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 .
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)(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, 4-5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by He et al (US Publication No.: US 2020/0387040 A1, “He”).
Regarding Claim 1, He discloses an electrochromic device (Paragraph 0028), comprising
An electrochromic layer (Paragraph 0028), wherein:
The electrochromic layer comprises an electrochromic polymer having an absorbance peak within 350-500 nm or having a maximal absorbance within 350-500nm that is at least 50% of a maximal absorbance within 400-750 nm (Paragraph 0020; Paragraph 0095); and
The electrochromic layer is configured to work under an effective overpotential of less than 1V; such that the electrochromic device maintains more than 95% optical contrast after more than 500 cycles (Paragraph 0100; Figure 10; Paragraph 0096); Figures 11A-11B).
Regarding Claim 4, He discloses the electrochromic device in claim 1, wherein the electrochromic layer displays one of yellow, orange, cyan, green, or black color or a combination thereof (Paragraph 0023; Figures 11A-11F).
Regarding Claim 5, He discloses the electrochromic device in claim 1, wherein the electrochromic layer comprises an electrochromic polymer with a yellow color, and the electrochromic layer is configured to work under an effective overpotential of less than 0.3V, the electrochromic device maintains more than 95% optical contrast after more than 3000 cycles (Figures 11A-11B; Figure 10; Paragraph 0088; Paragraph 0098).
Regarding Claim 8, He discloses a method for improving cycling stability of an electrochromic device that comprises an electrochromic layer (Paragraph 0105), the method comprises limiting an effective overpotential for the electrochromic layer to work under 1V (Paragraph 0098; Figure 10).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Xu et al (US Publication No.: US 2009/0052002 A1, “Xu”).
Regarding Claim 2, He discloses the electrochromic device in claim 1.
He fails to disclose that the electrochromic polymer is a high-energy absorbing electrochromic polymer comprising a propylenedioxythiophene structure.
However, Xu discloses a similar device where the electrochromic polymer is a high-energy absorbing electrochromic polymer comprising a propylenedioxythiophene structure (Xu, Paragraph 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrochromic layer as disclosed by He to be comprised of a particular polymer as disclosed by Xu. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving light transmittance, switching speed, stability (Xu, Paragraph 0099).
Regarding Claim 3, He in view of Xu discloses the electrochromic device in claim 2, wherein the electrochromic layer is configured to work under an effective overpotential of less than 0.3V such that the electrochromic device maintains more than 95% optical contrast after more than 1000 cycles (He, Paragraph 0098; Figure 10; Figures 11A-11B).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Reynolds et al (US Publication No.: US 2019/0218338 A1, “Reynolds”).
Regarding Claim 6, He discloses the electrochromic device in claim 1, wherein the electrochromic layer is configured to work under an effective overpotential of less than 0.2V, the electrochromic device maintains more than 95% optical contrast after more than 3000 cycles (He, Figures 11A-11B; Figure 10; Paragraph 0088; Paragraph 0098).
He fails to disclose that the electrochromic layer comprises an electrochromic polymer with an orange color.
However, Reynolds discloses a similar electrochromic layer which comprises an electrochromic polymer with an orange color (Reynolds, Paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrochromic layer as disclosed by He to have a particular color as disclosed by Reynolds. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving light transmittance, switching speed, stability (Reynolds, Paragraph 0036).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Wang (US Publication No.: US 2023/0034675 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, He discloses an electrochromic device (Paragraph 0028), comprising an electrochromic layer (Paragraph 0028), wherein:
The electrochromic layer comprises an electrochromic polymer (Paragraph 0020); the electrochromic layer is configured to work under an effective overpotential of less than 1V (Paragraph 0098) such that electrochromic device maintains at least 50% optical contrast after more than 100 cycles (Paragraph 0100; Figures 11A-11B).
He fails to disclose that the electrochromic polymer has a polyfluorene structure.
However, Wang discloses a similar device where the electrochromic polymer has a polyfluorene structure (Wang, Paragraph 0235).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrochromic polymer as disclosed by He to have a particular material as disclosed by Wang. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing the color change of the electrochromic layer (Wang, Paragraph 0235).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Warner et al (US Publication No.: US 2006/0012293 A1, “Warner”).
Regarding Claim 9, He discloses the method of claim 8.
He fails to disclose that factors to limiting the effective overpotential include an electrolyte material, an electrolyte concentration, and a device temperature of the electrochromic device.
However, Warner discloses a similar method where factors to limiting the effective overpotential include an electrolyte material, an electrolyte concentration, and a device temperature of the electrochromic device (Warner, Paragraph 0021; Paragraphs 0041-0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by He to have a particular limiting factor as disclosed by Warner. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving control, opacity, and thickness of the electrochromic layer (Warner, Paragraph 0041).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871