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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on February 24, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Examiner’s Comments
As previously noted, in regards to the term “functional” – particularly in the element “functional layer” in claim 11 – functional is a nonce word. Broadly read all films in a structure perform some function. Thus, the term functional is not given any patentable weight but interpreted as a distinguishing term to identify that is a different/additional layer, e.g. different from a metal ion layer. This interpretation is reasonable and well within the grasp of the ordinarily skilled and consistent the broadest reasonable interpretation as is required be the MPEP §2111.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed February 24, 2026, with respect to claim rejections under 112 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are persuasive. The claim rejections under 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Han fails to disclose the first electrochromic functional layer stating “Specifically, the optical state of TiO2 (whether it changes color) is determined by external conditions (such as the magnitude of the operating voltage), rather than inherent properties.” The examiner is unpersuaded. Electrochromism of a material is an inherent property. Eponymously, electrochromic material changes color upon the application of electricity, due to reduction/oxidation (a.k.a. redox) reaction. Han explicitly discloses on page 2 line 4 of the left column “TiO2 is an electrochromic material”. Further, in the instant application paragraphs [0005 & 0019] notes titanium dioxide is an electrochromic material and states: “Specifically, the material of the first electrochromic functional layer can be selected from a color-changing material that can form a solid thin film in the prior art; for example, the color-changing material can be an inorganic material such as NiO, WO3, Nb2O5,TiO2 and the like …” Therefore, Han’s explicitly identifying the TiO2 as an electrochromic material and applicant’s list of exemplar materials includes TiO2 for the first electrochromic functional layer, it is clear that Han is anticipates the claimed structure of claim 1, including a layer of electrochromic material.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Han’s TiO2 layer does not change color to achieve a change in transmission, the examiner is unpersuaded. Color change and/or a change in transmission attributable to color change is not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, Han page 2, right column, “Results and discussion” section, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence states: “All the samples reversibly changed their colour state, from light blue to transparent, because of the insertion/extraction of electrons and ions in the TiO2 films.” Therefore, Han anticipates the (unclaimed) feature of a reversible color change from a redox reaction, i.e. an electrochromic color change.
Regarding applicant’s argument contending Han’s device is different from benefits discussed in the instant application specification paragraphs [0010-12], the examiner is unpersuaded. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicant’s argument contending Han’s device is only a reversible electrodeposition (RED) device and fails to also have an electrochromic/redox color change, the examiner is unpersuaded. A color change (and/or a redox change) is not claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, see Han page 2, right column, “Results and discussion” section, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence, as noted above.
Regarding applicant’s statement that “Eid and Veerasamy do not disclose the scheme of claim 1”, the examiner is unpersuaded. Han anticipates all of the structural and functional limitations of claim 1, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 & 2) as being anticipated by Han et al. “Bistable mirror/transparent reversibly electrodeposited devices with TiO2 as the mediator” Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 206 (2020) 110343, of record.
Regarding claim 1 Han discloses an electrochromic device having adjustable reflectivity (title e.g. figure 1), comprising a first transparent substrate layer (e.g. bottom glass layer), an electrochromic stack (e.g. FTO & TiO2 layers), a metal ion stack (e.g. RED electrolyte & ITO layers) and a second substrate layer (e.g. top glass layer) stacked in sequence (e.g. see figure 1); the electrochromic stack comprises a first transparent conductive layer (e.g. FTO layer) and a first electrochromic functional layer (e.g. TiO2 layer, see page 2 line 4 of the left column “TiO2 is an electrochromic material”) stacked; the metal ion stack comprises a second transparent conductive layer (e.g. ITO layer), and a metal ion layer (e.g. RED electrolyte layer); the first electrochromic functional layer is adjacent to the metal ion layer (e.g. see figure 1).
Regarding claim 2 Han discloses the electrochromic device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Han further discloses wherein the first electrochromic functional layer (e.g. TiO2 layer) is an anodic electrochromic material (e.g. TiO2) layer.
Regarding claim 5 Han discloses the electrochromic device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Han further discloses wherein a metal ion in the metal ion layer (e.g. RED electrolyte layer) comprises a silver ion (inter alia page 6 left column lines 19-20 “silver and bromide ions dissolved in the electrolyte”).
Regarding claim 7 Han discloses the electrochromic device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Han further discloses wherein a metal layer (e.g. see figure 1(b) Ag pre-deposited) is further provided between the metal ion layer (e.g. RED electrolyte layer) and the second transparent conductive layer (e.g. ITO layer), and a metal element of the metal layer comprises one or a combination of at least two of silver, bismuth, copper and zinc (e.g. Ag).
Regarding claim 9 Han discloses the electrochromic device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Han further discloses wherein the first transparent conductive layer (e.g. FTO layer) is independently formed from one or at least two of indium tin oxide, zinc aluminum oxide, fluorine doped tin oxide, silver nanowires, graphene, carbon nanotubes, metal mesh and silver nanoparticles (e.g. FTO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. “Bistable mirror/transparent reversibly electrodeposited devices with TiO2 as the mediator” Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 206 (2020) 110343, of record, in view of Eid et al. US Patent 5,332,530, of record.
Regarding claim 4 Han discloses the electrochromic device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Han further discloses wherein the metal ion layer (e.g. RED electrolyte layer) is a metal ion-containing electrolyte layer (inter alia section 2.3 “electrolyte consisting of 1 M LiBr and 0.05 M AgNO3 in dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO)”).
Han does not disclose the electrolyte is a gel.
Eid teaches a similar metal ion-containing electrolytic material (title) for reversible electrodeposition/electrochromic devices (column 1 lines 17-23) having adjustable reflectivity (column 1 lines 6-9), including a metal (column 2 line 30 & 61-68); and further teaches the metal ion-containing electrolytic material is in the form of a gel (title) for the purpose of avoiding generation of hydrogen gas during electrodeposition of the metal layer, increased stability, a higher boiling point and reducing hydrostatic issues in large devices (column 1 line 62-column 2 line 18). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the metal ion-containing electrolytic material in the electrochromic device as disclosed by Han to be a gel as taught by Eid for the purpose of avoiding generation of hydrogen gas during electrodeposition of the metal layer, increased stability, a higher boiling point and reducing hydrostatic issues in large devices.
Claims 11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. “Bistable mirror/transparent reversibly electrodeposited devices with TiO2 as the mediator” Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 206 (2020) 110343, of record, in view of Veerasamy US Patent Application Publication 2011/0051221, of record.
Regarding claims 11 and 17-18 Han discloses the electrochromic device according to claim 1, as set forth above. Han further discloses the intended application is in light controlling architectural windows (inter alia abstract, Introduction 2nd & 4th paragraphs).
Han does not disclose wherein a functional layer is further arranged on one side or two sides of the first transparent substrate layer, and/or one side or two sides of the second substrate layer, as recited in claim 11; or wherein substrate support layers are further arranged on the outer side of the first transparent substrate layer and/or the outer side of the second substrate layer, as recited in claim 17; or wherein at least one of the substrate support layers is connected to the first transparent substrate layer and/or the second substrate layer by a bonding layer, as recited in claim 18.
Veerasamy teaches a similar electrochromic device (see figures 1 & 6 e.g. stacks 100 & 400) including transparent substrates (e.g. glass 112 & 114 or 402) each with a transparent conductive layer (e.g. 106 & 110) an ion conducting/electrolyte layer (e.g. 108) and an electrochromic layer (e.g. e.g. 104 or 102) which is also intended to be used in a light controlling architectural window (e.g. see figure 1(b) with an insulating glass unit Including 100); and further teaches a functional layer (e.g. first glass substrate 112, outer glass 602, or laminate 610) further arranged on one side or two sides of the first transparent substrate layer, and/or one side or two sides of the second substrate layer (see figures 1 & 6); or alternatively substrate support layers are further arranged on the outer side of the first transparent substrate layer (e.g. 604) and/or the outer side of the second substrate layer (e.g. 402 on 602); and wherein the substrate support layer (e.g. 602) is connected to the first transparent substrate layer (e.g. 402) and/or the second substrate layer by a bonding layer (e.g. 610) for the purpose of achieving the intended use in light controlling architectural window as disclosed by Han with a simplified fabrication process that reduces the likelihood of defects and improving yield and appearance (inter alia paragraph [0019]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the electrochromic device as disclosed by Han to have a functional layer is further arranged on one side or two sides of the first transparent substrate layer, and/or one side or two sides of the second substrate layer; or wherein substrate support layers are further arranged on the outer side of the first transparent substrate layer and/or the outer side of the second substrate layer, wherein at least one of the substrate support layer is connected to the first transparent substrate layer and/or the second substrate layer by a bonding layer as taught by Veerasamy for the purpose of achieving the intended use in light controlling architectural window as disclosed by Han with a simplified fabrication process that reduces the likelihood of defects and improving yield and appearance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho et al. “New switchable mirror device with a counter electrode based on reversible electrodeposition” Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 179 (2018) 161–168, of record; in regards to an electrochromic device having adjustable reflectivity (title e.g. see figure 2) that anticipates claim 1, as set forth in the conclusion of the Office action of November 24, 2025, and further. In the final paragraph states: “The device proposed in this study switches between a mirror and a blue transparent state.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 March 5, 2026