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 without traverse of Group I and Species III in the reply filed on June 24, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant stated that claims 1-7 read on the elected invention and species.
Claims 8-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 24, 2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 of each claim, “Method” should read “The method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “oxygen vacancies” should read “the oxygen vacancies”.
In lines 4-5, “the concentration of oxygen vacancies” should read “a concentration of the oxygen vacancies”.
In line 6, “oxygen species” should read “the oxygen species”.
In line 8, “the concentration” should read “a concentration”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “oxygen vacancies” should read “the oxygen vacancies”.
In lines 4-5, “the concentration of oxygen vacancies” should read “a concentration of the oxygen vacancies”.
In lines 6-7, “oxygen species” should read “the oxygen species”.
In lines 7-8, “the concentration” should read “a concentration”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, “the concentration of oxygen vacancies” should read “a concentration of the oxygen vacancies”.
In lines 4-5, “oxygen vacancies” should read “the oxygen vacancies”.
In line 7, “the concentration of oxygen species” should read “a concentration of the oxygen species”.
In line 8, “oxygen species” should read “the oxygen species”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, “manipulation” should read “the reconfiguration”.
In lines 4-5, “the process of adjusting” should read “the method of reconfiguring”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the potential difference" in lines 8-9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-7 are rejected as dependent thereon.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a plurality of electronic devices” in lines 2-3 of the claim. It is unclear whether “a plurality of electronic devices” of claim 7 includes the “electronic device” of claim 1 and/or whether it is a plurality of the electronic device of claim 1. If so, Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “a plurality of the electronic devices”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai et al. (US 2020/0096465 A1) in view of Yang et al. (US 2013/0026440 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawai teaches method of reconfiguring oxygen concentration of a metal oxide in an electronic device comprising the metal oxide (changing the degree of oxygen deficiency in local region 105 of a resistive film 104 in a gas sensor 100, wherein the resistive film 104 is made of an oxygen-deficient metal oxide having semiconductor characteristics, Kawai, Fig. 5, para. [0042], [0045], [0047], [0064]-[0065]), a contact electrode in contact with the metal oxide (a second electrode 106 is in contact with the resistive film 104 including the local region 105 of the resistive film 104, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0042], [0044]-[0045]), and a separation electrode isolated from the metal oxide (a first electrode 103 is not in contact with the local region 105 of the resistive film 104, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0045]).
Kawai teaches that the first electrode 103 is in contact with the resistive film 104 (Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0042]), and therefore fails to teach that the separation electrode is electrically isolated from the metal oxide.
Yang teaches a device comprising a first electrode 110, a second electrode 120, and an active layer 122 disposed between the first and second electrodes 110, 120 (Yang, abstract, Figs. 2A-2B, para. [0026]). Yang teaches that the active layer 122 includes a relatively thin non-conducting portion 122a made of titanium dioxide and a relatively thick source portion 122b made of titanium dioxide with oxygen vacancies known as dopants (Yang, Figs. 2A-2B, para. [0028], [0034]). Yang also teaches a partially oxidized bottom electrode 115 or a partially oxidized top electrode 125 formed of PtOx (Yang, Figs. 2A-2B, para. [0026]). Yang teaches that the source layer 122b is on the opposite side of the non-conducting layer 122a from the metal oxide layer 115, 125 so that the device will always have an ohmic-like conducting interface which remains conducting between the source portion and the metal electrode for well defined switching polarity (Yang, Figs. 2A-2B, para. [0030]). Yang teaches that the resistance state of the device is changed based on the applied voltage, and the thin layer of electrode oxide may partially or completely lose its oxygen to the adjacent Ti oxide layer (Yang, para. [0030]). Yang teaches that an electric field is created across the active region 122 due to the applied voltage, and the dopants (oxygen vacancies) are driven from the source region 122b into the non-conducting region 122a and towards the top electrode 120, or may drift in the opposite direction depending on the polarity of the electric field, thus controlling the concentration and distribution of the dopants in the active layer 122 (Yang, Figs. 2A-2B, para. [0031]-[0032]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kawai to further include a relatively thin non-conducting layer and a partially oxidized metal layer between the first electrode 103 and the resistive film 104 as taught by Yang in order to yield the predictable result of an active region between the electrodes in which the concentration and distribution of oxygen vacancies is controlled based on the applied voltage, thus changing the resistance state of the device. Furthermore, 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). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(C). Therefore, Modified Kawai teaches that the first electrode 103 is electrically isolated from the resistive film 104 due to the non-conducting layer therebetween.
Modified Kawai teaches the following steps of:
(a) predetermining an oxygen reconfiguration voltage required to enable the metal oxide to have an electron concentration or oxygen adsorption or desorption energy needed for any given chemical reaction (predetermining a voltage to set the local region 105 of the metal oxide resistive film 104 to a high-resistance state or a low-resistance state prior to the use of the gas sensor, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0044], [0051], [0077]-[0078], [0106]); and
(b) applying voltages to the contact electrode and the separation electrode so that the potential difference between the contact electrode and the separation electrode becomes said oxygen reconfiguration voltage (applying the predetermined voltage between the first electrode 103 and the second electrode 106 to set the local region 105 of the metal oxide resistive film 104 to a high-resistance state or a low-resistance state, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0044], [0051], [0077]-[0078], [0106], [0183]),
wherein the oxygen concentration in the metal oxide is reconfigured by manipulating the electron concentration in the metal oxide or adjusting the oxygen adsorption or desorption energy of the metal oxide (the degree of oxygen deficiency in the local region 105 of the metal oxide resistive film 104 reversibly changes depending on the voltage applied, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0045], [0047]; a resistance change in the metal oxide resistive film 104 is caused through the generation and disappearance of the oxygen defect sites in the local region 105, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0054]), and
wherein said chemical reaction is a reaction utilizing oxygen vacancies in the metal oxide or oxygen species adsorbed on the metal oxide (when hydrogen-containing gas is brought into contact with the second electrode 106, hydrogen atoms are dissociated from the hydrogen-containing gas and reach the local region 105 which causes a reduction reaction where oxygen in the local region 105 and the hydrogen atoms react with each other, thus changing the degree of oxygen deficiency in the local region 105, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0060], [0114]-[0115]).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Kawai teaches wherein the step (a) comprises: (a1) in case that said chemical reaction to be promoted utilizes oxygen vacancies of the metal oxide, predetermining a first oxygen reconfiguration voltage required to increase the concentration of oxygen vacancies in the metal oxide; and (a2) in case that said chemical reaction to be promoted utilizes oxygen species adsorbed on the metal oxide, predetermining a second oxygen reconfiguration voltage required to increase the concentration of the oxygen species adsorbed on the metal oxide (predetermining a voltage to set the local region 105 of the metal oxide resistive film 104 to a high-resistance state or a low-resistance state prior to the use of the gas sensor in order to react with a hydrogen-containing gas, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0044]-[0045], [0051], [0077]-[0078], [0106]; a resistance change in the metal oxide resistive film 104 is caused through the generation and disappearance of the oxygen defect sites in the local region 105, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Kawai teaches wherein the step (a) comprises: (a3) in case that said chemical reaction to be suppressed utilizes oxygen vacancies, predetermining a third oxygen reconfiguration voltage required to reduce the concentration of oxygen vacancies in the metal oxide; and (a4) in case that said chemical reaction to be suppressed utilizes adsorbed oxygen species, predetermining a fourth oxygen reconfiguration voltage required to reduce the concentration of the oxygen species adsorbed on the metal oxide (predetermining a voltage to set the local region 105 of the metal oxide resistive film 104 to a high-resistance state or a low-resistance state prior to the use of the gas sensor in order to react with a hydrogen-containing gas, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0044]-[0045], [0051], [0077]-[0078], [0106]; a resistance change in the metal oxide resistive film 104 is caused through the generation and disappearance of the oxygen defect sites in the local region 105, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Kawai teaches the following steps of:
(c) predetermining an oxygen concentration recovery voltage based on the chemical reaction that has occurred in the metal oxide (predetermining a reset voltage after the gas sensor detects hydrogen gas due to the reaction in the local region 105 of the metal oxide resistive film 104, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0112]-[0115]); and
(d) after said chemical reaction is completed, applying voltages to the contact electrode and the separation electrode such that a potential difference between the contact electrode and the separation electrode becomes said oxygen concentration recovery voltage, and wherein after the completion of the chemical reaction involving the metal oxide, the oxygen concentration in the metal oxide is restored to the oxygen concentration before the chemical reaction (after detecting the hydrogen-containing gas due to the reaction in the local region 105 of the metal oxide resistive film 104, the reset voltage is applied between the first electrode 103 and the second electrode 106 in order to change the state of the gas sensor back to the resistance state before the detection of the hydrogen-containing gas, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0112], [0127]-[0128]; the resistance change in the metal oxide resistive film 104 is caused through the generation and disappearance of the oxygen defect sites in the local region 105, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Kawai teaches wherein the step (c) comprises: (c1) predetermining a first oxygen concentration recovery voltage required to increase the concentration of oxygen vacancies of the metal oxide when the concentration of oxygen vacancies of the metal oxide is reduced by the chemical reaction; and (c2) predetermining a second oxygen concentration recovery voltage required to increase the concentration of oxygen species adsorbed on the metal oxide when the concentration of oxygen species adsorbed on the metal oxide is reduced by the chemical reaction (predetermining the reset voltage after the gas sensor detects hydrogen gas due to the reaction in the local region 105 of the metal oxide resistive film 104 in order to change the state of the gas sensor back to the resistance state before the detection of the hydrogen-containing gas, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0112]-[0115], [0127]-[0128]; the resistance change in the metal oxide resistive film 104 is caused through the generation and disappearance of the oxygen defect sites in the local region 105, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Kawai teaches the following step of: (d) supplying energy to the metal oxide utilizing an energy source at least during all or part of manipulation of the oxygen concentration in the metal oxide, in order to promote the process of adjusting the oxygen concentration in the metal oxide (supplying the predetermined voltage to the gas sensor using a power supply circuit including a power source in order to apply the predetermined voltage between the first electrode 103 and the second electrode 106 to change the resistance state of the gas sensor, Kawai, para. [0120]-[0121], [0125]-[0128], [0131]-[0132]; the resistance change in the metal oxide resistive film 104 is caused through the generation and disappearance of the oxygen defect sites in the local region 105, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Kawai teaches wherein the method is applied to an array structure in which a plurality of electronic devices is arranged, and said oxygen reconfiguration voltages of the electronic devices constituting the array structure are determined, respectively (a plurality of the gas sensors according to the present embodiment with predetermined voltages applied thereto to maintain or change the resistance state of the gas sensors, Kawai, para. [0120]-[0121], [0124]; the resistance change in the metal oxide resistive film 104 of the gas sensor is caused through the generation and disappearance of the oxygen defect sites in the local region 105, Kawai, Fig. 1A, para. [0054]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3232. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/V.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights