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 .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 25 March 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-23 were originally filed.
Claims 1-23 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 14, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al., US20120247203 (“ZHANG”).
Re claim 1, Zhang discloses a method, comprising:
forming a metal cathode on a substrate [0016];
anodizing an outer surface of the metal cathode to form an anodized porous layer [0018];
forming a metal anode over the anodized porous layer [0034];
wherein the anodized porous layer defines a dielectric layer between the metal anode and the metal cathode [Fig.1 and associated text]; and
wherein the metal anode, the anodized porous layer, and the metal cathode define a sensor [0014]
Re claim 8, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. ZHANG further discloses forming the metal cathode comprises forming an aluminum cathode [0020]; and anodizing the outer surface of the metal cathode to form the anodized porous layer comprise anodizing an outer surface of the aluminum cathode to form a nanoporous aluminum oxide layer [0014]
Re claim 14, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re claim 18, Zhang discloses the method of claim 14, as shown above. ZHANG further discloses wherein: the metal cathode comprises an aluminum cathode [0014]; and the anodized porous layer comprises a nanoporous aluminum oxide layer [0014]
Re claim 21, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1. Furthermore, Zhang discloses sensor circuitry connected to the aluminum cathode and the aluminum anode to measure at least one of a resistance or a capacitance of the sensor [0032]
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-8, 9-13, 15-17, 19-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG in view of Zhou et al., CN114965596A (“ZHOU”).
Re claim 2, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above.
ZHANG fails to explicitly disclose at least partially filling the anodized porous layer with at least one substance before forming the metal anode over the anodized porous layer
However, ZHOU, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a 3D anodized sensor that at least partially fills an anodized porous layer with at least one substance before forming a metal anode over the anodized porous layer [p.7]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify ZHANG to include the additional fill layer of ZHOU. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a sensor with higher sensitivity, reduced cost, and better heating efficiency. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ZHOU merely teaches that it is well-known to apply a fill layer for an anodized sensor. Since both ZHANG and ZHOU disclose similar anodized sensor devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 3, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above.
ZHANG fails to explicitly disclose at least partially filling the anodized porous layer with at least one substance before forming the metal anode over the anodized porous layer
However, ZHOU, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a 3D anodized sensor that at least partially filling the anodized porous layer with at least one oxide before forming the metal anode over the anodized porous layer [p.7]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify ZHANG to include the particular fill layer of ZHOU. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a sensor with higher sensitivity, reduced cost, and better heating efficiency. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ZHOU merely teaches that it is well-known to apply an oxide layer for an anodized sensor. Since both ZHANG and ZHOU disclose similar anodized sensor devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 4, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above.
ZHANG fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the metal cathode comprises a three-dimensional metal cathode having a three-dimensional outer surface including different areas extending in different planes; and the anodized porous layer comprises a three-dimensional porous layer
However, ZHOU, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a 3D anodized sensor wherein: a metal cathode comprises a three-dimensional metal cathode having a three-dimensional outer surface including different areas extending in different planes; and an anodized porous layer comprises a three-dimensional porous layer [Fig.3 and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify ZHANG to include the particular structures of ZHOU. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a sensor with higher sensitivity, reduced cost, and better heating efficiency. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ZHOU merely teaches that it is well-known to apply an oxide layer for an anodized sensor. Since both ZHANG and ZHOU disclose similar anodized sensor devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 5, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 4, as shown above.
ZHANG fails to explicitly disclose wherein forming the three-dimensional metal cathode comprises forming a metal and selectively etching portions of the metal layer within an outer lateral perimeter of the metal layer to define a three-dimensional structure
However, ZHOU, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a 3D anodized sensor wherein forming the three-dimensional metal cathode comprises forming a metal and selectively etching portions of the metal layer within an outer lateral perimeter of the metal layer to define a three-dimensional structure [Fig.3 and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify ZHANG to include the particular structures of ZHOU. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a sensor with higher sensitivity, reduced cost, and better heating efficiency. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ZHOU merely teaches that it is well-known to apply an oxide layer for an anodized sensor. Since both ZHANG and ZHOU disclose similar anodized sensor devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 6, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 4, as shown above.
ZHANG fails to explicitly disclose wherein forming the three-dimensional metal cathode comprises forming a metal and selectively etching portions of the metal layer to define an array of spaced apart cathode elements
However, ZHOU, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a 3D anodized sensor wherein forming the three-dimensional metal cathode comprises forming a metal and selectively etching portions of the metal layer to define an array of spaced apart cathode elements [Fig.3 and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify ZHANG to include the particular structures of ZHOU. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a sensor with higher sensitivity, reduced cost, and better heating efficiency. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ZHOU merely teaches that it is well-known to apply an oxide layer for an anodized sensor. Since both ZHANG and ZHOU disclose similar anodized sensor devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 7, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 4, as shown above.
ZHANG fails to explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the three-dimensional metal cathode varies by at least 25% or at least 0.5 µm at different locations across a lateral footprint of the cathode
However, ZHOU, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a 3D anodized sensor wherein a thickness of the three-dimensional metal cathode varies by at least 25% or at least 0.5 µm at different locations across a lateral footprint of the cathode [Fig.3 and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify ZHANG to include the particular structures of ZHOU. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a sensor with higher sensitivity, reduced cost, and better heating efficiency. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ZHOU merely teaches that it is well-known to apply an oxide layer for an anodized sensor. Since both ZHANG and ZHOU disclose similar anodized sensor devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 9, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 8, as shown above.
ZHANG fails to explicitly disclose at least partially filling the nanoporous aluminum oxide layer with at least one substance before forming the metal anode
However, ZHOU, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a 3D anodized sensor at least partially fills the nanoporous aluminum oxide layer with at least one substance before forming the metal anode [p.7]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify ZHANG to include the particular fill layer of ZHOU. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a sensor with higher sensitivity, reduced cost, and better heating efficiency. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ZHOU merely teaches that it is well-known to apply an oxide layer for an anodized sensor. Since both ZHANG and ZHOU disclose similar anodized sensor devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 10, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 8, as shown above.
ZHANG fails to explicitly disclose at least partially filling the nanoporous aluminum oxide layer with at least one oxide before forming the metal anode
However, ZHOU, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a 3D anodized sensor at least partially fills the nanoporous aluminum oxide layer with at least one oxide before forming the metal anode [p.7]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify ZHANG to include the particular fill layer of ZHOU. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a sensor with higher sensitivity, reduced cost, and better heating efficiency. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ZHOU merely teaches that it is well-known to apply an oxide layer for an anodized sensor. Since both ZHANG and ZHOU disclose similar anodized sensor devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 11, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 8, as shown above.
ZHANG fails to explicitly disclose at least partially filling the nanoporous aluminum oxide layer with at least one of tin oxide, nickel oxide, or titanium oxide before forming the metal anode
However, ZHOU, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a 3D anodized sensor at least partially fills the nanoporous aluminum oxide layer with at least one of tin oxide, nickel oxide, or titanium oxide before forming the metal anode [p.2], [p.8]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify ZHANG to include the particular fill layer of ZHOU. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a sensor with higher sensitivity, reduced cost, and better heating efficiency. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ZHOU merely teaches that it is well-known to apply an oxide layer for an anodized sensor. Since both ZHANG and ZHOU disclose similar anodized sensor devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 12, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above.
ZHANG fails to explicitly disclose wherein: forming the metal cathode comprises forming a three-dimensional aluminum cathode having a three-dimensional outer surface including different areas extending in different planes; and anodizing the outer surface of the metal cathode to form the anodized porous layer comprise anodizing the three-dimensional outer surface of the three-dimensional aluminum cathode to form a three-dimensional nanoporous aluminum oxide layer
However, ZHOU, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a 3D anodized sensor wherein: forming the metal cathode comprises forming a three-dimensional aluminum cathode having a three-dimensional outer surface including different areas extending in different planes; and anodizing the outer surface of the metal cathode to form the anodized porous layer comprise anodizing the three-dimensional outer surface of the three-dimensional aluminum cathode to form a three-dimensional nanoporous aluminum oxide layer [Fig.3 and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify ZHANG to include the particular structures of ZHOU. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a sensor with higher sensitivity, reduced cost, and better heating efficiency. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ZHOU merely teaches that it is well-known to apply an oxide layer for an anodized sensor. Since both ZHANG and ZHOU disclose similar anodized sensor devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 13, ZHANG/ZHOU renders obvious the method of claim 12, as shown above.
ZHANG fails to explicitly disclose wherein forming the three-dimensional aluminum cathode comprises: depositing an aluminum layer; and selectively etching portions of the aluminum layer within an outer lateral perimeter of the aluminum layer to define a three-dimensional structure
However, ZHOU, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a 3D anodized sensor wherein forming the three-dimensional aluminum cathode comprises: depositing an aluminum layer; and selectively etching portions of the aluminum layer within an outer lateral perimeter of the aluminum layer to define a three-dimensional structure [Fig.3 and associated text]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify ZHANG to include the particular structures of ZHOU. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a sensor with higher sensitivity, reduced cost, and better heating efficiency. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, ZHOU merely teaches that it is well-known to apply an oxide layer for an anodized sensor. Since both ZHANG and ZHOU disclose similar anodized sensor devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claims 15-17, 19-20, and 22-23, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of the respective claims above. Accordingly, claims 15-17, 19-20, and 22-23 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner the respective claims above.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
Prosecution Insights