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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claim limitation "eliminating use of a heat sink" in claims 20 and 31 is interpreted in a manner consistent with the description in paragraph [0028] of the as-filed specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 3 and 4 of claim 20 appear to contain a typographical error with regard to the limitation “each of which comprise a first interconnect a single thermoelectric couple.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 25 of claim 20 appears to contain a typographical error with regard to the limitation “the space.” 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 20-35 and 37-42 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. Specifically, lines 13 and 14 of claim 20 recite “the ceramic coated honeycomb reducing a weight of and increasing a surface area of the single cold plate to increase the dissipation of the heat into space,” however, the manner in which a honeycomb reduces a weight of and increases a surface area of a cold plate ,of which it is a component of, is unclear. Additionally, the limitation does not specify the weight, surface area, or dissipation of heat into space, to which the claimed reduction and increase is compared to. The limitation simply recites the terms “reducing,” “increasing,” and “increase” without specifying the component to which the comparison is made. Similarly, claim 31 recites the limitation in lines 19 and 20, and claim 42 recites the limitation in lines 13-15, and claims 31 and 42 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above with regard to claim 20. Claims 21-30, 32-35, and 37-41 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claims 20 and 31.
Claims 20-30 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. Specifically, claim 20 recites the limitation "the single respective thermoelectric couple" in lines 15 and 16 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this office action, the limitation will be treated as if it refers to a respective single thermoelectric couple. Claims 21-30 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 20.
Claims 20-35 and 37-41 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. Specifically, lines 24 and 25 of claim 20 recite “the surface area of the single cold plate increasing an amount of the heat dissipating into the space,” however, the amount of heat dissipating into the space to which the term “increasing” refers, or is being compared to, is not specified. Similarly, claim 31 recites the limitation in lines 22 and 23, and is rejected for the same reason set forth with regard to claim 20. Claims 21-30, 32-35, and 37-41 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claims 20 and 31.
Claim 30 is 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. Specifically, claim 30 recites “the extra-terrestrial based thermoelectric array” in lines 9 and 10, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 42 is 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. Specifically, claim 42 recites “the single thermoelectric couple” in lines 3 and 4, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 42 is 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. Specifically, claim 42 recites “the solar heat” in line 9, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 42 is 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. Specifically, claim 42 recites “the plurality of thermoelectric couples” in line 10, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 20, 21, 30, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0180840) in view of Campana (US 3,413,156) and further in view of Murphy (US 4,235,221).
Regarding claim 20, Chen discloses a thermoelectric array comprising a plurality of thermoelectric generators (abstract L3-4 disclose one or more thermoelectric converters; [0033]), each of which comprise a first interconnect ([0070] L10; 512 in Fig. 5A), a single thermoelectric couple ([0070] L10; 516 in Fig. 5A), the first interconnect located on a hot side of the single thermoelectric couple and electrically connecting the single thermoelectric couple (512 in Fig. 5A); a plurality of lenses (920 in Fig. 9), each of which have an area greater than that of a corresponding one of the plurality of thermoelectric generators (920 in relation to 916 in Fig. 9; it is noted that lines 20-23 of paragraph [0090] disclose that it is understood that variations in the design of the system depicted in Fig. 9 (as is the case for Figs. 7 and 8) can be employed consistent with embodiments of the present invention) and located above the corresponding one of the plurality of thermoelectric generators (920 in relation to 916 in Fig. 9); and a single cold plate (918 in Fig. 9), wherein a ratio between each of the plurality of lenses and a respective single thermoelectric couple is 1 to 1 (920 in relation to 916 in Fig. 9), each of the plurality of lenses concentrates the heat toward the first interconnect for each of the plurality of thermoelectric generators (518 in relation to 512 in Fig. 5A); the plurality of thermoelectric generators form an array of thermoelectric generators on the single cold plate (916 in relation to 918 in Fig. 9) with the single cold plate having an area greater than, and encompassing, each of the plurality of the thermoelectric generators and each of the plurality of lenses (918 in relation to 916 and 920 in Fig. 9), and the single cold plate has a surface area greater than a surface area of a plurality of interconnects (918 in relation to the interconnects between the legs of each 916 in Fig. 9).
Chen does not explicitly disclose the single cold plate comprising a ceramic coated honeycomb that is electrically insulative.
Campana discloses a thermoelectric device and further discloses an aluminum honeycomb structure (75 - C9/L20; Fig. 4) on the low temperature side of the thermoelectric device (75 in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the cold plate of modified Chen with an aluminum honeycomb structure, as disclosed by Campana, because as evidenced by Campana, the use of an aluminum honeycomb structure on the low temperature side of a thermoelectric device amounts to the use of a known component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the cold plate of modified Chen with an aluminum honeycomb structure based on the teaching of Campana.
Modified Chen does not explicitly disclose the aluminum cold plate is ceramic coated.
Murphy discloses a thermoelectric device and further discloses coating a plate made of aluminum with a selective black material made of a berrylium oxide, zinc oxide, aluminum oxide or the like, in order to provide an electrical insulation covering to the upper face of the plate while providing thermal conduction through it (C8/L23-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to coat the aluminum plate of modified Chen with a selective black material made of berrylium oxide, zinc oxide, aluminum oxide or the like, as disclosed by Murphy, because as evidenced by Murphy, the coating of an aluminum plate of a thermoelectric device with a selective black material made of a berrylium oxide, zinc oxide, aluminum oxide or the like, amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result. Additionally, Murphy discloses the coating provides an electrical insulation covering to the upper face of the plate while providing thermal conduction through it (C8/L23-33).
Modified Chen discloses the ceramic coated aluminum honeycomb is electrically insulative (Murphy - C8/L23-33).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “configured for orbital operation,” statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
With regard to the limitations "thereby concentrating solar heat from sun onto the corresponding one of the plurality of thermoelectric generators", "configured to dissipate the heat into space", “configured to radiate rejected or excess heat into space," “reducing a weight of and increasing a surface area of the single cold plate to increase the dissipation of the heat into space,” “each of the plurality of lenses facing the sun concentrates the heat toward the first interconnect for each of the plurality of thermoelectric generators, eliminating use of a heat sink", and "the surface area of the single cold plate increasing an amount of the heat dissipating into the space and controlling peak operating temperature for each of the plurality of thermoelectric generators", the limitations are directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, with regard to the limitations "configured for orbital operation", "thereby concentrating solar heat from sun onto the corresponding one of the plurality of thermoelectric generators", "configured to dissipate the heat into space", “configured to radiate rejected or excess heat into space," “reducing a weight of and increasing a surface area of the single cold plate to increase the dissipation of the heat into space,” “each of the plurality of lenses facing the sun concentrates the heat toward the first interconnect for each of the plurality of thermoelectric generators, eliminating use of a heat sink", and "the surface area of the single cold plate increasing an amount of the heat dissipating into the space and controlling peak operating temperature for each of the plurality of thermoelectric generators," the limitations are directed to the manner of operating said apparatus, and it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Further, with regard to the limitations "each of the plurality of lenses facing the sun further concentrates the heat toward the first interconnect for each of the plurality of thermoelectric generators, eliminating use of a heat sink" and "the surface area of the single cold plate increasing an amount of the heat dissipating into the space and controlling peak operating temperatures for each of the plurality of thermoelectric generators", when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 21, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen further discloses the first interconnect is composed of copper ([0097] L7).
Regarding claim 30, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen further discloses each of the plurality of lenses is a concentrator lens ([0025],[0033]).
With regard to the limitations "configured to concentrate light onto the first interconnect" and "each of the plurality of lenses is configured to act as a protective shield for a thermoelectric and to shield the thermoelectric array and the first interconnect from elements and electrons that negatively affect performance of the thermoelectric array", the limitations are directed to the manner in which the device is intended to be used, and it is noted that the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
The limitation “the concentrated light is based on a lens concentrator factor that is adjusted based on a space environment that thermal panels operate in" is directed to the manner in which the device is made, it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 42, Chen discloses a thermoelectric array comprising a plurality of thermoelectric generators (abstract L3-4 disclose one or more thermoelectric converters; [0033]), each of which comprise a first interconnect ([0070] L10; 512 in Fig. 5A), a single thermoelectric couple ([0070] L10; 516 in Fig. 5A), the first interconnect located on a hot side of the single thermoelectric couple and electrically connecting the single thermoelectric couple (512 in Fig. 5A); a plurality of lenses (920 in Fig. 9), each of which have an area greater than that of a corresponding one of the plurality of thermoelectric generators (920 in relation to 916 in Fig. 9; it is noted that lines 20-23 of paragraph [0090] disclose that it is understood that variations in the design of the system depicted in Fig. 9 (as is the case for Figs. 7 and 8) can be employed consistent with embodiments of the present invention) and located above the corresponding one of the plurality of thermoelectric generators (920 in relation to 916 in Fig. 9); and a single cold plate (918 in Fig. 9), the single cold plate having a surface area greater than each of the plurality of the thermoelectric couples and each of the plurality of lenses (918 in relation to 916 and 920 in Fig. 9).
Chen does not explicitly disclose the single cold plate comprising a ceramic coated honeycomb that is electrically insulative.
Campana discloses a thermoelectric device and further discloses an aluminum honeycomb structure (75 - C9/L20; Fig. 4) on the low temperature side of the thermoelectric device (75 in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the cold plate of modified Chen with an aluminum honeycomb structure, as disclosed by Campana, because as evidenced by Campana, the use of an aluminum honeycomb structure on the low temperature side of a thermoelectric device amounts to the use of a known component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the cold plate of modified Chen with an aluminum honeycomb structure based on the teaching of Campana.
Modified Chen does not explicitly disclose the aluminum cold plate is ceramic coated.
Murphy discloses a thermoelectric device and further discloses coating a plate made of aluminum with a selective black material made of a berrylium oxide, zinc oxide, aluminum oxide or the like, in order to provide an electrical insulation covering to the upper face of the plate while providing thermal conduction through it (C8/L23-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to coat the aluminum plate of modified Chen with a selective black material made of berrylium oxide, zinc oxide, aluminum oxide or the like, as disclosed by Murphy, because as evidenced by Murphy, the coating of an aluminum plate of a thermoelectric device with a selective black material made of a berrylium oxide, zinc oxide, aluminum oxide or the like, amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result. Additionally, Murphy discloses the coating provides an electrical insulation covering to the upper face of the plate while providing thermal conduction through it (C8/L23-33).
Modified Chen discloses the ceramic coated aluminum honeycomb is electrically insulative (Murphy - C8/L23-33).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “configured for orbital operation,” statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
With regard to the limitations "thereby concentrating heat onto the corresponding one of the plurality of thermoelectric generators", "configured to dissipate the solar heat into space", “configured to radiate rejected or excess heat into space," and “reducing a weight of and increasing a surface area of the single cold plate to increase the dissipation of the heat into space,” the limitations are directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, with regard to the limitations "configured for orbital operation", "thereby concentrating heat onto the corresponding one of the plurality of thermoelectric generators", "configured to dissipate the solar heat into space", “configured to radiate rejected or excess heat into space," and “reducing a weight of and increasing a surface area of the single cold plate to increase the dissipation of the heat into space,” the limitations are directed to the manner of operating said apparatus, and it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Claims 22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0180840) in view of Campana (US 3,413,156) further in view of Murphy (US 4,235,221), as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Venkatasubramanian (US 2006/0243317).
Regarding claim 22, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Chen does disclose the single thermoelectric couple for each of the plurality of thermoelectric couples comprises a PN junction (Chen - [0070] L10), and the single thermoelectric couple for each of the plurality of thermoelectric generators is sandwiched between the first interconnect for each of the plurality of thermoelectric generators (Chen - 512 in Fig. 5A) and the single cold plate (Chen - 918 in Fig. 9; it is noted that lines 20-23 of paragraph [0090] of Chen disclose that it is understood that variations in the design of the system depicted in Fig. 9 (as is the case for Figs. 7 and 8) can be employed consistent with embodiments of the present invention); modified Chen does not explicitly disclose the PN junction is composed of tin selenide.
Venkatasubramanian disclose a thermoelectric device and further discloses the PN junction comprising tin selenide ([0078] - [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the PN junction of modified Chen with tin selenide, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, because as taught by Venkatasubramanian, the selection of thermoelectric material is dependent on the desired temperature range ([0078]). Additionally, as evidenced by Venkatasubramanian, the use of tin selenide as a thermoelectric material amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when using tin selenide as the thermoelectric material in modified Chen based on the teaching of Venkatasubramanian.
Regarding claim 23, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses the ceramic coated honeycomb comprises aluminum (Campana; 75 - C9/L20; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 24, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses the single cold plate faces the single thermoelectric couple for each of the plurality of thermoelectric generators on one side (Chen – 516 in Fig. 5A; 918 in Fig. 9; it is noted that lines 20-23 of paragraph [0090] disclose that it is understood that variations in the design of the system depicted in Fig. 9 (as is the case for Figs. 7 and 8) can be employed consistent with embodiments of the present invention). With regard to the limitation reciting the single cold plate faces space on another side, space is not positively recited nor is it part of the claimed thermoelectric array. The limitation reciting the single cold plate faces space on another side is directed to the manner in which the device is intended to be used and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 25, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses the surface area of the single cold plate is greater than that of all single thermoelectric couples (Chen – 918 in relation to 916; 516 in Fig. 5A; it is noted that lines 20-23 of paragraph [0090] disclose that it is understood that variations in the design of the system depicted in Fig. 9 (as is the case for Figs. 7 and 8) can be employed consistent with embodiments of the present invention).
With regard to the limitation "thereby increasing a temperature difference between the first interconnect for each of the plurality of thermoelectric generators and the single cold plate", the limitation is directed to the manner in which the device is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 26, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses each of the plurality of lenses comprises an area greater than that of a corresponding first interconnect (Chen – 920 in relation to 916 in Fig. 9; 512 in Fig. 5A; it is noted that lines 20-23 of paragraph [0090] disclose that it is understood that variations in the design of the system depicted in Fig. 9 (as is the case for Figs. 7 and 8) can be employed consistent with embodiments of the present invention) and less than an area of the single cold plate (Chen – 920 in relation to 918 in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 27, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses a second interconnect located on a cold side of the corresponding single thermoelectric couple (Chen – 513 in Fig. 5A; 916 in relation to 918 in Fig. 9; it is noted that lines 20-23 of paragraph [0090] disclose that it is understood that variations in the design of the system depicted in Fig. 9 (as is the case for Figs. 7 and 8) can be employed consistent with embodiments of the present invention).
With regard to the limitation "the second interconnect configured to conduct an electric flow between a PN junction, forming an electric current", the limitation is directed to the manner in which the device is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 28, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Chen does not explicitly disclose the second interconnect is composed of copper capable of withstanding temperatures in excess of 700 degrees Celsius.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a thermoelectric module and further discloses one or more interconnects composed of copper ([0171]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the interconnects of modified Chen with copper, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, because as evidenced by Venkatasubramanian, the use of copper for the interconnects of a thermoelectric module amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the interconnects of modified Chen with copper based on the teaching of Venkatasubramanian.
With regard to the limitation "capable of withstanding temperatures in excess of 700 degrees Celsius", the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 29, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Chen does disclose the backing structure can be configured as a combination electrode/heat spreader (Chen – [0078]), modified Chen does not explicitly disclose a resistant adhesive that is resistant to temperatures in excess of 700 degrees Celsius, the resistant adhesive configured to bond the second interconnect to the single cold plate.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a thermoelectric module and further discloses a eutectic is used as a solder material for bonding the heat spreader to the metallization layers ([0113],[0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a eutectic solder material, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, to bond the second interconnect to the single cold plate of modified Chen, because as evidenced by Venkatasubramanian, the use of a eutectic solder material to bond a heat spreader to a metallization layer in a thermoelectric module amounts to the use of a known material/component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when bonding the second interconnect of modified Chen to the heat spreader with a eutectic solder material based on the teaching of Venkatasubramanian.
With regard to the limitation "that is resistant to temperatures in excess of 700 degrees Celsius", the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 31-35, 37-38, and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2011/0259386) in view of Wolfe (US 3,225,208) further in view of Chen et al. (US 2012/0180840), further in view of Campana (US 3,413,156), and further in view of Murphy (US 4,235,221).
Regarding claim 31, Lee discloses a thermoelectric array comprising: a plurality of thermoelectric couples connected in series with one another ([0024]), and populated on a single cold plate (11 on 13d in Fig. 5), wherein each of the plurality of thermoelectric couples comprises a first interconnect electrically connecting a corresponding one of the plurality of thermoelectric couples (top interconnecting network on 111 connecting adjacent p-type and n-type semiconductors in Fig. 1; [0018] L6-8); and a plurality of lenses, each of which have an area larger than a corresponding one of the plurality of thermoelectric couples and having an area less than that of the single cold plate (121 in relation to 11 and 13d in Fig. 5), wherein the single cold plate has a surface area larger than each of the plurality of thermoelectric couples and each of the plurality of lenses (13d in relation to 11 and 121 in Fig. 5), and the single cold plate has a surface area greater than a surface area of the first interconnect for each of the plurality of thermoelectric generators (13d in relation to 11 and 121 in Fig. 5).
While Lee does disclose the plurality of thermoelectric couples are connected in series ([0024]), Lee does not explicitly disclose the plurality of thermoelectric couples connected both in parallel and in series with one another to form the thermoelectric array.
Wolfe discloses a thermoelectric array and further discloses a plurality of thermoelectric coupled connected in parallel and in series with one another (C1/L21 - discloses thermocouples connected in a combination of series and parallel connections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to connect the plurality of thermoelectric couples of Lee in parallel and in series with one another, as disclosed by Wolfe, because as evidenced by Wolfe, connecting thermoelectric couples in parallel and in series with one another amounts to the use of a known configuration in the art, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when connecting the thermoelectric couples of Lee in parallel and in series with one another based on the teaching of Wolfe.
While modified Lee does disclose each of the plurality of thermoelectric units is separate from one another (Lee - 11 in Fig. 5), modified Lee does not explicitly disclose each thermoelectric unit is a single thermoelectric couple.
Chen discloses a thermoelectric array (abstract L3-4 disclose one or more thermoelectric converters; [0033]) and further discloses pairs of p-type and n-type elements can be used in any number including simply one pair ([0070] L9-10). Chen further discloses a ratio between each of the plurality of lenses and a single thermoelectric couple is 1 to 1 (516 in Fig. 5A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the thermoelectric units of Lee such that each thermoelectric unit has a single thermoelectric couple, as disclosed by Chen, because as evidenced by Chen, the formation of a thermoelectric unit with a single thermoelectric couple amounts to the use of a known configuration in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming each thermoelectric unit in Lee with a single thermoelectric couple based on the teaching of Chen.
Modified Lee does not explicitly disclose the single cold plate comprising a ceramic coated honeycomb that is electrically insulative.
Campana discloses a thermoelectric device and further discloses an aluminum honeycomb structure (75 - C9/L20; Fig. 4) on the low temperature side of the thermoelectric device (75 in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the cold plate of modified Lee with an aluminum honeycomb structure, as disclosed by Campana, because as evidenced by Campana, the use of an aluminum honeycomb structure on the low temperature side of a thermoelectric device amounts to the use of a known component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the cold plate of modified Lee with an aluminum honeycomb structure based on the teaching of Campana.
Modified Lee does not explicitly disclose the aluminum cold plate is ceramic coated.
Murphy discloses a thermoelectric device and further discloses coating a plate made of aluminum with a selective black material made of a berrylium oxide, zinc oxide, aluminum oxide or the like, in order to provide an electrical insulation covering to the upper face of the plate while providing thermal conduction through it (C8/L23-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to coat the aluminum plate of modified Lee with a selective black material made of berrylium oxide, zinc oxide, aluminum oxide or the like, as disclosed by Murphy, because as evidenced by Murphy, the coating of an aluminum plate of a thermoelectric device with a selective black material made of a berrylium oxide, zinc oxide, aluminum oxide or the like, amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result. Additionally, Murphy discloses the coating provides an electrical insulation covering to the upper face of the plate while providing thermal conduction through it (C8/L23-33).
Modified Lee discloses the ceramic coated aluminum honeycomb is electrically insulative (Murphy - C8/L23-33).
With regard to the limitations "configured for orbital operation", "each of the plurality of lenses is configured to concentrate heat from the sun towards the first interconnect for each of the plurality of thermoelectric couples, thereby eliminating use of a heat sink", “configured to radiate rejected or excess heat into space, the ceramic coated honeycomb reducing a weight of and increasing a surface area of the single cold plate to increase the dissipation of the heat into space,” and "the surface area of the cold plate increasing an amount of the heat dissipating into space and controlling a peak operating temperature for each of the plurality of thermoelectric couples", the limitations are directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, with regard to the limitations "configured for orbital operation, "configured to radiate rejected or excess heat into space, the ceramic coated honeycomb reducing a weight of and increasing a surface area of the single cold plate to increase the dissipation of the heat into space,” and "the surface area of the cold plate increasing an amount of the heat dissipating into space and controlling a peak operating temperature for each of the plurality of thermoelectric couples", the limitations are directed to the manner of operating said apparatus, and it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
It is further noted that with regard to the limitation “configured for orbital operation,” statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 32, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Lee does not explicitly disclose the first interconnect is composed of copper.
Chen discloses a thermoelectric array (abstract L3-4 disclose one or more thermoelectric converters) and further discloses the first interconnect is composed of copper ([0097] L7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first interconnect of modified Lee with copper, as disclosed by Chen, because as evidenced by Chen, the use of copper as an interconnect in a thermoelectric module amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the first interconnect of modified Lee with copper based on the teaching of Chen.
Regarding claim 33, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee further discloses each of the plurality of thermoelectric couples comprises a PN junction comprising thermoelectric material (Lee - [0018] L6-8), and each of the plurality of thermoelectric couples is sandwiched between the first interconnect and the single cold plate (Lee - 11 in relation to 13d in Fig. 5; [0018] L15).
Regarding claim 34, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee further discloses the single cold plate is composed of a ceramic coated (Murphy - C8/L23-33) aluminum honeycomb (Campana – 75, C9/L20; Fig. 4) that is electrically insulative (Murphy - C8/L23-33).
With regard to the limitation "configured to radiate rejected or excess heat into space", the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a limitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 35, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee further discloses the single cold plate is positioned to face each of the plurality of thermoelectric couples on one side (Lee - 13d in relation to 11 in Fig. 5). With regard to the limitation reciting the single cold plate faces space on another side, a space is not positively recited nor is it part of the claimed thermoelectric array. The limitation reciting the single cold plate faces space on another side is directed to the manner in which the device is intended to be used and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 37, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee further discloses each of the plurality of lenses comprises an area greater than that of a corresponding first interconnect (Lee - 121 in relation to 11 in Fig. 5; [0018] L15).
Regarding claim 38, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee further discloses the first interconnect and a second interconnect located on both sides of a corresponding thermoelectric couple (Lee - [0018] L6-8 disclose p-type and n-type semiconductor connected to each other; interconnects shown in Fig. 1).
With regard to the limitation "the first interconnect and the second interconnect configured to conduct an electric flow between the PN junction, forming an electric current", the limitation is directed to the manner in which the device is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 40, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Lee does disclose the use of solder paste (Lee - [0021]), and further discloses disposing the traces on the single cold plate (Lee - [0024]), modified Lee does not explicitly disclose the solder paste configured to bond the one or more interconnects to the single cold plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use solder paste, as disclosed by Lee, to bond the one or more interconnects to the single cold plate, because as evidenced by Lee, the use of solder paste for bonding components of a thermoelectric module amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when using solder paste to bond the traces to the single cold plate based on the teaching of Lee.
With regard to the limitation "that is resistant to temperatures in excess of 700 degrees Celsius", the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 41, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee further discloses each of the plurality of lenses is a concentrator lens (Lee - [0025]).
With regard to the limitations "configured to concentrate light onto the first interconnect" and "configured to act as a protective shield for a thermoelectric and to shield the thermoelectric array and the first interconnect from elements and electrons that negatively affect performance of the thermoelectric array", the limitations are directed to the manner in which the device is intended to be used, and it is noted that the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
The limitation "the concentrated light is based on a lens concentrator factor that is adjusted based on a space environment that thermal panels operate in" is directed to the manner in which the device is made, it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2011/0259386) in view of Wolfe (US 3,225,208) further in view of Chen et al. (US 2012/0180840), further in view of Campana (US 3,413,156), further in view of Murphy (US 4,235,221) as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Venkatasubramanian (US 2006/0243317).
Regarding claim 39, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Lee does not explicitly disclose the second interconnect is composed of copper withstanding temperatures in excess of 700 degrees Celsius.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a thermoelectric module and further discloses one or more interconnects comprise copper ([0171]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the interconnects of modified Lee with copper, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, because as evidenced by Venkatasubramanian, the use of copper for the interconnects of a thermoelectric module amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the interconnects of modified Lee with copper based on the teaching of Venkatasubramanian.
With regard to the limitation "capable of withstanding temperatures in excess of 700 degrees Celsius", the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 40, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Lee does disclose the use of solder paste (Lee - [0021]), and further discloses disposing the traces on the single cold plate (Lee - [0024]), modified Lee does not explicitly disclose the solder paste configured to bond the one or more interconnects to the single cold plate.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a thermoelectric module and further discloses a eutectic is used as a solder material for bonding the heat spreader to the metallization layers ([0113],[0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a eutectic solder material, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, to bond the second interconnect to the single cold plate of modified Lee, because as evidenced by Venkatasubramanian, the use of a eutectic solder material to bond a heat spreader to a metallization layer in a thermoelectric module amounts to the use of a known material/component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when bonding the second interconnect of modified Lee to the heat spreader with a eutectic solder material based on the teaching of Venkatasubramanian.
With regard to the limitation "that is resistant to temperatures in excess of 700 degrees Celsius", the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art reference made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Toberer et al. (US 2014/0290712 A1). Toberer et al. discloses a solar thermoelectric generator (abstract) and further discloses a ratio of 1 to 1 between an optical concentration system and a thermoelectric device (Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the honeycomb arrangement of bolsters 37 of Campana is not for a cold plate or a cold side of a thermoelectric array. Rather, in Campana, bolsters 37 are used to impart “good structural strength” on panel 11 with “minimum” material weight. Applicant further argues that while honeycomb structures can be used for weight reduction, there is no disclosure, teaching or suggestion of using such a structure for heat dissipation, nor disclosure that is it suitable for a cold plate. Applicant asserts the plain meaning of the word “plate” implies that the cold plate is flat and lacks such a structure.
In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth in the office action, Campana
discloses a thermoelectric device and further discloses an aluminum honeycomb structure (75 - C9/L20; Fig. 4) on the low temperature side of the thermoelectric device (75 in Fig. 4), and with regard to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching of using such a structure for heat dissipation, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Additionally, regarding Applicant’s argument pertaining to the plain meaning of the word plate, the plain meaning of the word plate does not preclude the obviousness of the formation of the cold plate with an aluminum honeycomb structure based on the teachings of the prior art as set forth in the office action.
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights