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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 10/07/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each patent listed that is not in the English language (the 6 page Non Patent Literature document mailed 10/07/2024). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2018/0191029).
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al. (figures 1-3) discloses a gel electrolyte, comprising:
a solvent base (see at least paragraph 0026); and
a plurality of spherical inorganic nanoparticles dispersed in the solvent base, wherein the plurality of spherical inorganic nanoparticles are bonded to each other through an M-O-M structure, wherein M is Ti, Si, Al, Zr, V, Fe, Ni, Zn, or a combination thereof (Si—O—Si; see at least claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Yang et al. (figures 1-3) discloses an electrochromic material dispersed in the solvent base (see at least paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 4, Yang et al. (figures 1-3) discloses wherein the solvent base comprises ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, butyrolactone, valerolactone, tetramethylene sulfone, n-methylpyrrolidone, dimethylformamide, dimethylacetamide or a combination thereof (see at least paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 6, Yang et al. (figures 1-3) discloses an electrochromic element, comprising:
a first substrate with a first conductive layer on a surface of the first substrate (see at least paragraph 0042);
a second substrate with a second conductive layer on a surface of the second substrate (see at least paragraph 0042), wherein the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer are disposed opposite to each other;
a gap filler (5) bonded between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer to form an accommodating region between the first substrate, the second substrate, and the gap filler; and
an electrochromic composition filled into the accommodating region, wherein the electrochromic composition comprises: a gel electrolyte, wherein the gel electrolyte comprises:
a solvent base (see at least paragraph 0026); and
a plurality of spherical inorganic nanoparticles dispersed in the solvent base, wherein the plurality of spherical inorganic nanoparticles are bonded to each other through an M-O-M structure, wherein M is Ti, Si, Al, Zr, V, Fe, Ni, Zn, or a combination thereof (Si—O—Si; see at least claim 1);
at least one cathode material (3); and
at least one anode material (1),
wherein at least one of the at least one cathode material and the at least one anode material is electrochromic material (see at least paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 8, Yang et al. (figures 1-3) discloses wherein the solvent base comprises ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, butyrolactone, valerolactone, tetramethylene sulfone, n-methylpyrrolidone, dimethylformamide, dimethylacetamide or a combination thereof (see at least paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 9, Yang et al. (figures 1-3) discloses wherein the at least one cathode material comprises C1-C10 alkyl viologen, phenyl viologen, ester viologen, acyl viologen, carboxy anthraquinone, C1-C8 alkyl anthraquinone, ester anthraquinone, acyl anthracene or a combination thereof (heptyl viologen; see at least paragraphs 0038-0041).
Regarding claim 10, Yang et al. (figures 1-3) discloses wherein the at least one anode material comprises acyl triphenylamine, carbazole triphenylamine, C1-C10 alkylphenazine, phenothiazine, ester phenothiazine, acyl phenothiazine, C1-C8 alkyl phenothiazine, alkoxy phenyl phenothiazine, phenoxazine, ester phenoxazine, acyl phenoxazine, C1-C10 alkyl phenoxazine, p-phenylenediamine, C1-C10 alkyl p-phenylenediamine, ester p-phenylenediamine, acyl p-phenylenediamine, thiophene, C1-C10 alkyl thiophene, ester thiophene, acyl thiophene, nitrile thiophene or a combination thereof (phenothiazine; see at least paragraph 0041).
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 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.
Claims 3, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2018/0191029).
Regarding claim 3, Yang et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Yang et al. is silent regarding wherein a size of the spherical inorganic nanoparticles ranges from 10 nm to 40 nm. Yang et al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein a size of the spherical inorganic nanoparticles ranges from 10 nm to 40 nm (a particle size of about 5 μm to 30 μm; see at least paragraph 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gel electrolyte as taught by Yang et al. in order to improve the stability of electrochromic elements.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Yang et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Yang et al. is silent regarding wherein a solid content of the gel electrolyte ranges from 0.5 wt % to 40 wt %. Yang et al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein a solid content of the gel electrolyte ranges from 0.5 wt % to 40 wt % (the gel electrolyte has a solid content of 2.18 wt %; see at least paragraph 0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gel electrolyte as taught by Yang et al. in order to improve the stability of electrochromic elements.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Yang et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 6 above. However, Yang et al. is silent regarding wherein a size of the spherical inorganic nanoparticles ranges from 10 nm to 40 nm. Yang et al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein a size of the spherical inorganic nanoparticles ranges from 10 nm to 40 nm (a particle size of about 5 μm to 30 μm; see at least paragraph 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gel electrolyte as taught by Yang et al. in order to improve the stability of electrochromic elements.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871