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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 14, 2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed January 14, 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 The claim rejections under 112 have been withdrawn.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 January 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Tajima (and/or Agrawal) failing to anticipate a polyvinylpyridine with an average molecular weight range between 10,000 and 1,000,000, the examiner is unpersuaded. Tajima paragraph [0115] discloses a basic electrolyte containing polyvinylpyridine, as set forth below. The examiner agrees that Tajima does not disclose an average molecular weight of the polyvinylpyridine. Polyvinylpyridine covers a family of molecules and does not inherently have an average molecular weight range between 10,000 and 1,000,000. Choosing a polyvinylpyridine with an average molecular weight range between 10,000 and 1,000,000 is a result-effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05. This is evidenced by Yamada1, which teaches an electrolyte composition, and in discusses (paragraph [0056]) when choosing a polymer (e.g. polyvinylpyridine) that “the weight average molecular weight of these polymer compounds is preferably within a range of 10,000 to 5,000,000. When the molecular weight is low, gel formation is difficult and when the molecular weight is high, the viscosity is excessively high and handling is difficult.” And Fukuta2, which also teaches an electrolyte composition, and in discusses (paragraphs [0064-66]) when choosing a polymer that: “The weight-average molecular weight of the opposite polarity polymer is preferably 30,000 or more, more preferably 100,000 or more, in order to prevent the permeation of opposite polarity polymer into electrolyte membrane and obtain stronger bonding. When the weight-average molecular weight of the opposite polarity polymer is more than 1,000,000, the dissolution of opposite polarity polymer in solvent is difficult in the step of adhering the opposite polarity polymer to the solid polymer electrolyte membrane. In order to obtain a uniform solution of the opposite polarity polymer, the upper limit of the weight-average molecular weight of the opposite polarity polymer is preferably 300,000, more preferably 250,000.” As set forth below, Tajima has an electrochromic element with the required structure, including an electrolyte layer with a basic compound and polyvinylpyridine, fulfilling the general conditions of a claim. Tajima does not disclose the polyvinylpyridine has an average molecular weight range between 10,000 and 1,000,000. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. One would be motivated to have the average molecular weight range between 10,000 and 1,000,000 since when the molecular weight is low, gel formation is difficult and when the molecular weight is high, the viscosity is excessively high and handling is difficult (as evidenced by Yamada paragraph [0056]) and/or to prevent the permeation of opposite polarity polymer into electrolyte membrane and obtain stronger bonding and a uniform solution of the opposite polarity polymer (as evidenced by Fukuta paragraphs [0064-66]).
Applicant’s statements with respect to 5,377,039 have been considered but are moot because the rejections below do not refer to 5,377,039.
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 electrochromic display device”, “electrochromic light-controlling device”, “power source”, “fixing unit” and “control unit” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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 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 11-12 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 claims 11 and 12 “a fixing unit” raises clarity issues. The term “fixing unit” is not a term of art. The specification has no written description of what a “fixing unit” is or does. There is no “fixing unit” in drawings. It is unclear if a fixing unit is: a mounting frame for affixing an electrochromic element into a larger element, or if it is a seal/gasket to hold/fix liquid/gel layers in place, or if it is a self-diagnostic circuit/program that would, for example, reduce/fix voltages to avoid damage, or something else. For purposes of examination the examiner will assume “a fixing unit” is an inherent element for an electrochromic display device and an electrochromic light-controlling device.
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneko et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0310530.
Regarding claim 22 Kaneko discloses an electrochromic element (title e.g. drawing electrochromic device 100), comprising: a first electrode (e.g. first electrode 101); an electrochromic layer on the first electrode (e.g. electrochromic layer 103), comprising an electrochromic material selected from the group consisting of an azobenzene compound, a tetrathiafulvalene compound, a triphenylmethane compound, a triarylamine compound, and a leuco dye (paragraph [0031] “electrochromic materials of azobenzene type … tetrathiafulvalene type … triphenylmethane type”); a second electrode (e.g. second electrode 102); and an electrolyte layer between the electrochromic layer and the second electrode (e.g. electrolyte layer 104), wherein the electrolyte layer includes a basic compound (e.g. paragraph [0110] notes the electrolyte material may be basic and lists exemplars including LiCF3COO and NaSCN, which are basic salts).
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.
Claims 1, 10, 12 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima et al. US Patent Application Publication 2014/0340729, of record, with evidence of certain facts provided by Yamada et al. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0135298 and Fukuta et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0081029.
Regarding claims 1 and 20 Tajima discloses an electrochromic element (title e.g. figures 1-3 electrochromic element), comprising: a first electrode (e.g. transparent electrode layer 20); an electrochromic layer on the first electrode (e.g. ion storage layer 30); a second electrode (e.g. transparent electrode layer 60); and an electrolyte layer between the electrochromic layer and the second electrode (e.g. electrolyte layer 90), wherein the electrolyte layer includes a basic compound (inter alia paragraph [0115] “it is preferable to adjust the non-water-based hydrogen ion conductive electrolyte solution to basicity”), wherein the basic compound is a polymer that is a polyvinylpyridine (paragraph [0115] “polyvinylpyridine”).
Tajima does not disclose said polyvinylpyridine has a weight average molecular weight of from 10,000 through 1,000,000, as recited in claim 1; or wherein the weight average molecular weight of said polymer that is a polyvinylpyridine is from 10,000 through 200,000, as recited in claim 20.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. Tajima has an electrochromic element with the required structure, including an electrolyte layer with a basic compound and polyvinylpyridine, fulfilling the general conditions of a claim. One would be motivated to have the average molecular weight in the claimed ranges since when the molecular weight is low, gel formation is difficult and when the molecular weight is high, the viscosity is excessively high and handling is difficult (as evidenced by Yamada paragraph [0056]) and/or to prevent the permeation of opposite polarity polymer into electrolyte membrane and obtain stronger bonding and a uniform solution of the opposite polarity polymer (as evidenced by Fukuta paragraphs [0064-66]). 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 polyvinylpyridine in the electrochromic element as disclosed by Tajima to have and average molecular weight range between 10,000 and 1,000,000 or from 10,000 through 200,000 since when the molecular weight is low, gel formation is difficult and when the molecular weight is high, the viscosity is excessively high and handling is difficult and/or to prevent the permeation of opposite polarity polymer into electrolyte membrane and obtain stronger bonding and a uniform solution of the opposite polarity polymer and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10 Tajima discloses the electrochromic element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Tajima further discloses wherein the electrochromic element exhibits a decoloring rate of 95% or higher (implicit given change in transmittance graphs in figures 5, 7, 9-18, 20, 22-24 and 27-32).
Regarding claim 12 Tajima further discloses an electrochromic light-controlling device (title e.g. figures 1-3 paragraph [0059-61] “dimming electrochromic element of the present invention”), comprising: the electrochromic element according to claim 1 (as set forth above), a power source (implicit given inter alia paragraphs [0055 & 0101] that discuss applying voltage and/or current to the electrodes), a fixing unit (inherent element as set forth in the 112 rejection above) and a control unit (implicit given inter alia paragraphs [0055, 0101 & 0313] that discuss transmission of light being controlled by controlling/switching).
Regarding claim 21 Tajima discloses an electrochromic element (title e.g. figures 1-3 electrochromic element), comprising: a first electrode (e.g. transparent electrode layer 20); an electrochromic layer on the first electrode (e.g. ion storage layer 30); a second electrode (e.g. transparent electrode layer 60); and an electrolyte layer between the electrochromic layer and the second electrode (e.g. electrolyte layer 90), wherein the electrolyte layer includes a basic compound (inter alia paragraph [0115] “it is preferable to adjust the non-water-based hydrogen ion conductive electrolyte solution to basicity”), wherein the basic compound is a polymer selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyridine, poly(4-vinylpyridine-co-styrene), poly(2- vinylpyridine-co-styrene) and poly(4- vinylpyridine-co-butyl methacrylate) (paragraph [0115] “polyvinylpyridine”).
Tajima does not disclose said polymer has a weight average molecular weight of from 10,000 through 1,000,000.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. Tajima has an electrochromic element with the required structure, including an electrolyte layer with a basic compound and polyvinylpyridine, fulfilling the general conditions of a claim. One would be motivated to have the average molecular weight range between 10,000 and 1,000,000 since when the molecular weight is low, gel formation is difficult and when the molecular weight is high, the viscosity is excessively high and handling is difficult (as evidenced by Yamada paragraph [0056]) and/or to prevent the permeation of opposite polarity polymer into electrolyte membrane and obtain stronger bonding and a uniform solution of the opposite polarity polymer (as evidenced by Fukuta paragraphs [0064-66]). 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 polymer in the electrochromic element as disclosed by Tajima to have and average molecular weight range between 10,000 and 1,000,000 since when the molecular weight is low, gel formation is difficult and when the molecular weight is high, the viscosity is excessively high and handling is difficult and/or to prevent the permeation of opposite polarity polymer into electrolyte membrane and obtain stronger bonding and a uniform solution of the opposite polarity polymer and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima et al. US Patent Application Publication 2014/0340729, of record, in view of Agrawal et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0408592, of record.
Regarding claims 5-9 Tajima discloses the electrochromic element according to claim 1, as set forth above. Tajima further discloses further comprising an electrochemically active layer on the second electrode (e.g. catalyst layer 40 or a reflective dimming layer 50).
Tajima does not disclose wherein the electrochemically active layer includes an inorganic oxide, as required by claim 5; or wherein the inorganic oxide is tin oxide, as required by claim 6; or wherein the electrochemically active layer includes an electrochromic material, as required by claim 7; or wherein the electrochromic material is a compound having at least one of a phosphonic acid group and a phosphoric acid group, as required by claim 8; or wherein the electrochromic material is a viologen derivative, as required by claim 9.
Agrawal teaches a similar electrochromic element (title e.g. figure 2) including a first electrode (e.g. transparent conductive/TC layer 12), an electrochromic layer on the first electrode (e.g. electrochromic/EC layer 13), a second electrode (e.g. transparent conductive/TC layer 19), an electrolyte layer between the electrochromic layer and the second electrode (e.g. electrolyte/ion-conducting layer 14) and an electrochemically active layer on the second electrode (e.g. dye containing layer 22); and further teaches the electrochemically active layer includes an inorganic oxide (conductive particles 16) wherein the inorganic oxide is tin oxide (paragraph [0120] lists ITO and ATO, doped tin oxide as exemplar materials) for the purpose of increasing the electrical conductivity of the layer without producing haze or unwanted coloration (paragraph [0120]); and wherein the electrochemically active layer includes an electrochromic material (e.g. redox dye 18) wherein the electrochromic material is a viologen derivative (paragraph [0087] “viologen dyes”) which is a phosphoric acid for the purpose of providing UV protection (paragraph [0087]). 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 element as disclosed by Tajima to have wherein the electrochemically active layer includes an inorganic oxide wherein the inorganic oxide is tin oxide, and wherein the electrochemically active layer includes an electrochromic material wherein the electrochromic material is a compound having at least one of a phosphonic acid group and a phosphoric and/or wherein the electrochromic material is a viologen derivative as taught by Agrawal for the purpose of increasing the electrical conductivity of the layer without producing haze or unwanted coloration and for the purpose of providing UV protection.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaudiana et al. US Patent Application Publication 2003/0189402 in view of Tajima et al. US Patent Application Publication 2014/0340729, of record.
Regarding claim 11 Gaudiana discloses an electrochromic display device (e.g. figure 33 greeting card 2700 including a visual display 2710 paragraph [0201] “an electrochromic display”), comprising: the electrochromic element (e.g. 2710), a power source (e.g. photovoltaic module 2750), a fixing unit (inherent element as set forth in the 112 rejection above) and a control unit (e.g. electronic driving unit 2720).
Gaudiana is silent regarding details of the electrochromic element. Specifically Gaudiana does not disclose the electrochromic element is according to claim 1.
Tajima teaches the electrochromic element according to claim 1, as set forth above. One would be motivated to use Tajima electrochromic element since it suitable for various electronic and optical devices and is advantageous in view of size extension, productivity and cost, and low-voltage driving is enabled by the characteristics of the electrolyte solution (paragraph [0314]). 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 display device as disclosed by Gaudiana to use the electrochromic element according to claim 1 as taught by Tajima for the purpose of using an element that is suitable for various electronic and optical devices and is advantageous in view of size extension, productivity and cost, and low-voltage driving is enabled by the characteristics of the electrolyte solution.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0310530 in view of Shinoda et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0168366.
Regarding claim 23 Kaneko discloses the electrochromic element of claim 22, as set forth above. Kaneko further discloses wherein said electrochromic material comprises organic electrochromic materials (paragraph [0031]) and provides a list of exemplars that the invention is not limiting (paragraph [0031]).
Kaneko’s non-limiting list does not disclose wherein said electrochromic material comprises the triarylamine compound.
Shinoda teaches a similar electrochromic element (title e.g. figure 1) including a first electrode (e.g. first electrode 2); an electrochromic layer on the first electrode (e.g. layer 4 paragraph [0084] “4 containing an oxidizable color-developing electrochromic compound”), comprising an electrochromic material selected from the group consisting of an azobenzene compound, a tetrathiafulvalene compound, a triphenylmethane compound, a triarylamine compound, and a leuco dye (inter alia paragraphs [0043-44]); a second electrode (e.g. second electrode 3); and an electrolyte layer between the electrochromic layer and the second electrode (e.g. electrolyte 5); and further discloses said electrochromic material comprises the triarylamine compound (inter alia paragraph [0044]) for the purpose of using a known as oxidizable color-developing electrochromic materials that exhibit transparency when in a neutral state and develop color when in a reduced state (paragraph [0006]). 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 material in the electrochromic element as disclosed by to be a triarylamine compound as taught by Shinoda for the purpose of using a known as oxidizable color-developing electrochromic materials that exhibit transparency when in a neutral state and develop color when in a reduced state.
Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claims 1 and 11 be found allowable, claims 21 and 12, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 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 February 20, 2026
1 Yamada et al. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0135298.
2 Fukuta et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0081029.