8).
Regarding claim 11, Yano further discloses further comprising forming an electrode connection portion (wire/lead/terminal), wherein the electrode connection portion electrically connects the counter electrode connection portion (wire/lead/terminal) and the second electrode (7, 14) (see Figs. 1, 8).
Regarding claim 12, Yano further discloses further comprising forming a bonding portion (see Fig. 1), wherein the bonding portion is electrically connected to the counter electrode connection portion and the second fine pattern electrode portions (see Fig. 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano (USP No. 4,187,004) in view of Nishimura (USP No. 4,188,095), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (USPG Pub No. 2018/0081249), hereinafter “Choi”.
Regarding claim 4, Yano and Nishimura disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the electrochromic layer comprises a conductive polymer. In the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses wherein the electrochromic layer comprises a conductive polymer (Paragraph 94). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Yano and Nishimura with wherein the electrochromic layer comprises a conductive polymer of Choi for the purpose of providing a minimized thickness of a device while maintaining controllable functions of the device (Paragraphs 4, 45). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano (USP No. 4,187,004) in view of Nishimura (USP No. 4,188,095), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andersson Ersman et al. (USP No. 9,224,343), hereinafter “Andersson”.
Regarding claim 7, Yano and Nishimura disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the electrolyte layer comprises an adhesive polymer gel electrolyte. In the same field of endeavor, Andersson discloses wherein the electrolyte layer comprises an adhesive polymer gel electrolyte (Col. 14, Lines 14-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Yano and Nishimura with wherein the electrolyte layer comprises an adhesive polymer gel electrolyte of Andersson for the purpose of allowing for the desired manufacturing method (Col. 14, Lines 51-54). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano (USP No. 4,187,004) in view of Nishimura (USP No. 4,188,095), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (USPG Pub No. 2025/0044648), hereinafter “Chen”.
Regarding claim 13, Yano and Nishimura disclose the claimed invention except for further comprising: forming a first glass layer on a lower surface of the first flexible substrate; and forming a second glass layer on an upper surface of the second flexible substrate. In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses further comprising: forming a first glass layer (1) on a lower surface of the first flexible substrate (31); and forming a second glass layer (5) on an upper surface of the second flexible substrate (35) (Paragraph 58, Figs. 4-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Yano and Nishimura with further comprising: forming a first glass layer on a lower surface of the first flexible substrate; and forming a second glass layer on an upper surface of the second flexible substrate of Chen for the purpose of providing a thin light-adjusting element for the desired application with improved performance (Paragraphs 2, 139). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano (USP No. 4,187,004) in view of Choi (USPG Pub No. 2018/0081249).
Regarding claim 14, Yano further discloses an electrochromic device (see Figs. 2, 5-7) comprising: a first substrate (1); fine pattern electrodes (4) disposed on the first substrate (1), and including first fine pattern electrode portions (4) and second fine pattern electrode portions (4); electrochromic pixel patterns disposed on upper surface of the first fine pattern electrode portions (see Figs. 2, 5-7); an insulation film (10) covering upper surfaces of the second fine pattern electrode portions (4) (see Figs. 2, 5-7); an electrolyte layer (5/8) disposed on the insulation film (10) and on the electrochromic pixel patterns (3) (see Figs. 2, 5-7, Col. 5, Lines 21-23); an ion storage layer (6) disposed on the electrolyte layer (see Figs. 2, 5-7, Col. 5, Lines 10-23); a second electrode (7) disposed on the ion storage layer (6); and a second substrate (2) disposed on the second electrode (7) (see Figs. 2, 5-7), wherein a width of each of the first fine pattern electrode portions is greater than a width of each of the second fine pattern electrode portions (see Figs.6, 7 – “width” as a parameter is not provided with any language to specify the dimension; Figs. 6, 7 show the outer sections of electrode 4 that are wider than the inner section of 4), wherein the electrochromic pixel patterns (3) expose the upper surfaces of the second fine pattern electrode portions (4) (see Figs. 2, 6, 7 – the electrochromic pixel patterns 3 do not fully cover electrode portions 4, thus leaving sections of electrode portions exposed). Yano discloses the claimed invention except for flexible substrates, and wherein the electrochromic pixel patterns include a conductive polymer. In the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses flexible substrates (Paragraph 56), and wherein the electrochromic pixel patterns include a conductive polymer (Paragraph 94). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Yano with flexible substrates, and wherein the electrochromic pixel patterns include a conductive polymer of Choi for the purpose of providing a minimized thickness of the device while maintaining controllable functions of a device (Paragraphs 4, 45). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 16, Yano further discloses wherein the insulation film (10) does not cover upper surfaces of the electrochromic pixel patterns (3) (see Figs. 6, 7).
Regarding claim 17, Yano further discloses further comprising a counter electrode connection portion (wire/lead/terminal of 7, 14) (see Figs. 1, 8).
Regarding claim 18, Yano further discloses further comprising an electrode connection portion (wire/lead/terminal), wherein the electrode connection portion electrically connects the counter electrode connection portion (wire/lead/terminal) and the second electrode (7, 14) (see Figs. 1, 8).
Regarding claim 19, Yano further discloses further comprising a bonding portion (see Fig. 1), wherein the bonding portion is electrically connected to the counter electrode connection portion and the second fine pattern electrode portions (see Fig. 1).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano (USP No. 4,187,004) in view of Choi (USPG Pub No. 2018/0081249), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Chen (USPG Pub No. 2025/0044648).
Regarding claim 20, Yano and Choi disclose the claimed invention except for further comprising: a first glass layer disposed on a lower surface of the first flexible substrate; and a second glass layer disposed on an upper surface of the second flexible substrate. In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses further comprising: a first glass layer (1) disposed on a lower surface of the first flexible substrate (31); and a second glass layer (5) disposed on an upper surface of the second flexible substrate (35) (Paragraph 58, Figs. 4-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Yano and Choi with further comprising: a first glass layer disposed on a lower surface of the first flexible substrate; and a second glass layer disposed on an upper surface of the second flexible substrate of Chen for the purpose of providing a thin light-adjusting element for the desired application with improved performance (Paragraphs 2, 139). Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Yano and Nishimura, alone or in combination, do not disclose or teach the claims as currently presented.
Independent claims 1 and 14 now recite that the width of the first fine pattern electrode portions is greater than that of the second fine pattern electrode portions. Figs. 2, 6 and 7 of Yano illustrate electrode (4) comprising a segment electrode and a lead electrode, interpreted as a first fine pattern electrode portion and a second fine pattern electrode portion. As shown in the figures, the width of the electrode portions (4) differ. In the same manner that Applicant relies on a cross-sectional figure presented in the application to illustrate the difference in width, so does the reference. In addition, a change in shape and size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Lastly, the electrochromic layer (3), interpreted as the electrochromic pixel patterns, does not fully cover selected fine pattern electrode portions (4), thus leaving segments of the selected fine pattern electrode portions (4) exposed.
For these reasons, the claims remain rejected.
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 MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 10/3/2025