DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to a communication filed on July 7, 2026. Claims 1-29 are pending in the application.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections regarding claims 1-10 from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
All rejections regarding claims 13-29 from the previous office action are maintained.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitzek (S. Saitzek, Thermochromic CeO2–VO2 bilayers: Role of ceria coating in optical switching properties, Optical Materials 2007(30), pp. 407-415), as evidenced by Schmitt (R. Schmitt, A review of defect structure and chemistry in ceria and its solid solutions, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2020 (49), pp. 554-592).
Regarding claim 1, Saitzek teaches a structure ([Abstract]: bilayers of thermochromic vanadium dioxide (VO2) and cerium dioxide (CeO2)) comprising:
one or more base materials ([Abstract]: the VO2 phase was first deposited on an amorphous substrate); and
one or more ceria surface structures at least partially surrounding the one or more base materials ([Abstract]: then a ceria layer was deposited on the VO2 film; thus the ceria layer partially surrounding the VO2 layer).
wherein defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures are reversibly controllable by controlling a stress on the one or more ceria surface structures that is at least partially induced by the one or more base materials (p. 407, bridging para. of col. 1-2: vanadium dioxide VO2 has a thermochromic transition at 68 ⁰C; as evidenced by Schmitt, the defects can exist in ceria as a result of partial reduction of Ce4+ to Ce3+, and the reduction is generally favored at high temperature and on surfaces, which is implicated in the high catalytic activity of ceria for a variety of redox reactions due to this reversible and easy reduction (p. 555, col. 2, para. 2), thus, when the temperature changes passing the thermochromic transition point, it would necessarily not only induce phase transition of VO2, but cause a reversible stress on the ceria layer, which would result in reversibly controllable ceria surface structure by controlling the temperature).
Further, the designation “wherein defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures are reversibly controllable by controlling a stress on the one or more ceria surface structures that is at least partially induced by the one or more base materials” is directed to functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Saitzek does not teach wherein the one or more ceria surface structures comprise a thickness of less than approximately 10 nanometers.
However, Saitzek teaches ceria is well known for its optical transparency in the infrared range and its protective role from UV radiations, and the ceria layer is to protect VO2 from environment aggressions without degrading the optical contrasts due to its thermochromic transition (p. 408, col. 1, para. 4). The ceria coating has an influence on optical properties of thermochromic VO2 thin films because ceria thickness plays a certain role in emissivity of bilayers, involving variable infrared response (p. 408, col. 1, last para.), and thus rendering the thickness of ceria surface layer a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saitzek by adjusting the thickness of the CeO2 coating layer within the claimed range because its thickness is a result-effective variable and can be optimized through routine experimentation to obtain desirable emissivity of the bilayers (p. 408, col. 1, last para.). MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B).
Regarding claim 2, Saitzek teaches wherein the one or more base materials (VO2) provide a reversible temperature-controlled (p. 407, bridging para. of col. 1-2: vanadium dioxide VO2 has a thermochromic transition at 68 ⁰C, directly associated with a reversible structural change at the transition temperature) stress on the one or more ceria surface structures (cerium dioxide layer), wherein the defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures are reversibly controllable by controlling a temperature of at least the one or more base materials (as evidenced by Schmitt, the defects can exist in ceria as a result of partial reduction of Ce4+ to Ce3+, and the reduction is generally favored at high temperature and on surfaces, which is implicated in the high catalytic activity of ceria for a variety of redox reactions due to this reversible and easy reduction (p. 555, col. 2, para. 2), thus, when the temperature changes passing the thermochromic transition point, it would necessarily not only induce phase transition of VO2, but cause reversible stress on the ceria layer, which would result in reversible defect states of ceria that is controllable by controlling the temperature).
Further, the designation “wherein the one or more base materials provide a reversible temperature-controlled stress on the one or more ceria surface structures, wherein the defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures are reversibly controllable by controlling a temperature of at least the one or more base materials” is directed to functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 3, Saitzek teaches wherein the one or more base materials comprises: Vanadium oxide (VO2) ([Abstract]: VO2).
Regarding claim 4, Saitzek teaches wherein the defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures comprise: a ratio of Ce3+ to Ce4+ ions (as evidenced by Schmitt, the defects can exist in ceria as a result of partial reduction of Ce4+ to Ce3+, and thus the defect states are represented by the ratio of Ce3+ to Ce4+ ions).
Regarding claim 5, Saitzek teaches wherein the structure is a layered heterostructure ([Abstract]: bilayer), wherein the one or more base materials are formed as one or more layers ([Abstract] the VO2 layer between the substrate and the ceria layer).
Regarding claim 6, Saitzek discloses all limitations of claim 5, but fail to teach wherein the one or more base materials have a thickness of less than approximately 10 nanometers.
However, Saitzek teaches the optical properties of the VO2 thin films depend on many parameters, including film thickness (p. 408, col. 1, para. 4), rendering the thickness of VO2 thin film a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saitzek by adjusting the thickness of the VO2 thin film within the claimed range because its thickness is a result-effective variable and can be optimized through routine experimentation to obtain desirable optical properties (p. 408, col. 1, para. 4). MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B).
Regarding claim 7, Saitzek discloses all limitations of claim 5, including wherein the one or more ceria surface structures comprise: a surface layer with a thickness of less than approximately 10 nanometers (as described in claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Saitzek teaches the structure further comprising a substrate ([Abstract]: an amorphous substrate).
Regarding claim 9, Saitzek teaches wherein the substrate comprises: a semiconductor wafer (p. 408, col. 2, para. 1: VO2 thin layer deposited on silica substrate).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini (M. Saini, VO2(M)@CeO2 core-shell nanospheres for thermochromic smart windows and photocatalytic applications, Ceramics International 2020(46), pp. 986-995) in view of Banerjee (US 2017/0240752), supported by Schmitt as an evidence.
Regarding claim 10, Saini teaches a structure ([Abstract]: synthesis of core-shell VO2@CeO2 nanoparticles) comprising:
one or more base materials (Fig. 3 (a-b): pure VO2; (c-f): core-shell of VO2@CeO2; here the pure VO2 core is the base material); and
one or more ceria surface structures at least partially surrounding the one or more base materials (Fig. 3 (c-f): composite samples shows as nanoparticles with core-shell morphologies of VO2@CeO2; p. 990, col. 1, para. 2: CeO2 is forming a shell around VO2);
wherein defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures are reversibly controllable by controlling a stress on the one or more ceria surface structures that is at least partially induced by the one or more base materials (p. 986, col. 1, para. 1: the VO2 has an interesting phase transition, i.e., a metal-insulator transition temperature close to at 68 ⁰C; as evidenced by Schmitt, the defects can exist in ceria as a result of partial reduction of Ce4+ to Ce3+, and the reduction is generally favored at high temperature and on surfaces, which is implicated in the high catalytic activity of ceria for a variety of redox reactions due to this reversible and easy reduction (p. 555, col. 2, para. 2), thus, when the temperature changes passing the thermochromic transition point, it would necessarily not only induce phase transition of VO2, but cause a reversible stress on the ceria layer, which would result in reversibly controllable ceria surface structure by controlling the temperature);
wherein the structure comprises a nanoparticle ([Abstract]: synthesis of core-shell VO2@CeO2 nanoparticles) wherein the one or more base material are formed as a core ([Abstract: the vanadium dioxide core).
Saini further discloses the VO2@CeO2 core-shell nanoparticles (p. 987, col. 1, section 2.2) has a shell thickness to be ~30 ± 10 nm (p. 988, col. 2, para. 4), but fails to teach wherein the one or more ceria surface structures comprise a thickness of less than approximately 10 nanometers.
However, Banerjee teaches a VO2 nano-materials ([Abstract]) which can be core-shell material (¶74). The core is VO2 nanoparticle, and the shell comprises a metal oxide such as CeO2 (¶74). The thickness of the shell can be 0.5 nanometer to 250 nanometers (¶74), which overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saini by adjusting the thickness of CeO2 shell within the claimed range because it is a known suitable shell thickness of the VO2@CeO2 core-shell nanoparticles in the prior art. 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). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Further, the designation “wherein defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures are reversibly controllable by controlling a stress on the one or more ceria surface structures that is at least partially induced by the one or more base materials” is directed to functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim(s) 13-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitzek in view of Hotta (US 2015/027935), supported by Schmitt as an evidence.
Regarding claims 13-14, Saitzek teaches a device ([Abstract]: bilayers of thermochromic vanadium dioxide (VO2) and cerium dioxide (CeO2); p. 407, col. 1, para. 1: for infrared applications such as infrared sensors) comprising:
one or more base materials ([Abstract]: the VO2 phase was first deposited on an amorphous substrate);
one or more ceria surface structures including ceria at least partially surrounding the one or more base materials ([Abstract]: then a ceria layer was deposited on the VO2 film; thus the ceria layer partially surrounding the VO2 layer),
wherein the one or more base materials provide a reversible temperature-controlled stress on the one or more ceria surface structures, wherein defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures are reversibly controllable based on a temperature of the one or more base materials and the associated reversible temperature-controlled stress on the one or more ceria surface structures (p. 407, bridging para. of col. 1-2: vanadium dioxide VO2 has a thermochromic transition at 68 ⁰C; as evidenced by Schmitt, the defects can exist in ceria as a result of partial reduction of Ce4+ to Ce3+, and the reduction is generally favored at high temperature and on surfaces, which is implicated in the high catalytic activity of ceria for a variety of redox reactions due to this reversible and easy reduction (p. 555, col. 2, para. 2), thus, when the temperature changes passing the thermochromic transition point, it would necessarily not only induce phase transition of VO2, but cause a reversible stress on the ceria layer, which would result in reversible defect states of ceria that is controllable by controlling the temperature.
Here, the designation “wherein the one or more base materials provide a reversible temperature-controlled stress on the one or more ceria surface structures, wherein defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures are reversibly controllable based on a temperature of the one or more base materials and the associated reversible temperature-controlled stress on the one or more ceria surface structures” is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Saitzek further teaches the bilayers were deposited on a ceramic plate heated at 130 ⁰C (p. 414, col. 1, para. 2), which indicates the heated plate coupled to the VO2 layer, but does not disclose a thermocouple coupled to the one or more base materials, wherein the thermocouple controls the defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures based on a temperature of at least the one or more base materials (claim 13) or a controller communicatively coupled to the thermocouple, wherein the controller is configured to generate drive signals for the thermocouple to control the defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures by adjusting the temperature of the one or more base materials (claim 14).
However, Hotta teaches a heater 5 to elevator the temperature of the wafer W (Fig. 1; ¶25). A thermocouple 7 is configured to allow signals of the thermocouple 7 to be sent to a heater controller 8, which sends a command to the heater power source 6 in response to a signal from the thermocouple 7 to control heating of the heater 5 such that the wafer W has a desired temperature (Fig. 1; ¶25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saitzek by incorporating the thermocouple and the controller for controlling the thermocouple as taught by Hotta because the thermocouple is a known element to generate heating in the art and the controller is a known element to control thermocouple to heat something to a desired temperature (Fig. 1; ¶25). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). As a result, the combined Saitzek and Hotta would necessarily result in coupling the thermocouple to the VO2 layer, and the temperature generated by the thermocouple and controlled by the controller would cause the defects states of the ceria structures and that are controllable by adjusting the temperature.
The designations “wherein the thermocouple controls the defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures based on a temperature of at least the one or more base materials” in claim 13 and “configured to generate drive signals for the thermocouple to control the defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures by adjusting the temperature of the one or more base materials” in claim 14 are functional limitations in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 15, Saitzek teaches wherein the one or more base materials comprises: Vanadium oxide (VO2) ([Abstract]: VO2).
Regarding claim 16, Saitzek teaches wherein the defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures are characterized by: a ratio of Ce3+ to Ce4+ ions (as evidenced by Schmitt, the defects can exist in ceria as a result of partial reduction of Ce4+ to Ce3+, and thus the defect states are represented by the ratio of Ce3+ to Ce4+ ions).
Regarding claim 17, Saitzek teaches wherein the one or more ceria surface structure are formed as a layered heterostructure ([Abstract]: bilayer), wherein the one or more base materials are formed as one or more layers ([Abstract] the VO2 layer between the substrate and the ceria layer).
Regarding claim 18, Saitzek and Hotta disclose all limitations of claim 17, but fail to teach wherein the one or more base materials have a thickness of less than approximately 10 nanometers.
However, Saitzek teaches the optical properties of the VO2 thin films depend on many parameters, including film thickness (p. 408, col. 1, para. 4), rendering the thickness of VO2 thin film a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saitzek and Hotta by adjusting the thickness of the VO2 thin film within the claimed range because its thickness is a result-effective variable and can be optimized through routine experimentation to obtain desirable optical properties (p. 408, col. 1, para. 4). MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B).
Regarding claim 19, Saitzek and Hotta disclose all limitations of claim 17, but fail to teach wherein the one or more ceria surface structures comprise: a surface layer with a thickness of less than approximately 10 nanometers.
However, Saitzek teaches ceria is well known for its optical transparency in the infrared range and its protective role from UV radiations, and the ceria layer is to protect VO2 from environment aggressions without degrading the optical contrasts due to its thermochromic transition (p. 408, col. 1, para. 4). Saitzek finds the influence of ceria coating on optical properties of thermochromic VO2 thin films because ceria thickness plays a certain role in emissivity of bilayers, involving variable infrared response (p. 408, col. 1, last para.), and thus rendering the thickness of ceria surface layer a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saitzek and Hotta by adjusting the thickness of the CeO2 coating layer within the claimed range because its thickness is a result-effective variable and can be optimized through routine experimentation to obtain desirable emissivity of the bilayers (p. 408, col. 1, last para.). MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B).
Regarding claim 20, Saitzek teaches the device further comprising a substrate (p. 414, col. 1, para. 2: the bilayer were deposited on a ceramic plate to be heated) between the thermocouple and the one or more base materials (as a result, the combined Saitzek and Hotta would necessarily result in the plate being between the thermocouple and the VO2 layer).
Regarding claim 21, Saitzek teaches wherein the substrate comprises: a semiconductor wafer (p. 408, col. 2, para. 1: VO2 thin layer deposited on silica substrate).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini in view of Hotta, supported by Schmitt as an evidence.
Regarding claim 22, Saini teaches a device (p. 986, col. 1, para. 1: sensors) comprising:
one or more base materials (Fig. 3 (a-b): pure VO2; (c-f): core-shell of VO2@CeO2; here the pure VO2 core is the base material);
one or more ceria surface structures including ceria at least partially surrounding the one or more base materials (Fig. 3 (c-f): composite samples shows as nanoparticles with core-shell morphologies of VO2@CeO2; p. 990, col. 1, para. 2: CeO2 is forming a shell around VO2),
wherein the one or more base materials provide a reversible temperature-controlled stress on the one or more ceria surface structures, wherein defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures are reversibly controllable based on a temperature of the one or more base materials and the associated reversible temperature-controlled stress on the one or more ceria surface structures (p. 407, bridging para. of col. 1-2: vanadium dioxide VO2 has a thermochromic transition at 68 ⁰C; as evidenced by Schmitt, the defects can exist in ceria as a result of partial reduction of Ce4+ to Ce3+, and the reduction is generally favored at high temperature and on surfaces, which is implicated in the high catalytic activity of ceria for a variety of redox reactions due to this reversible and easy reduction (p. 555, col. 2, para. 2), thus, when the temperature changes passing the thermochromic transition point, it would necessarily not only induce phase transition of VO2, but cause reversible stress on the ceria layer, which would result in reversible defect states of ceria that is controllable by controlling the temperature; and
wherein the one or more ceria surface structure are formed as a nanoparticle ([Abstract]: synthesis of core-shell VO2@CeO2 nanoparticles) wherein the one or more base material are formed as a core ([Abstract: the vanadium dioxide core).
Here, the designation “wherein the one or more base materials provide a reversible temperature-controlled stress on the one or more ceria surface structures, wherein defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures are reversibly controllable based on a temperature of the one or more base materials and the associated reversible temperature-controlled stress on the one or more ceria surface structures” is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Saini does not disclose a thermocouple coupled to the one or more base materials, wherein the thermocouple controls the defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures based on a temperature of at least the one or more base materials.
However, Hotta teaches a heater 5 to elevator the temperature of the wafer W (Fig. 1; ¶25). A thermocouple 7 is configured to allow signals of the thermocouple 7 to be sent to a heater controller 8, which sends a command to the heater power source 6 in response to a signal from the thermocouple 7 to control heating of the heater 5 such that the wafer W has a desired temperature (Fig. 1; ¶25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Saini by incorporating the thermocouple and the controller for controlling the thermocouple as taught by Hotta because the thermocouple is a known element to generate heating in the art and the controller is a known element to control thermocouple to heat something to a desired temperature (Fig. 1; ¶25). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). As a result, the combined Saini and Hotta would necessarily result in coupling the thermocouple to the VO2 layer, and the temperature generated by the thermocouple and controlled by the controller would cause the defects states of the ceria structures that are controllable by adjusting the temperature.
The designation “wherein the thermocouple controls the defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures based on a temperature of at least the one or more base materials” is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim(s) 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 10,302,611) in view of Hotta, and further in view of Chen (US 2013/0153442), supported by Saitzek and Schmitt as evidence.
Regarding claim 23, Holt teaches a sensor ([Abstract]: a hydrogen gas sensor) comprising:
two or more electrodes (Fig. 12(2): an inter-digital electrode (IDE); here, an IDE has two electrodes), wherein at least one of the two or more electrodes comprises a ceria heterostructure (Fig. 12(3): deposition of sensor material coating; col. 1, ll. 47-48: a hydrogen-selective porous composite) comprising:
one or more base materials (col. 4, ll. 20-25: the hydrogen sensitive composite materials also includes a phase modifier, e.g., vanadium oxide); and
one or more ceria surface structures including ceria (col. 1, ll. 62-63: the hydrogen-selective porous composite may include cerium oxide) at least partially surrounding the one or more base materials (col. 2, ll. 19-21: the metal oxide modifier may be present in an amount of up to about 5 wt% of the hydrogen-selective porous composite; thus the cerium oxide must be surrounding the modifier, vanadium oxide),
wherein the one or more base materials provide a reversible temperature- controlled stress on the one or more ceria surface structures, wherein defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures are reversibly controllable based on a temperature of the one or more base materials and the associated reversible temperature-controlled stress on the one or more ceria surface structures (as evidenced by Saitzek (p. 407, col. 2, para. 1), vanadium dioxide VO2 has a thermochromic transition at 68 ⁰C; as evidenced by Schmitt (p. 555, col. 2, para. 2), defects can exist in ceria as a result of partial reduction of Ce4+ to Ce3+, and the reduction is generally favored at high temperature and on surfaces, which is implicated in the high catalytic activity of ceria for a variety of redox reactions due to this reversible and easy reduction; thus, when the temperature changes passing the thermochromic transition point, it would necessarily not only induce phase transition of VO2, but cause reversible stress on the ceria phase, which would result in reversible defect states of ceria that is controllable by controlling the temperature);
an internal heater (Fig. 15; col. 3, l. 4) coupled to the one or more base material (col. 15, ll. 59-60: the heater wire was bonded to the tube ends of the tubular sensor element), wherein the heater controls the defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures based on a temperature of at least the one or more base materials (the limitation is functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). It does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus because the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and
sensing circuitry (col. 20, ll. 55-59: a sensor control circuit, e.g., a microprocessor), wherein the sensing circuitry includes one or more sensors (col. 20, l. 45: sensors) to provide detection signals between any of the two or more electrodes (Fig. 19: resistance; col. 18, ll. 48-49: the sensor signal is shown in Fig. 19).
Holt does not disclose the heater is a thermocouple.
However, Hotta teaches a heater 5 to elevator the temperature of the wafer W (Fig. 1; ¶25). A thermocouple 7 is configured to allow signals of the thermocouple 7 to be sent to a heater controller 8, which sends a command to the heater power source 6 in response to a signal from the thermocouple 7 to control heating of the heater 5 such that the wafer W has a desired temperature (Fig. 1; ¶25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holt by substituting the heater with a thermocouple as taught by Hotta because thermocouple is a known and suitable material for heating and controlling temperature in the art and the substitution of the heater for the thermocouple would yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2141(III)(B).
Holt and Hotta do not disclose the sensing circuitry coupled to the two or more electrodes and the detected signals associated with at least one of voltage or current.
However, Chen teaches electrochemical gas sensors, which generally share common features, such as having two electrodes (an anode and a cathode) separated by an electrolyte. The electrons liberated at the anode are conducted to the cathode through a monitored circuit that measures current and/or voltage, with the current/voltage in this circuit being proportional to the concentration of the gas being tested (¶1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holt and Hotta by coupling the sensing circuitry to two electrodes for measuring current and/or voltage as taught by Chen because these are well-known common components of electrochemical sensors to function (¶1). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). Use of known technique, i.e., measuring current and/or voltage to improve similar devices in the same way is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2141(III)(C).
Regarding claim 24, Holt, Hotta, and Chen disclose all limitations of claim 23, but fails to teach a controller communicatively coupled to the thermocouple and the sensing circuitry, wherein the controller is configured to: generate drive signals for the thermocouple to control the defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures by adjusting the temperature of the one or more base materials; and identify at least one of a presence or a concentration of a test species based on the detection signals from the sensing circuitry.
However, Holt teaches a sensor control circuit, e.g., a microprocessor (col. 20, ll. 55-58). Hotta teaches a heater controller 8 which sends a command to the heater power source 6 in response to a signal from the thermocouple 7 to control heating of the heater 5 to a desired temperature (Fig. 1; ¶25). Further, Chen teaches a monitored circuit that measures current and/or voltage, with the current/voltage in this circuit being proportional to the concentration of the gas being tested (¶1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holt, Hotta, and Chen by incorporating the heater controller of Holt and monitored circuit of Chen into the microprocessor of Holt by connecting them because the microprocessor would implement the sensor operation, e.g., the temperature control and the detection. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). As a result, the modified Holt, Hotta, and Chen would result in a controller configured to generate drive signals for the thermocouple (Hotta, Fig. 1; ¶25) to control the defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures by adjusting the temperature of the one or more base materials (as evidenced by Schmitt (p. 555, col. 2, para. 2): defects can exist in ceria as a result of partial reduction of Ce4+ to Ce3+, and the reduction is generally favored at high temperature and on surfaces, which is implicated in the high catalytic activity of ceria for a variety of redox reactions due to this reversible and easy reduction); and identify at least one of a presence or a concentration of a test species based on the detection signals from the sensing circuitry (Chen, ¶1).
Regarding claim 25, Holt teaches wherein the one or more base materials comprises: Vanadium oxide (VO2) (col. 4, ll. 20-25: the hydrogen sensitive composite materials also includes a phase modifier, e.g., vanadium oxide).
Regarding claim 26, Holt teaches wherein the defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures comprise: a ratio of Ce3+ to Ce4+ ions (as evidenced by Schmitt, the defects can exist in ceria as a result of partial reduction of Ce4+ to Ce3+, and thus the defects are representative by the ratio of Ce3+ to Ce4+ ions).
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt in view of Hotta and Chen, and further in view of Saitzek.
Regarding claim 27, Holt, Hotta, and Chen disclose all limitations of claim 23, but fails to teach the ceria heterostructure is a layered heterostructure, wherein the one or more base materials are formed as one or more layers.
However, Saitzek teaches bilayers of thermochromic vanadium dioxide (VO2) and cerium dioxide (CeO2), wherein the VO2 phase was first deposited on an amorphous substrate; then a ceria layer was deposited on the VO2 film ([Abstract]). Since this bilayers shows interesting optoelectronic properties active in the infrared wavelength range ([Abstract]), it would be able to be used in infrared sensors (p. 407, col. 1, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holt, Hotta, and Chen by using the bilayer format of CeO2-VO2 as taught by Saitzek because the bilayer format is a suitable sensing material for a sensor. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 28, Holt, Hotta, Chen, and Saitzek disclose all limitations of claim 27, but fail to teach wherein the one or more base materials have a thickness of less than approximately 10 nanometers.
However, Saitzek teaches the optical properties of the VO2 thin films depend on many parameters, including film thickness (p. 408, col. 1, para. 4), rendering the thickness of VO2 thin film a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holt, Hotta, Chen, and Saitzek by adjusting the thickness of the VO2 thin film within the claimed range because its thickness is a result-effective variable and can be optimized through routine experimentation to obtain desirable optical properties (p. 408, col. 1, para. 4). MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B).
Regarding claim 29, Holt, Hotta, Chen, and Saitzek disclose all limitations of claim 27, but fail to teach wherein the one or more ceria surface structures comprise: a surface layer with a thickness of less than approximately 10 nanometers.
However, Saitzek teaches ceria is well known for its optical transparency in the infrared range and its protective role from UV radiations, and the ceria layer is to protect VO2 from environment aggressions without degrading the optical contrasts due to its thermochromic transition (p. 408, col. 1, para. 4). Saitzek finds the influence of ceria coating on optical properties of thermochromic VO2 thin films because ceria thickness plays a certain role in emissivity of bilayers, involving variable infrared response (p. 408, col. 1, last para.), and thus rendering the thickness of ceria surface layer a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holt, Hotta, Chen, and Saitzek by adjusting the thickness of the CeO2 coating layer within the claimed range because its thickness is a result-effective variable and can be optimized through routine experimentation to obtain desirable emissivity of the bilayers (p. 408, col. 1, last para.). MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues there is no sufficient evidentiary basis to establish inherency (Response, p. 10). This argument is unpersuasive. Examiner notes that the claims recite “a reversible temperature-controlled stress” (e.g., in claim 2) and “defect states of the one or more ceria surface structures are reversibly controllable” (e.g., in claim 1). The prior art, Saitzek, explicitly discloses vanadium dioxide VO2 has a thermochromic transition with reversible structural change at 68 ⁰C (p. 407, col. 2). Thus, the thermochromic transition of VO2 is reversible, and the caused stress is reversible due to the structural change of VO2, which results in the ceria surface structures being reversibly controlled by controlling the reversible stress. Further, Applicant points out that the ceria thin film deposited on a silicon substrate (without VO2) shows no change in Ce3+/Ce4+ ratio or its defect state with heating and cooling (Response, p. 11, para. 1, citing Table 2 in the specification). Examiner notes that Table 2 shows control samples without intermediate VO2 layer having no change of the Ce3+/Ce4+ ratio, but Table 3 shows the samples having the bilayer of VO2 and CeO2 would have reversible Ce3+/Ce4+ ratio (Specification, Tables 2-3). Thus, the bilayer as disclosed by Saitzek or Saini would necessarily have the temperature-dependent defects of the CeO2 layer due to the reversible stress caused by the thermochromic transition of VO2 at 68 ⁰C.
Applicant argues the thickness of the surface structure “less than approximately 10 nanometers” in amended claim 1 is not disclosed by Saitzek (Response, p. 11), and the thickness is not a result-effective variable for the claimed purpose of stress-controlled defect engineering (p. 13, para. 3). This argument is unpersuasive because Saitzek discloses both the thickness of VO2 thin film and the thickness of ceria surface layer are result-effective variables. Saitzek teaches the optical properties of the VO2 thin films depend on many parameters, including film thickness (p. 408, col. 1, para. 4), rendering the thickness of VO2 thin film a result-effective variable. Saitzek further teaches the influence of ceria coating on optical properties of thermochromic VO2 thin films because ceria thickness plays a certain role in emissivity of bilayers, involving variable infrared response (p. 408, col. 1, last para.), and thus rendering the thickness of ceria surface layer a result-effective variable.
Applicant argues there is no combination of the cited references teaching a thermocouple coupled to the one or more base materials as recited in claim 13 or claim 14 (Response, pp. 14-15). This argument is unpersuasive. Here, Saitzek teaches VO2 is the base material and it has a reversible structural change at TC = 68 ⁰C, which causes a reversible stress upon temperature change. Hotta teaches a thermocouple for generating heating to increase the temperature. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Saitzek and Hotta by incorporating the thermocouple for heating the base material, wherein the thermocouple must be couple to the base material to achieve the goal of heating the base material.
Applicant argues Holt’s porous composite mixture is not a “ceria heterostructure” where “ceria surface structures at least partially surround the one or more base material” (Response, p. 17, para. 1). This argument is unpersuasive. Applicant seems to argue that ceria surface structures do not surround base material (p. 17, para. 1, l. 7), but fails to argue that ceria surface structure at least partially surround the one or more base materials (p. 17, para. 1, l. 3) as recited in claim 23. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (p. 18, para. 1), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached on 571-272-8521. 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.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights