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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 13-29 in the reply filed on January 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, drawn to a method of fabricating a ceria heterostructure, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 12, 2026.
Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 stress on the ceria layer, which would necessarily result in reversible defect states of ceria that is controllable by controlling the temperature).
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). Here, Saitzek teaches all structural limitations of the recited bilayer structure, including a ceria layer on the VO2 layer, and thus it would be naturally occurring for the defect states of the ceria surface structure to be reversibly controllable by controlling temperature of the VO2 layer that causes a stress on the ceria surface structure. Saitzek further teaches the CeO2-VO2 bilayer present interesting optoelectronic properties, with a thermochromic transition at 68 ⁰C due to the insulator-metal transition of VO2 phase ([Abstract]). 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 (Schmitt, p. 555, col. 2, para. 2). Thus, when the temperature changes passing the thermochromic transition point, it would necessarily not only induce the transition of VO2 phase, but cause stress on the ceria layer, which would necessarily result in reversible defect states of ceria that is controllable by controlling the temperature.
Regarding claim 2, 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). Here, Saitzek teaches all structural limitations of the recited bilayer structure, including a ceria layer on the VO2 layer, and thus it would be naturally occurring for the defect states of the ceria surface structure to be reversibly controllable by controlling temperature of the VO2 layer that causes a stress on the ceria surface structure. Saitzek further teaches the CeO2-VO2 bilayer present interesting optoelectronic properties, with a thermochromic transition at 68 ⁰C due to the insulator-metal transition of VO2 phase ([Abstract]). 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 temperature-controlled stress on the ceria layer so that the defect states of ceria are reversibly controllable by controlling the temperature of the VO2 layer.
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 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. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saini (M. Saini, VO2(M)@CeO2 core-shell nanospheres for thermochromic smart windows and photocatalytic applications, Ceramics International 2020(46), pp. 986-995), 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 stress on the ceria layer, which would necessarily result in reversible defect states of ceria that is controllable 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).
Here, 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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitzek.
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, 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 the influence of ceria coating on optical properties of thermochromic VO2 thin films: the ceria thickness can play a certain role in emissivity of biolayers, thus involving variable infrared responses (p. 408, col. 1, last para.), 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 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).
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).
Regarding claims 13-14, Saitzek teaches a device ([Abstract]: bilayers of thermochromic vanadium dioxide (VO2) and cerium dioxide (CeO2); p. 407, col. a, 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 stress on the ceria layer, which would necessarily 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 well-known to generate heating in the art and the controller is well-known to control thermocouple to heat 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 controlled 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 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 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 the influence of ceria coating on optical properties of thermochromic VO2 thin films: the ceria thickness can play a certain role in emissivity of biolayers, thus involving variable infrared responses (p. 408, col. 1, last para.), 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 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 and Hotta disclose all limitations of claim 20, but fail to teach wherein the substrate comprises: a semiconductor wafer.
However, Saitzek teaches the VO2 thin layer deposited on silica substrate (p. 408, col. 2, para. 1), which is a semiconductor wafer.
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 substituting the ceramic plate with a semiconductor wafer because semiconductor wafer is a suitable material for being a substrate providing heating and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini in view of Hotta.
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 stress on the ceria layer, which would necessarily 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 as taught by Hotta because the thermocouple is well-known to generate heating and to heat 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 would cause the defects states of the ceria structures that are controlled 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).
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 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, it would necessarily not only change the temperature of VO2 phase, but cause stress on the ceria phase, which would necessarily 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 suitable material for heating and controlling temperature 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 the influence of ceria coating on optical properties of thermochromic VO2 thin films: the ceria thickness can play a certain role in emissivity of biolayers, thus involving variable infrared responses (p. 408, col. 1, last para.), 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 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).
Conclusion
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