DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2024 and 2/20/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 2-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, cited term of “wherein the one or more measured parameters correlate with a current optical density at the specified tint state” (line 3-4) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. Invention claims that a calibrated drive parameter for the electrochromic device are generated from the one or more measured parameters correlate with a current optical density at the specified tint state (line 3-6). But claim does not given how to determined/find the specified tint state from a plurality of optical transitions and tint states in the electrochromic device (7-8). A step of determining/finding the specified tint state is missing in claim, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. It is unclear how to determine/choose the specified tint state from a plurality of tint states of the electrochromic device.
Claims 3-9 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 10 has same undefined issue as that of claim 1 in line 5-6.
Claims 11-17 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 10 through their dependency from claim 10.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 2- 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of US patent US 11482147. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of that of the present invention are disclosed in the respective claims of US 11482147and are therefore anticipated by said claims. This is a obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
For comparison, the claims 2-9 of instant application with claims of 1-8 of US 11482147 are listed as follows side by side in the following table:
Claims of instant application: 18777268
Claims of US patent 11482147
Claim 2: A method of calibrating an electrochromic device to produce an intended optical density at a specified tint state, the method comprising:
(a) measuring one or more parameters of the electrochromic device, wherein the one or more measured parameters correlate with a current optical density at the specified tint state;
(b) applying the one or more measured parameters to a transfer function to generate a calibrated drive parameter for the electrochromic device;
(c) configuring control logic for controlling optical transitions and tint states in the electrochromic device, wherein the configuring comprises applying the calibrated drive parameter; and
(d) applying the calibrated drive parameter to the electrochromic device to produce the intended optical density at the specified tint state in the electrochromic device.
Claim 1: A method of calibrating an electrochromic device to produce an adjusted optical density at a specified tint state, wherein the adjusted optical density has a first variance from an intended optical density for the specified tint state, the method comprising:
(a) measuring one or more parameters of the electrochromic device, wherein the one or more measured parameters
correlate with an unadjusted optical density at the specified tint state, the unadjusted optical density having a second variance from the intended optical density, the second variance being greater than the first variance;
(b) applying the one or more measured parameters to a transfer function to generate a calibrated drive parameter
for the electrochromic device, wherein the transfer function was produced from a training set of electrochromic devices;
( c) configuring control logic for controlling one or more optical transitions and/or states in the electrochromic device, wherein the configuring comprises applying the
calibrated drive parameter; and
( d) applying the calibrated drive parameter to the electrochromic
device to induce the adjusted optical density at the specified tint state in the electrochromic device.
Claim 3: The method of claim 2, wherein the electrochromic device has a baseline optical density for the specified tint state and the intended optical density at a specified tint state is within about +/- 0.07 from the baseline optical density.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusted optical density at a specified tint state is within about +/-0.07 from the baseline optical density.
Claim 4: The method of claim 2, wherein the transfer function is time-variant and employs an input variable that accounts for the age of the device.
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein the transfer function is
time-variant and employs an input variable that accounts for the age of the device.
Claim 5: The method of claim 2, further comprising applying the method to a plurality of electrochromic devices so that variation in optical density at the specified tint state of the plurality of electrochromic devices is reduced to less than about 0.1.
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, further comprising applying the method to a plurality of electrochromic devices so that variation in optical density at the specified tint state of the plurality of electrochromic devices is reduced to less than about 0.1.
Claim 6: The method of claim 2, wherein the one or more measured parameters are selected from the group of parameters consisting of open circuit voltage, leakage current, sheet resistance, and temperature.
Claim 5: The method of claim 1, wherein one or more measured parameters are selected from the group of parameters consisting of open circuit voltage, leakage current, sheet resistance,
and temperature.
Claim 7: The method of claim 6, wherein the one or more measured parameters includes temperature.
Claim 6: The method of claim 5, wherein the one or more measured parameters includes temperature
Claim 8: The method of claim 2, wherein measuring the one or more parameters of the electrochromic device comprises automatically measuring the one or more parameters, without direct manual user intervention.
Claim 7: The method of claim 1, wherein measuring the one or more parameters of the electrochromic device comprises
automatically measuring the one or more parameters, without direct manual user intervention
Claim 9: The method of claim 2, wherein the transfer function models a linear time-invariant system between one or more input variables comprising the one or more measured parameters and one or more output variables comprising the calibrated drive parameter.
Claim 8: The method of claim 1, wherein the transfer function models a linear time-invariant system between one or more input variables comprising the one or more measured parameters
and one or more output variables comprising the calibrated drive parameter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected as having 112 issues and double patenting, but would be allowable if the rejections are overcome by proper amendments.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
In regard to independent claims 2 and 10, the closest prior art is US 20100172010 of Gustavsson et al.
Regarding Claims 2 and 10, Gustavsson teaches a method of calibrating an electrochromic device to produce an intended optical density at a specified tint state (abstract; fig. 5A-B; figs. 8 and 13; ¶[0110], line 1-17), the method comprising:
(a) measuring one or more parameters of the electrochromic device, wherein the one or more measured parameters correlate with a current optical density at the specified tint state (figs. 8 and 13; fig. 5A, 214; ¶[0082], line 1-11);
(c) configuring control logic for controlling optical transitions and tint states in the electrochromic device, wherein the configuring comprises applying the calibrated drive parameter (fig. 5A, 214, 216, 218, 220, 222; ¶[0110], line 1-17); and
(d) applying the calibrated drive parameter to the electrochromic device to produce the intended optical density at the specified tint state in the electrochromic device (fig. 5A, 214, 216, 218, 220, 222; ¶[0078], line 1-3).
But Gustavsson fails to teaches wherein (b) applying the one or more measured parameters to a transfer function to generate a calibrated drive parameter for the electrochromic device.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application 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 application 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 Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights