DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/06/2026.
3. Claims 1-5, 7-27 are pending. Claims 1-5, 7, 11-15 are under examination on the merits. Claims 1-4, 7, 14-15 are amended. Claim 6 is cancelled. Claims 8-10, 16-27 are withdrawn to a non-elected invention from further consideration.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus claims 1-5, 7, 11-15 stand rejected as set forth in Office action dated 12/12/2025 and further discussed in the Response to Arguments below.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement submitted on 03/06/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1, recites “wherein the salt is MCIO₄, MPF₆, MBF₄, MAsF6, MSbF6, MCF₃SO₃, MCF₃CO₂, M₂C₂F₄(SO₃)₂, MN(CF₃SO₂)₂, MN(C₂F₅SO₂)₂, MC(CF₃ SO₂)₃, MCₙF₂ₙ₊₁SO₃ wherein 2≤n≤3, MN(RfOSO₂)₂ wherein Rf is a fluoroalkyl group, or a combination thereof”, wherein the improper phrasing of the Markush group renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which members of the group are part of the claimed invention. Markush groups must be stated in the alternative, of which one acceptable form is “…selected from the group consisting of A, B and C.” See MPEP § 2173.05(h). Claims 2-5 being depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claim 7, recites “wherein the salt is as set forth, or a combination thereof”, wherein the improper phrasing of the Markush group renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which members of the group are part of the claimed invention. Markush groups must be stated in the alternative, of which one acceptable form is “…selected from the group consisting of A, B and C.” See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-5, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0141279 A1, hereinafter “’279”) in view of Gregory Allen Sotzing (US Pub. No. 2021/0322365 A1, hereinafter “’365”).
Regarding claim 1,11,13: ‘279 teaches an electrochromic device 100 which is provided with a first electrode 110, an electrochromic layer 120 which is disposed on the first electrode 110, while containing an organic/metal hybrid polymer that contains at least an organic ligand and a metal ion to which the organic ligand is coordinated, an electrolyte layer 130 which is disposed on the electrochromic layer 120, a counter electrode material layer which is disposed on the electrolyte layer 130 and contains a conductive polymer, and a second electrode 150 which is disposed on the counter electrode material layer 140 (Page 4, [0057], Fig. 1). ‘279 teaches the electrochromic layer 120 may further contain an ionic liquid. Here, the ionic liquid can form an ionic bond with the organic/metallic hybrid polymer to form a complex. By forming a complex, it is possible to maintain the counter anion from the adjacent electrolyte layer 130 in the complex, so that quick response properties can be achieved (Page 7, [0083]). Further, ‘279 teaches the electrolyte layer comprises a salt (Page 3, [0028]), wherein the salt is a metal salt such as LiClO4, LiAsF6, LiPF6 (Page 3, [0030]) or ionic liquids such as tetrabutyl ammonium perchlorate (Page 8, [0090]-[0091). It is noted that the term “optionally” excluded an ingredient such as a plasticizer or a solvent in claimed composition. ‘279 does not expressly teach a polycannabinoid, wherein the polycannabinoid comprises a plurality of cannabinoid units, wherein the polycannabinoid has the formula as set forth.
However, ‘365 teaches a polymer (Page 1, [0002]) comprising a salt (Page 15, [0108]-[0109]), and a plurality of cannabinoid units (Page 1, [0019]; Page 22, Claim 1), where in the polymer has the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
68
258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein: CNB is a cannabinoid unit (Page 1, [0012], L is a linking group such as adipic acid (Page 1, [0013]; Page 22, [0177]) and n represents the number of repeat units wherein n is at least 2 (Page 1, [0014]; Page 22, Claim 2), wherein the polymer can be used as a polymer coating or films (Page 1, [0002]).
In an analogous art of the electrochromic device comprising an electrochemical material composition, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochromic layer comprising the organic/metallic hybrid polymer by ‘279, so as to include a polycannabinoid, wherein the polycannabinoid comprises a plurality of cannabinoid units, wherein the polycannabinoid has the formula as set forth (i.e., charge transfer due to oxidation) as taught by ‘365, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a polymer coating or films including polycannabinoid, wherein the polycannabinoid comprises a plurality of cannabinoid units as suggested by ‘365 (Page 1, [0002]).
Thus, it appears that ‘365 disclosure would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to replace 279’s electrochromic layer in providing a polymer coating or films including polycannabinoid, wherein the polycannabinoid comprises a plurality of cannabinoid units. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (in making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”).
Regarding claim 2: The disclosure of ‘279 in view of ‘365 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘365 teaches the composition comprising polymer (Page 1, [0002]), wherein each of the cannabinoid unit is independently derived from CBG, CBD, CBC, CBND, dihydro-DHCBD, CBG-V, CBD- V, CBC-V, CBND-V, or dihydro-DHCBD-V, and wherein each of the cannabinoid unit is bound to the linking group via hydroxyl groups, acid groups, or ester groups on the cannabinoid unit before polymerization (Page 1, [0015]; Page 2, [0019]; Page 22, Claim 3).
Regarding claim 3: The disclosure of ‘279 in view of ‘365 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘365 teaches the composition comprising polymer (Page 1, [0002]), wherein each of the cannabinoid unit has one of the following structures before polymerization as set forth (Page 1, [0016]; Page 22, Claim 4).
Regarding claim 4: The disclosure of ‘279 in view of ‘365 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘365 teaches the composition comprising the polycannabinoid (Page 1, [0002]), further comprises a linear or branched hydrocarbon chain containing from 3 to 50 carbon atoms, optionally interrupted with one or more oxygen atoms or aromatic groups (Page 2, [0017]).
Regarding claim 5: The disclosure of ‘279 in view of ‘365 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference ‘365 teaches the composition comprising polymer (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the polycannabinoid is poly(cannabidiol terephthalate) (Page 12, [0070]).
Regarding claim 12: The disclosure of ‘279 in view of ‘365 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference ‘279 teaches an article comprising the electrochromic material, wherein the articles is a display element, a light control element, and an electronic paper (Page 15, [0179]).
Regarding claims 14-15: The disclosure of ‘279 in view of ‘365 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference ‘279 teaches an electrochromic device 100 which is provided with a first electrode 110, an electrochromic layer 120 which is disposed on the first electrode 110, while containing an organic/metal hybrid polymer that contains at least an organic ligand and a metal ion to which the organic ligand is coordinated, an electrolyte layer 130 which is disposed on the electrochromic layer 120, a counter electrode material layer which is disposed on the electrolyte layer 130 and contains a conductive polymer, and a second electrode 150 which is disposed on the counter electrode material layer 140 (Page 4, [0057], Fig. 1). Higuch teaches the electrolyte layer comprises a salt (Page 3, [0028]), wherein the salt is a metal salt such as LiClO4, LiAsF6, LiPF6 (Page 3, [0030]) or ionic liquids such as tetrabutylammonium perchlorate (Page 8, [0090]-[0091) with benefit of providing the electrochromic device uses a conductive polymer as a counter electrode material to cover an electrode surface of a counter electrode, thereby making it possible to suppress the electrode surface deterioration due to repeated energization even in a high temperature environment. As a result, stable cycle characteristics can be achieved even in a high temperature environment (Page 3, [0040]).
12. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0141279 A1, hereinafter “’279”) in view of Gregory Allen Sotzing (US Pub. No. 2021/0322365 A1, hereinafter “’365”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leyland et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0182705 A1, hereinafter “’705”).
Regarding claim 7: The disclosure of ‘279 in view of ‘365 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘279 teaches any ionic liquid in which the organic/metallic hybrid polymer forms an ionic bond can be employed. Specific examples thereof include a combination of at least one anion selected from the group consisting of tetrafluoroborate, hexafluorophosphate, bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl) imide, and bis(penta fluoroethylsulfonyl) imide, with at least one cation selected from the group consisting of imidazolium, pyrrolidinium, and tetraalkylammonium, but the ionic liquid is not limited to these examples.’279 in view of ‘365 does expressly teach the salt is selected from the group as set forth.
However, ‘705 teaches an electrochromic display which is protected from the effects of the electrolyte. Because of their ionic character, electrolytes can cause corrosion and affect the performance of active-matrix circuits or high conductivity electrodes in passive or direct-drive displays (Page 4, [0044]). ‘705 teaches in addition to gel or polymers, suitable ionic liquids may be used to minimize corrosive effects. Preferable ionic liquids include, but are not limited to 1-butyl-3- methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate (BMIM BF₄) (Page 4, [0044]).
In an analogous art of the electrochromic device comprising an electrochemical material composition, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ioinuc liquid by ‘279, so as to include an ionic slat as set forth as taught by ‘705, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to minimize corrosive effects in electrolytes as suggested by ‘705 (Page 4, [0044]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the substitution of equivalents (i.e., in view of the art recognized functional equivalence of the two
Ionic liquid compounds) requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v Linde Air Products Co., 85 USPQ 328 (USSC).
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive,
In response to Applicant’s argument that that claim rejection allegedly anticipated by Sotzing’365 should be withdrawn in view of amendment.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument unpersuasive because it fails to recognize that the new rejection is based on the combination of Higuchi ’279 in view of Sotzing ’365 references, not any single reference alone. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981).
In response to Applicant’s argument that rejection under Mishra in view of Sotzing should be withdrawn in view of amendment.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant's argument is rendered moot since the claim rejection under Mishra in view of Sotzing is deemed withdrawn. The new rejection is based on the combination of Higuchi ’279 in view of Sotzing ’365. ‘279 teaches an electrochromic device 100 which is provided with a first electrode 110, an electrochromic layer 120 which is disposed on the first electrode 110, while containing an organic/metal hybrid polymer that contains at least an organic ligand and a metal ion to which the organic ligand is coordinated, an electrolyte layer 130 which is disposed on the electrochromic layer 120, a counter electrode material layer which is disposed on the electrolyte layer 130 and contains a conductive polymer, and a second electrode 150 which is disposed on the counter electrode material layer 140 (Page 4, [0057], Fig. 1). ‘279 teaches the electrochromic layer 120 may further contain an ionic liquid. Here, the ionic liquid can form an ionic bond with the organic/metallic hybrid polymer to form a complex. By forming a complex, it is possible to maintain the counter anion from the adjacent electrolyte layer 130 in the complex, so that quick response properties can be achieved (Page 7, [0083]). Further, ‘279 teaches the electrolyte layer comprises a salt (Page 3, [0028]), wherein the salt is a metal salt such as LiClO4, LiAsF6, LiPF6 (Page 3, [0030]) or ionic liquids such as tetrabutyl ammonium perchlorate (Page 8, [0090]-[0091). It is noted that the term “optionally” excluded an ingredient such as a plasticizer or a solvent in claimed composition. ‘279 does not expressly teach a polycannabinoid, wherein the polycannabinoid comprises a plurality of cannabinoid units, wherein the polycannabinoid has the formula as set forth.
However, ‘365 teaches a polymer (Page 1, [0002]) comprising a salt (Page 15, [0108]-[0109]), and a plurality of cannabinoid units (Page 1, [0019]; Page 22, Claim 1), where in the polymer has the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
68
258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein: CNB is a cannabinoid unit (Page 1, [0012], L is a linking group such as adipic acid (Page 1, [0013]; Page 22, [0177]) and n represents the number of repeat units wherein n is at least 2 (Page 1, [0014]; Page 22, Claim 2), wherein the polymer can be used as a polymer coating or films (Page 1, [0002]).
In an analogous art of the electrochromic device comprising an electrochemical material composition, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochromic layer comprising the organic/metallic hybrid polymer by ‘279, so as to include a polycannabinoid, wherein the polycannabinoid comprises a plurality of cannabinoid units, wherein the polycannabinoid has the formula as set forth (i.e., charge transfer due to oxidation) as taught by ‘365, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a polymer coating or films including polycannabinoid, wherein the polycannabinoid comprises a plurality of cannabinoid units as suggested by ‘365 (Page 1, [0002]).
Thus, it appears that ‘365 disclosure would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to replace 279’s electrochromic layer in providing a polymer coating or films including polycannabinoid, wherein the polycannabinoid comprises a plurality of cannabinoid units. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (in making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”).
14. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner Information
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
03/31/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights