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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/23/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the term “(10)” in line 2 should be deleted. Also, the multiple spaces in the phrases “programmed function which assigns a voltage ramp to each temperature in a predefined” need to be corrected.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 10-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 recites the limitation " the switching time tSwitch" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claim to mean “wherein the control unit is suitable for applying the electrical voltage to a first segment of the at least two separate segments and is suitable for applying the electrical voltage to a further segment of the at least two separate segments”.
Regarding claim 10-13, the claim states " a method comprising controlling a glazing unit with electrically controllable optical properties, in which a glazing unit according to claim 1” in claim 1 is a relative limitation which renders the claim indefinite. The claim, as written, fails to clearly establish where the preamble ends. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claim is understood by the examiner to mean “a method, in which a glazing unit according to claim 1, comprising controlling a glazing unit with electrically controllable optical properties”.
Claims 18 recites the limitation " the same switching state" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claim to mean “wherein the at least two separate segments are changed”.
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, 3, 4, 7, 10, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reichmann (WO Patent Number 9837453 A1).
Reichmann teaches, as claimed in claim 1, a glazing unit with electrically controllable optical properties (Fig. 1 and 3), comprising a laminated pane (10 and 22) with a functional element (14 and 18) having electrically controllable optical properties (Page 6, paragraph 1 “the layers 14, 18 are collectively referred to as electrochromic layers 14, 18, without the scope of the method according to the invention being restricted to electrochromic elements with two layers which can be colored”), and a control unit (Fig. 3 “controller”) electrically connected to the functional element (Fig. 3 “e-c element”), wherein the control unit (Fig. 3 “controller”) has a data set (Page 8, paragraph 5 “controller includes, among other things, means for performing the required calculations (for example a microprocessor), for inputting and outputting measurement and control variables and for storing the control parameters and other variables”)
which assigns a voltage ramp to each temperature in a predefined temperature range ( Page 9, paragraph 6 “As soon as the voltage U reaches the final value U .sub.max …A simple relationship for the temperature dependence of the final value U .sub.Bax results from the equation already mentioned above (1) U .sub.max = A - B .sup.• T” ) , wherein the control unit (Fig. 3 “controller”) is suitable for ascertaining the temperature (Page 8, paragraph 4 “the temperature of the electrochromic element is generally determined using a suitable temperature sensor (denoted by T), the measured values of which are queried by the controller”) selecting a voltage ramp from the data set on the basis of the ascertained temperature (Page 11, first paragraph “the parameters required for the control of the coloring process and the decoloring process according to the invention were determined in a series of preliminary tests (cyclic voltammetry, cyclic recoloring at different temperatures over up to 1000 cycles of electrochromic elements of the same type). For U .sob’s ...., .-, cyclovoltaic investigations resulted in amounts of 2 V (20 ° C) and 1 V (80 ° C) for both types of recoloring process”) and applying the electrical voltage with the calculated voltage ramp to the functional element1 (Fig.3, Page 11, first paragraph “This resulted in the values of parameters A and 3 for equation (1) for A = 4 V and B = 0.025 V / ° C (temperature T m ° C), .sub.i.e. U .sub.nax = 4 V - 0.025 V / ° CT for the Single color process --> and U .sub.max = -4 V + 0.025 V / ° C .sup.• T for the decolorization process. It can be seen from FIGS. 5 and 6 that the voltage U was steadily increased or decreased, starting from an open-circuit voltage of approximately 0.7 V (coloring) or + 0.7 V individual coloring, the starting phase during Coloring process after about 16 s and in the decolorization process after about 12 s by reaching the final value U.sub.max of + 3.5 V or - 3.5 V was completed”).
Reichmann teaches, as claimed in claim 3, wherein the functional element (14 and 18) is divided into at least two separate segments (14 and 18) and each segment (14 and 18) is electrically connected to the control unit (Fig. 3 “controller” and “e-clement”) so that the electrical voltage with the calculated voltage ramp can be applied for each segment independently of one another2 (24 and 26, Page 7, last paragraph “a voltage U is applied to the electrical connections 24 and 26 (FIG. 1) of the electrochromic element”).
Reichmann teaches, as claimed in claim 4, wherein the control unit (Fig. 3 “controller”) is suitable for applying the electrical voltage to a first segment of the at least two separate segments (14 and 18) and is suitable for applying the electrical voltage to a further segment of the at least two separate segments (Page 7, last paragraph “a voltage U is applied to the electrical connections 24 and 26 (FIG. 1) of the electrochromic element”).
Reichmann teaches, as claimed in claim 7, wherein the laminated pane (10 and 22) has an outer pane (10) and an inner pane (22), and the functional element (14 and 18) is arranged between the outer pane (10) and the inner pane (22).
Reichmann teach, as claimed in claim 10, a method comprising controlling a glazing unit with electrically controllable optical properties, wherein the control unit (Fig. 3 “controller”) ascertains the temperature, selects a voltage ramp from the data set on the basis of the ascertained temperature or calculates it by means of the programmed function (Page 8, paragraph 4 “the temperature of the electrochromic element is generally determined using a suitable temperature sensor (denoted by T), the measured values of which are queried by the controller”), and applies an electrical voltage with the selected or calculated voltage ramp to the functional element (Fig.3, Page 11, first paragraph “This resulted in the values of parameters A and 3 for equation (1) for A = 4 V and B = 0.025 V / ° C (temperature T m ° C), .sub.i.e. U .sub.nax = 4 V - 0.025 V / ° CT for the single color process and U .sub.max = -4 V + 0.025 V / ° C .sup.• T for the decolorization process. It can be seen from FIGS. 5 and 6 that the voltage U was steadily increased or decreased, starting from an open-circuit voltage of approximately 0.7 V (coloring) or + 0.7 V individual coloring, the starting phase during coloring process after about 16 s and in the decolorization process after about 12 s by reaching the final value U.sub.max of + 3.5 V or - 3.5 V was completed”).
Reichmann teaches, as claimed in claim 15, a method comprising providing a glazing unit as a window pane of a vehicle (Page 2, last paragraph “electrochromic element used in motor vehicles as a window pane”).
Reichmann teaches, as claimed in claim 18, wherein the at least two separate segments (14 and 18) are changed (Page 6, paragraph 1 “the layers 14, 18 are collectively referred to as electrochromic layers 14, 18...electrochromic elements with two layers which can be colored”).
Reichmann teaches, as claimed in claim 19, wherein the window pane is a side pane, windshield, rear pane or roof pane (Page 2, last paragraph “electrochromic element used in motor vehicles as a window pane”).
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.
Claims 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichmann (WO Patent Number 9837453 A1) in view of May (US Patent Publication Number 2006/0279839 A1).
Reichmann fails to teach, as claimed in claim 6, wherein the functional element is a PDLC functional element or an SPD functional element. In a related art, May teaches wherein the functional element is a PDLC functional element (¶0017 “the active layer 116 may be a continuous dichroic-doped PDLC layer that appears white (or black) in color under a no voltage condition”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glazing unit, as taught by Reichmann, with the functional element, as taught by May, for the purpose of providing an electrochromic material active layer that may enable the screen to switch from white to gray or white to clear (¶0017).
Reichmann fails to teach, as claimed in claim 8, wherein the functional element has an active layer between a first planar electrode and a second planar electrode and the electrically controllable optical properties of the functional element are determined by the active layer. In a related art, May teaches wherein the functional element has an active layer (116, ¶0017 “the active 116 may be an optically and/or electrically active layer that responds to the application of light or voltage across itself with a change in its absorbance and/or reflectivity”) between a first planar electrode (118) and a second planar electrode (115) and the electrically controllable optical properties of the functional element are determined by the active layer (¶0017 “the active layer 116 may be a continuous dichroic-doped PDLC layer that appears white (or black) in color under a no voltage condition”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glazing unit, as taught by Reichmann, with the functional element that has an active layer, as taught by May, for the purpose of providing an electrochromic material active layer that may enable the screen to switch from white to gray or white to clear (¶0017).
Reichmann teach, as claimed in claim 9, wherein the first electrode is formed on the basis of indium tin oxide (ITO) (Page 10, paragraph 4 “transparent electrode layers 12, 20 made of ITO (indium tin oxide)”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichmann (WO Patent Number 9837453 A1) in view of Berard (US Patent Publication Number 2018/0074251 A1).
Reichmann teach, as claimed in claim 11, wherein the temperature of the functional element (14 and 18) is measured with a temperature sensor. Reichmann fails to teach a temperature sensor attached to the laminated pane. In a related art, Berard teaches temperature sensor attached to the laminated pane (¶0106 “a laminated glazing unit including said first glazing pane made of preferably clear or extra-clear mineral glass” and ¶0202 “a temperature sensor (exterior sensor or sensor integrated into the glass)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glazing unit, as taught by Reichmann, with the temperature sensor attached to the laminated pane, as taught by Berard, for the purpose of providing a way to significantly decrease the maximum temperatures of which the light sources that may be exposed (¶0203).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichmann (WO Patent Number 9837453 A1) in view of Saenger (US Patent Publication Number 2021/0048706 A1).
Reichmann fails to teach, as claimed in claim 12, wherein an impedance of the functional element is ascertained by means of the control unit, and wherein the temperature of the functional element is calculated by means of the impedance. In a related art, Saenger teaches wherein an impedance of the functional element (¶0003 “EO media such as electrochromic materials”) is ascertained by means of the control unit (“a selected EO element 100 such as … the impedance of a field effect device in order to calculate the effective temperature of the EO media and target certain optical state specified by the controller or the user”) and wherein the temperature of the functional element is calculated by means of the impedance (¶0043 “a selected EO element 100 such as steady state current for a non-memory electro-optic device, the draw current of an electro-optic memory device or the impedance of a field effect device in order to calculate the effective temperature of the EO media and target certain optical state specified by the controller or the user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glazing unit, as taught by Reichmann, with the impedance of the functional element is ascertained by means of the control unit, as taught by Saenger, for the purpose of providing a way to maintain a desired level of light transmission upon the removal of the electric potential (¶0004).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichmann (WO Patent Number 9837453 A1) in view of Zedlitz (US Patent Publication Number 2020/0057346 A1).
Reichmann fails to teach, as claimed in claim 14, a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which is installed in the control unit of a glazing unit. In a related art, Zedlitz teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which is installed in the control unit (10) of a glazing unit (¶0030 “a computer program product for controlling the tint of tintable windows on a network using an event-based model, the computer program product including computer-readable program code capable of being executed by processors when retrieved from a non-transitory computer-readable medium”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glazing unit, as taught by Reichmann, with a non-transitory computer readable medium, as taught by Zedlitz, for the purpose of providing a way to control of the amount of light that passes through the windows (¶0007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 5 and 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 2, which include the functional element comprises at least two switching states with different optical properties and there is a temperature with a time tmax that corresponds to the longest possible switching time required, wherein each voltage ramp selected or calculated on the basis of the ascertained temperature results in a switching time tswitch that is longer than or equal to tmax, so that the switching time tswitch results when an electrical voltage is applied to the functional element.
Remaining claims 5, 16 and 17 have dependency upon allowable independent claim 1.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 13, wherein the control unit is connected to a DC voltage source and is equipped with a DC voltage converter, which converts a primary voltage of the DC voltage source into a higher secondary voltage, and is equipped with an inverter, which converts the secondary voltage into an AC voltage, which is applied to the functional element, and wherein the control unit ascertains the impedance of the functional element from a measurement of the current consumption of the inverter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cardinal (US Patent Number 6,369,935 B1) teaches a glazing unit with electrically controllable optical properties comprising a laminated pane with a functional element having electrically controllable optical properties.
Torr (US Patent Publication Number 2010/0221461 A1) teaches a glazing unit with electrically controllable optical properties comprising a laminated pane with a functional element having electrically controllable optical properties.
Mehtani (US Patent Publication Number 2012/0236386 A1) teaches a glazing unit with electrically controllable optical properties comprising a laminated pane with a functional element having electrically controllable optical properties.
Pradhan (US Patent Publication Number 2020/0073193 A1) teaches a glazing unit with electrically controllable optical properties comprising a laminated pane with a functional element having electrically controllable optical properties.
Melcher (US Patent Number 10,466,392 B1) teaches a glazing unit with electrically controllable optical properties comprising a laminated pane with a functional element having electrically controllable optical properties.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
15 April 2026
/RICKY L MACK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Page 2, paragraph 4 teaches the electrochromic element has at least one electrochromic layer which can be reversibly colored”. Therefore, electrochromic layers 14 and 18 would be where the coloring and decoloring takes place in reference to the voltage.
2 Segment 14 receives voltage from the connection 24 and segment 18 receives voltage from connection 26 which are independent from each other.
Prosecution Insights