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In view of the amendments, the prior objection of claims 6 and 11 is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim is not further limiting. Due to the amendment of claim 6, the language that was previously presented to further limit the “first current collector” was removed. The claim currently recites “wherein the first current collector” without any limiting language to follow. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 2021-0086159 A), hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an electrochromic device (100) comprising: a first portion comprising a first chromoactive material (130) (see Fig. 1, Pg. 2, Paragraph 6 of translation); a second portion comprising a second chromoactive material (160) (see Fig. 1, Pg. 3, Paragraph 5); and an electrolyte (180) (see Fig. 1, Pg. 4, Paragraph 7), wherein the first portion and the second portion are arranged on opposite sides of the electrolyte (180) (see Figs. 2, 3), wherein the first chromoactive material and the second chromoactive material are configured to change oxidation states in response to an applied current (Pg. 3, Paragraphs 5-7), wherein reaction products are generated in the second chromoactive material during the change in oxidation state (Pg. 3, Paragraphs 5-7), and wherein the electrolyte (180) is configured to constrain the volume expansion of the reaction products in a direction perpendicular to an interface between the second portion and the electrolyte (180) (Pg. 4, Paragraphs 7-8).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses wherein the electrolyte is a solid-state electrolyte (Pg. 4, Paragraphs 1, 8).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses wherein the hardness of the electrolyte is greater than the hardness of the reaction products (Pg. 4, Paragraphs 1, 8). Since the hardness of the electrolyte is due to the solid-state nature of the material, this property is satisfied since claim 2 satisfies the material requirement.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses wherein the first portion further comprises a first current collector (120) being arranged on the opposite side of the first chromoactive material (130) compared to the electrolyte (180) (see Fig. 1, Pg. 3, Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses wherein the second portion further comprises a second current collector (170) being arranged on the opposite side of the second chromoactive material (160) compared to the electrolyte (180) (see Fig. 1, Pg. 3, Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses wherein the first current collector (Pg. 3, Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses wherein the second chromoactive material (160 with 170) is a chromoactive current collector (see Fig. 1, Pg. 3, Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses wherein the electrochromic device is a multi-layered structure (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses a window comprising an electrochromic device according to claim 1 (Pg. 2, Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses a method for changing a transmittance through an electrochromic device (100) (Pg. 2, Paragraph 1), the method comprising: a) receiving a voltage to the electrochromic device (100) to provide electrons to a second chromoactive material (160) of a second portion of the electrochromic device (Pg. 2, Paragraph 2, Pg. 3, Paragraphs 5-7); b) migrating ions between a first chromoactive material (130) of a first portion of the electrochromic device through an electrolyte (180) and to the second chromoactive material (160) as a result of the received voltage, wherein the oxidation states of the first chromoactive material and/or the second chromoactive material are changed (see Figs. 2, 3, Pg. 3, Paragraphs 4-7); c) forming reaction products in the second chromoactive material during the change in oxidation state (Pg. 3, Paragraphs 4-7); and d) constraining the volume expansion of the reaction products in the direction perpendicular to an interface between the second portion and the electrolyte (180) (Pg. 4, Paragraphs 7-8), wherein during the change of oxidation states the transmittance of the first chromoactive material and/or the second chromoactive material is changed (Pg. 3, Paragraphs 4-7).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses wherein upon receiving the voltage, the first chromoactive material is oxidized and the second chromoactive material is reduced and wherein the transmittance of the first chromoactive material and/or the second chromoactive material is reduced (Pg. 2, Paragraph 2, Pg. 3, Paragraphs 5-7).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses wherein upon receiving the voltage, the first chromoactive material is reduced and the second chromoactive material is oxidized and wherein the transmittance of the first chromoactive material and/or the second chromoactive material is increased (Pg. 2, Paragraph 2, Pg. 3, Paragraphs 5-7).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses wherein the second current collector is an oxide (Pg. 3, Paragraph 2).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 2021-0086159 A) in view of Inoue et al. (“Electrochromic phenomenon in indium-tin oxide thin films deposited by RF magnetron sputtering” 2010), hereinafter “Inoue”.
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses wherein the electrolyte is lithium phosphorus oxynitride (LiPON) (Pg. 4, Paragraphs 1, 8). Kim discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify and the second chromoactive material is indium tin oxide (ITO). In the same field of endeavor, Inoue discloses and the second chromoactive material is indium tin oxide (ITO) (1. Introduction, Col. 2, Paragraph 1). 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 electrochromic device of Kim with and the second chromoactive material is indium tin oxide (ITO) of Inoue for the purpose of controlling light transmittance in near-ultraviolet region (Pg. 59, Col. 1, Lines 1-2). 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 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Kim does not disclose or teach the claims as presented.
Figs. 2 and 3 of Kim, along with the corresponding description, teach the electrochromic device (100) as presented in the independent claims. The buffer layer (180), interpreted as the electrolyte, is materially taught as including “an oxide and a Li-based solid electrolyte” (see Pg. 4, Paragraph 7, 1st line), meeting the requirement of “an electrolyte”. Said electrolyte (180) is configured to prevent damage from volume expansion of the ion storage layer (160), interpreted as the second chromoactive material, that is adjacent to the electrolyte (180) (see Pg. 4, Paragraph 6). Thus, the buffer layer (180) of Kim meets all of the structural requirements of the electrolyte in the claims as presented. Regarding the number of layers of the device of Kim, by including the transitional phrase “comprising”, the electrochromic device, as presented in the claims, does not exclude additional, unrecited layers (see MPEP 2111.03). 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 5/27/2026
Prosecution Insights