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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 12, 2023 and October 26, 2023 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ the method comprising forming the oxidation color development layer on the first transparent electrode layer by a sputtering method; and forming the electrolyte layer on the oxidation color development layer by a sputtering method ” in claim 10. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Regarding claim s 1 -3 – particularly claim 1 “ the oxidation color development layer … contains … metal elements other than nickel ” claim 2 “ one or more elements … as the metal elements ” and claim 3 “ one or more elements … as the metal elements other than nickel ” raises clarity and antecedent issues. It is unclear what the minimum number of metal elements other than nickel are claimed. Claim 1-3 require “metal elements” (plural), claims 2-3 note “one or more elements” allowing for one. Further, claim 2 introduces “one or more elements” and it is unclear if the “one or more elements” in claim 3 is a new/different/additional element or if it is further limiting the “the one or more elements” introduced in claim 2 (assumed). In light of the specification, e.g. see page 15 lines 29-30, one additional metal element is sufficient. The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “ … at least one metal element[[s]] other than nickel ” in claim 1 “ wherein the at least one metal element is oxidation color development layer contains one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Group 1 elements, Group 4 elements, Group 5 elements, Group 6 elements, Group 7 elements, Group 9 elements, Group 11 elements, Group 13 elements and Group 14 elements of the periodic table as the metal elements other than nickel ” in claim 2 and “wherein the at least one metal element is oxidation color development layer contains one or more elements selected from the group consisting of lithium, sodium, potassium, titanium, zirconium, vanadium, niobium, chromium, molybdenum, manganese, cobalt, rhodium, iridium, copper, aluminum and silicon as the metal elements other than nickel ” in claim 3. Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since it depends on claim 2 and therefore has the same deficiencies. Further regarding claim 3 “ silicon ” raises clarity issues. Silicon is not a metal. It is unclear if applicant is (prohibitively) broadening the claim or if applicant means the additional element of the at least one metal element other than nickel is meant to be at least one metal or metalloid element other than nickel (assumed). Applicant could overcome this rejection by substituting “at least one metal element” with “at least one metal or metalloid element” or, alternatively, by omitting silicon from the Markush group in claim 3. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Trajkovska -Broach et al. US Patent Application Publication 2014/0327950 . Regarding claim 1 Trajkovska -Broach discloses an electrochromic element (title e.g. electrochromic stacks seen in figures 12-15) in which a light transmittance changes depending on a voltage applied (axiomatic e.g. paragraph [0069] “used herein, "electrochromic stack" refers to a multi-layer structure exhibiting electrochromic properties, meaning that it reversibly changes color upon the application of an electric potential, or reversibly changes color upon changing the magnitude of the electric potential applied”), the electrochromic element comprising a first transparent electrode layer (e.g. second transparent conductive layer x16 ), an oxidation color development layer (e.g. second nanostructured electrochromic layer x14), an electrolyte layer (e.g. ion-conducting layers x08 & x12 and/or electrolyte x10) and a second transparent electrode layer (e.g. first transparent conductive layer x04) in this order (see figures 12-15), wherein the first transparent electrode layer and the oxidation color development layer are in contact with each other (see figures 12-15), the oxidation color development layer and the electrolyte layer are in contact with each other (see figures 12-15), and the oxidation color development layer is an oxide layer or a hydroxide layer ( inter alia paragraph [0015] “the electrochromic material is an electrochromic oxide”), and contains nickel as a main component ( inter alia paragraph [0015] “nickel oxide”), and at least one metal element other than nickel ( inter alia paragraph [0015] “electrochromic material is an electrochromic oxide selected from the group including tungsten oxide, nickel oxide, iridium oxide, molybdenum oxide, vanadium oxide, titanium oxide, chromium oxide, manganese oxide, iron oxide, cobalt oxide, rhodium oxide, tantalum oxide, niobium oxide, and combinations thereof”), and the oxidation color development layer has a thickness of 20 nm or more ( inter alia paragraph [0013] “nanostructured material has a thickness of 1 to 500 nm”), and in the oxidation color development layer, a porosity of a near-electrolyte layer extending up to 10 nm in a thickness direction from an interface with the electrolyte layer is larger than a porosity of a near-electrode layer extending up to 10 nm in the thickness direction from the interface with the first transparent electrode layer (implicit given figures 12-15). Regarding claim 2 Trajkovska -Broach discloses the electrochromic element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Trajkovska -Broach further discloses wherein the at least one metal element is selected from the group consisting of Group 1 elements, Group 4 elements, Group 5 elements, Group 6 elements, Group 7 elements, Group 9 elements, Group 11 elements, Group 13 elements and Group 14 elements of the periodic table ( inter alia paragraph [0015] note mixtures can include in addition to nickel: tungsten, a Group 6 element; iridium, a Group 9 element; molybdenum, a Group 6 element; vanadium, a Group 5 element; titanium, a Group 4 element; chromium, a Group 6 element; manganese, a Group 7 element; cobalt, a Group 9 element; rhodium, a Group 9 element; tantalum, a Group 5 element; and niobium, a Group 5 element). Regarding claim 3 Trajkovska -Broach discloses the electrochromic element according to claim 2 , as set forth above. Trajkovska -Broach further discloses wherein the at least one metal element is s elected from the group consisting of lithium, sodium, potassium, titanium, zirconium, vanadium, niobium, chromium, molybdenum, manganese, cobalt, rhodium, iridium, copper, aluminum and silicon ( inter alia paragraph [0015] note mixtures can include in addition to nickel: iridium, molybdenum, vanadium, titanium, chromium, manganese, cobalt, rhodium and niobium). Regarding claim 4 Trajkovska -Broach discloses the electrochromic element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Trajkovska -Broach further discloses wherein the near-electrolyte layer comprises a plurality of needle-shaped structures (paragraph [0142] “needle-like nanostructured metal oxide electrochromic layers”). Regarding claim 5 Trajkovska -Broach discloses the electrochromic element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Trajkovska -Broach further discloses wherein a surface of the electrolyte layer on the oxidation color development layer side has an irregular shape (see figures 12-15). Regarding claim 6 Trajkovska -Broach discloses the electrochromic element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Trajkovska -Broach further discloses wherein a difference between the porosity of the near-electrolyte layer P i and the porosity of the near-electrode layer P 2 , P i -P 2 , is 1.0% or more (inherent given structure seen in figures 12-15). Regarding claim 7 Trajkovska -Broach discloses the electrochromic element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Trajkovska -Broach further discloses it is further comprising a reduction color development layer (e.g. first nanostructured electrochromic layer x06) disposed between the electrolyte layer and the second transparent electrode layer (see figures 12-15). Regarding claim 8 Trajkovska -Broach discloses the electrochromic element according to claim 7 , as set forth above. Trajkovska -Broach further discloses wherein the reduction color development layer is a tungsten oxide layer ( inter alia paragraph [0015] “the electrochromic material is tungsten oxide”) Regarding claim 9 Trajkovska -Broach discloses the electrochromic element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Trajkovska -Broach further discloses wherein the electrolyte layer is an oxide layer, a hydroxide layer, a nitride layer, or a fluoride layer, and contains one or more elements selected from the group consisting of aluminum, silicon, tantalum, yttrium, calcium, magnesium, titanium, zirconium and lithium ( inter alia paragraph [0017] “ion-conducting layer includes a material selected from the group including lithium oxide, lithium niobate, Li-doped tungsten oxide, Li-doped nickel oxide, organic silica, and combinations thereof”). Regarding claim 10 Trajkovska -Broach further discloses a method for manufacturing the electrochromic element (abstract “Methods of making electrochromic stacks having nanostructured materials and/or ion-conducting layers are also discussed”) according to claim 1 (as set forth above), the method comprising forming the oxidation color development layer on the first transparent electrode layer by a sputtering method; and forming the electrolyte layer on the oxidation color development layer by a sputtering method (at least paragraphs [0075, 0138, 0142, 0160, 0178 & 0192-93] discuss using sputtering to create said layers). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gillaspie et al. US Patent Application Publication 2013/0182307; in regards to a similar invention, see figures 1, 2A & 5A Trajkovska -Broach et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0027613, of record ; in regards to a similar invention, see W ritten Opinion of PCT/JP2022/014028, dated June 14, 2022 , of record. Xiao et al. foreign patent document CN105892101 ; in regards to a similar invention, see figure 1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT George G King whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4273 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ricky Mack can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 September 3, 2025