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 Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, filed on April 13th, 2026, with respect to the 112 rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the 112 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (WO 2022/133407 A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches an apparatus (See, e.g., insulated glass unit (IGU) 605 in Fig. 6 which includes electrochemical device 105 and bus bars) comprising:
a first conductive layer (See, e.g., layer 505 in Fig. 5);
a second conductive layer (See, e.g., layer 535 in Fig. 5);
an active stack between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer, the active stack comprising an electrochromic material (See, e.g., the combination of layers 515, 525c and 545 in Fig. 5 and page 15 line 28 to page 16 line 7);
a first bus bar electrically coupled to the first conductive layer (See, e.g., bus bar 110 in Fig. 5 and page 17 lines 4-13 which explain this); and
a second bus bar electrically coupled to the second conductive layer (See, e.g., bus bar 120 in Fig. 5 and page 17 lines 4-13 which explain this), wherein the active stack, the first bus bar, and the second bus bar are completely between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer (See, e.g., Fig. 5 and note that insofar as the two bus bars do not extend past the top surface of layer 535 or 505 this limitation is met, as the claim does not specify what exactly “completely between” means here structurally).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the first bus bar and the second bus bar are adjacent to each other on at least one edge of the active stack (See, e.g., the top surface of layer 525 which corresponds to an edge of the active stack, and note the two bus bars shown in Fig. 2B have portions adjacent to each other).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches a first substrate, wherein the active stack is between the second conductive layer and the first substrate (See, e.g., substrate 625 in Fig. 6 and note given the construction of element 105 in Fig. 5 and the position of element 105 in Fig. 6 this limitation is met).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches a second substrate, wherein the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer are between the first substrate and the second substrate (See, e.g., pane 635 in Fig. 6 and the position of element 105 between substrate 625 and pane 635).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the first bus bar comprises one or more segments that are adjacent to the active stack (See, e.g., Fig. 5 which shows this).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the second bus bar comprises one or more segments that are adjacent to the active stack (See, e.g., Fig. 5 which shows this).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the first bus bar is closer to an edge of the active stack than the second bus bar (See, e.g., Fig. 5 and note when the edge is taken to be the left edge this is the case in the view shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the second bus bar is closer to an edge of the active stack than the first bus bar (See, e.g., Fig. 5 and note when the edge is taken to be the right edge this is the case in the view shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the first bus bar is about equidistant from an edge of the active stack as the second bus bar (See, e.g., Fig. 5 and note when the edge is taken to be the top surface of layer 525 this is the case in the view shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the one or more segments of the second bus bar are continuous (See, e.g., the bus bar configuration of Fig. 3 which shows this).
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the one or more segments of the first bus bar are continuous (See, e.g., the bus bar configuration of Fig. 3 which shows this).
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches an apparatus (See, e.g., insulated glass unit (IGU) 605 in Fig. 6 which includes electrochemical device 105 and bus bars) comprising:
a first conductive layer comprising a first side and a second side, wherein the first side is opposite the second side (See, e.g., layer 505 in Fig. 5 and here the first side is taken to be the top side and the second side is taken to be the bottom side);
a second conductive layer, a first side and a second side, wherein the first side is opposite the second side (See, e.g., layer 535 in Fig. 5 and here the first side is taken to be the bottom side and the second side is taken to be the top side), and wherein the first side of the first conductive layer faces the first side of the second conductive layer (See, e.g., Fig. 5);
an active stack between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer, the active stack comprising an electrochromic material (See, e.g., the combination of layers 515, 525c and 545 in Fig. 5 and page 15 line 28 to page 16 line 7);
a first bus bar electrically coupled to the first conductive layer, wherein the first bus bar is adjacent to the first side of the first conductive layer (See, e.g., bus bar 110 in Fig. 5 and page 17 lines 4-13 which explain this, note that the bus bar and conductive layer are adjacent insofar as adjacent can mean adjoining something else and these elements are adjoined via the cited active stack);
a second bus bar electrically coupled to the second conductive layer, wherein the second bus bar is adjacent to the first side of the second conductive layer (See, e.g., bus bar 120 in Fig. 5 and page 17 lines 4-13 which explain this).
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the second bus bar comprises at least two segments and the first bus bar comprises at least two segments (See, e.g., the bus bar configuration shown in Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the at least two segments of the second bus bar are continuous (See, e.g., the bus bar configuration shown in Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches the at least two segments of the first bus bar are continuous (See, e.g., the bus bar configuration shown in Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein at least one segment of the at least two segments of the second bus bar is closer to a first side of the active stack than any of the at least two segments of the first bus bar (See, e.g., Fig. 5 and note when the first side of the active stack is taken to be the right side this is the case) and wherein at least one segment of the at least two segments of the first bus bar is parallel to at least one segment of the at least two segments of the second bus bar (See, e.g., the bus bar configuration of Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein at least one segment of the at least two segments of the first bus bar is closer to a second side of the active stack than any of the at least two segments of the second bus bar (See, e.g., Fig. 5 and note when the second side of the active stack is taken to be the left side this is the case).
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches a method of operating an apparatus (See, e.g., insulated glass unit (IGU) 605 in Fig. 6 which includes electrochemical device 105 and bus bars) comprising:
providing an electroactive device, the electroactive device comprising:
a first conductive layer (See, e.g., layer 505 in Fig. 5);
a second conductive layer (See, e.g., layer 525 in Fig. 5);
an active stack between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer (See, e.g., the combination of layers 515, 525c and 545 in Fig. 5 and page 15 line 28 to page 16 line 7), the active stack comprising:
an anodic electrochemical layer (See, e.g., page 16 lines 1-7 which explains layer 525 is anodic); and
a cathodic electrochemical layer (See, e.g., page 16 lines 1-7 which explains layer 515 is cathodic);
a first bus bar electrically coupled to the first conductive layer (See, e.g., bus bar 110 in Fig. 5 and page 17 lines 4-13 which explain this);
a second bus bar electrically coupled to the second conductive layer, wherein the wherein the active stack, the first bus bar, and the second bus bar are completely between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer (See, e.g., Fig. 5 and note that insofar as the two bus bars do not extend past the top surface of layer 535 or 505 this limitation is met, as the claim does not specify what exactly “completely between” means here structurally);
switching the electroactive device from a first transmission state to a graded transmission state, wherein switching the electroactive device comprises biasing the first bus bar to a first voltage and biasing the second bus bar to a second voltage different from the first voltage (See, e.g., page 3 lines 16-30 and page 4 lines 10-20 which explain this, note that the first transmission state here is taken to be when the voltages are zero, i.e. when the device is turned off, and the second state is taken to be the graded transmission state explained herein); and
maintaining the graded transmission state (See, e.g., page 3 lines 16-30 which explain this).
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 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wang et al. (WO 2022/133407 A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the electrochromic material comprises more than one layer (See, e.g., Fig. 5 which shows this) but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the combined thickness of the electrochromic material is greater than a combined thickness of the first bus bar and the second bus bar.
However, the combined thicknesses of the electrochromic material and bus bars correspond to result effective variables, in the instant case there are a finite number of solutions (the thicknesses are either the same or one is larger than another) and the changing the ranges of these thicknesses affects the stability and optical transmission of the device. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, 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 thicknesses of the electro chromic material and bus bars to each be in a range that satisfies this limitation for the purpose of optimizing the stability and compactness of the device among other things.
Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the electrochromic material comprises more than one layer (See, e.g., Fig. 5 which shows this) but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the combined thickness of the electrochromic material is less than a combined thickness of the first bus bar and the second bus bar.
However, the combined thicknesses of the electrochromic material and bus bars correspond to result effective variables, in the instant case there are a finite number of solutions (the thicknesses are either the same or one is larger than another) and the changing the ranges of these thicknesses affects the stability and optical transmission of the device. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, 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 thicknesses of the electro chromic material and bus bars to each be in a range that satisfies this limitation for the purpose of optimizing the stability and compactness of the device among other things.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on April 13th, 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Specifically, applicant’s single big issue is the alleged fact that certain cited elements are not “completely” between other elements in various claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees, pointing to the rejection of record above. Examiner contends that “completely between” can have various meanings, as explained in the rejection of record above, and if applicant wants a specific meaning, then structural language to that effect should be included. Accordingly the prior art rejections of the claims have been maintained.
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 Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights