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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group A, claims 1-10, 15 in the reply filed on November 7, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 7, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on June 5, 2023; October 16, 2024; September 17, 2025 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
a) chamber comprising an electrochromic formulation (claim 1);
b) at least two electrodes (claim 1);
c) at least one electrode comprises a layer of transparent conductive oxide (claim 1);
d) a layer comprising a conductive polymer (claim 1);
e) inner surface of the chamber (claim 1);
f) each electrode…comprises a layer…conductive oxide…polymer (claim 2)
g) the layer comprising a conductive polymer is deposited directly on top of the transparent conductive oxide (claim 3);
h) a metal layer (claim 4);
i) the transparent conductive oxide is deposited on a metal layer (claim 4);
j) a second transparent conductive oxide layer (claim 4)
k) an index of refraction matching layer (claim 4);
l) nanoparticles, nanoparticle interconnected network (claim 5);
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 8, Examiner suggests -- carbon nanotubes, --
As to claim 15, the claim does not end in a period (MPEP 608.01(m)).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the same electrochemical cell” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Examiner will understand as the electrochromic cell.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the inner surface” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Examiner will understand as “an inner surface”.
Claims 2-10, 15 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “said layer comprising a conductive polymer” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Specifically, as per claim 1, there is a first instance of a layer comprising a conductive polymer, and then as per claim 2, requiring “each electrode”, there is a second instance of a layer comprising a conductive polymer. Thus it is unclear what is “said layer comprising a conductive polymer”.
As to claim 4, the claim recites “an index of refraction matching layer” which is unclear what refractive index/indices is/are to be matched (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Examiner will understand that so long as the prior art teaches any layer, such layer is necessarily arbitrarily refractive index matched.
As to claim 9, the claim recites “other polythiophenes, polyanilines, polypyrroles, polyacetylenes” which is unclear what constitutes “other”. Such language appears to be exemplary (MPEP 2173.05(d)). Examiner will readout “other”.
As to claim 15, the claim recites “the use of a layer…as claimed in claim 1…” which recites a use without setting forth any steps of the use (MPEP 2173.05(q)). For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand art teaching claim 1 to implicitly be capable of the use to achieve the result of “avoid the formations of stains…”.
As to claim 15, the claim recites “in order to avoid the formation of stains…” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, it is unclear what is intended by “avoid”. Is this doesn’t occur at all? Is this occur to some limited extent, e.g. percentage? amount? The metes and bounds are unclear since what constitutes an avoidance of the formation of the stains appears entirely subjective to a practitioner of the invention. Examiner will understand that art teaching claim 1 necessarily teaches claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-10, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/(a2) as being anticipated by Higuchi et al. (US 2021/0141279 - Higuchi).
As to claim 1, Higuchi teaches a electrochromic cell (Higuchi Fig. 1 - 100) comprising
a chamber comprising an electrochromic formulation (Higuchi Fig. 1 - 120, 130; para. [0057]);
at least two electrodes (Higuchi Fig. 1 - 110, 140, 150; para. [0057]) that are part of the same electrochemical cell and include a conducting material deposited on the inner surface of the chamber (Higuchi Fig. 1 - 140, 110);
wherein at least one of the electrodes comprises a layer of a transparent conductive oxide (Higuchi Fig. 1 - 150; para. [0058]) and a layer comprising a conductive polymer (Higuchi Fig. 1 - 140; para. [0093]), said layer comprising a conductive polymer being the only part of the at least one electrode that is in contact with the electrochromic formulation (Higuchi Fig. 1; para [0057] - conductive polymer (140) is only part of upper electrode (140+150) being in contact with electrochromic formulation (130,120)).
As to claim 3, Higuchi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Higuchi further teaches the layer comprising a conductive polymer is deposited directly on top of the transparent conductive oxide (Higuchi Fig. 1 - 140, 150).
As to claim 6, Higuchi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Higuchi further teaches the transparent conductive oxide is indium tin oxide (Higuchi para. [0058]).
As to claim 7, Higuchi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Higuchi further teaches the thickness of the layer comprising a conductive polymer is comprises between 20nm and 300nm (Higuchi para. [0127] - thickness 30nm to 50nm).
As to claim 9, Higuchi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Higuchi further teaches the conductive polymer is PEDOT:PSS, PEDOT, other polythiophenes, polyanilines, polypyrroles, polyacetylenes, and mixtures thereof (Higuchi para. [0021], [0127]).
As to claim 10, Higuchi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Higuchi further teaches the electrochromic formulation comprises an electrochromic reducing compound of ferrocene (Higuchi para. [0092]).
As to claim 15, Higuchi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Higuchi further teaches the use of a conductive polymer in order to avoid the formulation of stains related to the contact between a layer of transparent conductive oxide and an electrochromic formulation (Higuchi para. [0093]).
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Schwendeman et al. (US 2010/0060971 - Schwendeman).
As to claim 1, Schwendeman teaches an electrochromic cell (Schwendeman Fig. 1 - 10), comprising
a chamber comprising an electrochromic formulation (Schwendeman Fig. 1 - 30; para. [0019]);
at least two electrodes (Schwendeman Fig. 1 - 16, 18, 22, 20; para. [0014]) that are part of the same electrochemical cell and include a conducting material deposited on the inner surface of the chamber (Schwendeman Fig. 1 - 16, 18, 22, 20; para. [0014]);
wherein at least one of the electrodes comprises a layer of a transparent conductive oxide (Schwendeman Fig. 1 - 16, 20; para. [0016]) and a layer comprising a conductive polymer (Schwendeman Fig. 1 - 18, 24, 26; para. [0017], [0018]), said layer comprising a conductive polymer being the only part of the at least one electrode that is in contact with the electrochromic formulation (Schwendeman Fig. 1 - 18, 24, 26; para. [0017], [0018] - conductive polymer (18, 24, 26) is the only part of the electrode (16+18 or 20+22) in contact with formulation (30)).
As to claim 2, Schwendeman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Schwendeman further teaches each electrode deposited on the inner surface of the chamber comprises a layer of a transparent conductive oxide and a layer comprising a conductive polymer (Schwendeman Fig. 1 - 16, 20, 18, 24, 26; para. [0016]-[0018]), said layer comprising a conductive polymer being the only part of the electrode that is in contact with the electrochromic formulation (Schwendeman Fig. 1 - 18, 24, 26; para. [0017], [0018] - conductive polymer (18, 24, 26) is the only part of the electrode (16+18 or 20+22) in contact with formulation (30)).
As to claim 3, Schwendeman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Schwendeman further teaches the layer comprising a conductive polymer is deposited directly on top of the transparent conductive oxide (Schwendeman Fig. 1 - 16, 20, 18, 24, 26; para. [0016]-[0018]).
As to claim 6, Schwendeman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Schwendeman further teaches the transparent conductive oxide is chosen from antimony-doped tin oxide, aluminum-doped tin oxide, aluminum- and tin-doped zinc oxide, aluminum-doped zinc oxide, fluorine-doped tin oxide, gallium-doped zinc oxide, indium tin oxide, indium tin zinc oxide, indium zinc oxide, and mixtures thereof (Schwendeman para. [0016]).
As to claim 7, Schwendeman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Schwendeman further teaches the thickness of the layer comprising a conductive polymer is between 20nm and 300nm (Schwendeman para. [0018]).
As to claim 9, Schwendeman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Schwendeman further teaches the conductive polymer is chosen from PEDOT:PSS, PEDOT, other polythiophenes, polyanilines, polypyrroles, polyacetylenes, and mixtures thereof (Schwendeman para. [0018]).
As to claim 15, Schwendeman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Schwendeman further teaches the use of a conductive polymer in order to avoid the formulation of stains related to the contact between a layer of transparent conductive oxide and an electrochromic formulation (Schwendeman Fig. 1; para. [0009]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 4-5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Yeh et al. (US 2012/0224246 - Yeh; cited by Applicant).
As to claim 4, Higuchi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Higuchi further teaches an index of refraction matching layer (Higuchi para. [0058] - electrodes (150, 110) can further be on a glass/plastic substrate), but doesn’t specify the transparent conductive oxide is deposited on a metal layer of Cu, Ag, or Au.
In the same field of endeavor Yeh teaches an electrochromic device having a transparent conductive oxide (Yeh Fig. 7 - 221; para. [0030]) deposited on a metal layer of Cu, Ag, or Au (Yeh Fig. 3 - 26; para. [0039]), metal layer itself deposited on an index of refraction matching layer (Yeh Fig. 3 - 22; para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such layers since, as taught by Yeh, such layers are well known in the art for the purpose of improving conduction speed of conductive films/layers (Yeh para. [0039]).
As to claim 5, Higuchi in view Yeh teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Yeh further teaches the metal layer comprises metal nanoparticles, the nanoparticles comprise nanowires the metal nanowires form an interconnected network (Yeh Fig. 7 - 26; para. [0039]).
As to claim 8, Higuchi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify the conductive polymer layer comprises nanoparticles chose from metal a conductive polymer comprises nanoparticles chosen from metal nanoparticles, metal oxide nanoparticles, Carbone nanotubes, graphene nanosheets, graphene oxide nanosheets, and mixtures thereof, preferably wherein said metal oxide nanoparticles are chosen from indium tin oxide nanoparticles, SnO2 nanoparticles, ZnO nanoparticles, aluminum-doped zinc oxide nanoparticles, WO3 nanoparticles, and mixtures thereof.
In the same field of endeavor Yeh teaches conductive polymer electrode layers for electrochromic cells having nanoparticles of carbon nanotubes (Yeh para. [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the polymer conductor with/as carbon nanotubes since, as taught by Yeh, such materials are well known in the art as materials for polymer conductive electrodes (Yeh para. [0030]).
Claims 4-5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwendeman as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Yeh et al. (US 2012/0224246 - Yeh; cited by Applicant).
As to claim 4, Schwendeman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Schwendeman further teaches an index of refraction matching layer (Schwendeman Fig. 1 - 12, 14; para. [0014] - glass/plastic), but doesn’t specify the transparent conductive oxide is deposited on a metal layer of Cu, Ag, or Au.
In the same field of endeavor Yeh teaches an electrochromic device having a transparent conductive oxide (Yeh Fig. 7 - 221; para. [0030]) deposited on a metal layer of Cu, Ag, or Au (Yeh Fig. 3 - 26; para. [0039]), metal layer itself deposited on an index of refraction matching layer (Yeh Fig. 3 - 22; para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such layers since, as taught by Yeh, such layers are well known in the art for the purpose of improving conduction speed of conductive films/layers (Yeh para. [0039]).
As to claim 5, Schwendeman in view Yeh teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Yeh further teaches the metal layer comprises metal nanoparticles, the nanoparticles comprise nanowires the metal nanowires form an interconnected network (Yeh Fig. 7 - 26; para. [0039]).
As to claim 8, Schwendeman teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify the conductive polymer layer comprises nanoparticles chose from metal a conductive polymer comprises nanoparticles chosen from metal nanoparticles, metal oxide nanoparticles, Carbone nanotubes, graphene nanosheets, graphene oxide nanosheets, and mixtures thereof, preferably wherein said metal oxide nanoparticles are chosen from indium tin oxide nanoparticles, SnO2 nanoparticles, ZnO nanoparticles, aluminum-doped zinc oxide nanoparticles, WO3 nanoparticles, and mixtures thereof.
In the same field of endeavor Yeh teaches conductive polymer electrode layers for electrochromic cells having nanoparticles of carbon nanotubes (Yeh para. [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the polymer conductor with/as carbon nanotubes since, as taught by Yeh, such materials are well known in the art as materials for polymer conductive electrodes (Yeh para. [0030]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Higuchi et al. (US 11,513,410); Schwendeman et al. (US 8,049,949); Li (CN 104182303) are cited as additional examples of electrochromics teaching claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 April 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights