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
Claim 44 is directed to Group II as set forth in the 11/25/2022 Restriction Requirement. Claim 44 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of this office action, the limitation "controlled hierarchical engineered superlattice structure" is interpreted in a manner consistent with the description in the as-filed specification. Specifically, paragraph [0024] of the specification of application serial number 17/132,640, which is incorporated by reference in paragraph [0024] of the as-filed specification, describes an example CHESS structure may be comprised of a plurality of periods disposed on a substrate, and each of the periods may have two layers.
Claim Objections
Claims 30-33 are objected to because of the following informalities: each of claims 30-33 appear to be missing the word “layer” in line 3 before the phrase “with a bandgap.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claim 26 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 26 simply recites “the device” without specifying the device of claim 19 to which the limitation refers rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claim 38 recites “wherein the apparatus is a 1-sun flat-plate system without any concentration of sunlight,” however, the as-filed specification describes 1-sun flat-plate systems in relation to a PV device. The claimed apparatus comprises a TEG mounted to a photovoltaic device, and the as-filed specification does not describe an 1-sun flat-plate apparatus comprising a TEG mounted to a photovoltaic device. Claims 39 and 40 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 38.
Claims 42 and 43 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, claims 42 and 43 each recite the limitation “bismuth selenide alloy” followed by a specific bismuth selenide alloy in parenthesis, and a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 42 and 43 recite the broad recitation bismuth selenide alloy, and the claim also recites a specific bismuth selenide alloy in parenthesis which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 45-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, lines 7 through 9 of claim 45 recite “wherein the cold thermal blanket has a bottom side for facing towards the energy source and a top side for facing away from the energy source, the bottom side of the cold thermal blanket mounted on the bottom side of the CHESS thin-film TEG,” however, the as-field specification does not describe the cold thermal blanket has a bottom side for facing towards the energy source and a top side for facing away from the energy source, the bottom side of the cold thermal blanket mounted on the bottom side of the CHESS thin-film TEG. Claims 46 through 50 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 45.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claim 47 recites “wherein the apparatus is integrated into a satellite or spacecraft to power communication devices aboard the satellite or spacecraft,” however, the as-filed specification does not describe this limitation in conjunction with the subject matter recited in claim 45 from which claim 47 depends.
Claims 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claims 48 through 50 each recite limitations which are not described in the as-filed specification in conjunction with the subject matter of claim 45.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claims 4, 7, 27, 34-37, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu (US 2013/0291919).
Regarding claim 27, Lu discloses a method for manufacturing an apparatus for
harvesting energy from a solar energy source (abstract) comprising: mounting a controlled hierarchical engineered superlattice structure (CHESS) thin-film thermoelectric generator (TEG) ([0023], [0024]) to a photovoltaic device (16 and 18 in Fig. 1; [0014]), wherein the CHESS thin-film TEG has a top side for facing towards the solar energy source (top of 18 in Fig. 1) and a bottom side for facing away from the solar energy source (bottom side of 18 in Fig. 1), and wherein the photovoltaic device has a top side for facing towards the solar energy source (top of 16 in Fig. 1) and a bottom side for facing away from the solar energy source (bottom of 16 in Fig. 1), the bottom side of the photovoltaic device mounted on the top side of the CHESS thin-film TEG (bottom of 16 in relation to top of 18 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lu further discloses the CHESS thin-film TEG comprises p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures and n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures ([0023],[0024]), wherein the p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures comprise a first p-type semiconductor material layer disposed adjacent to a second p-type semiconductor material layer ([0024]).
Regarding claim 7, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lu further discloses the CHESS thin-film TEG comprises p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures and n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures ([0023],[0024]), wherein the n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures comprise a first n-type semiconductor material layer disposed adjacent to a second n-type semiconductor material layer ([0024]).
Regarding claim 34, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lu further discloses the photovoltaic device comprises a multi-junction photovoltaic device ([0016]).
Regarding claim 35, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. With regard to the limitation “wherein the apparatus is capable of operating at a temperature of about 120K to about 335K,” 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 36, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lu further discloses mounting a heat sink to the CHESS thin-film TEG (horizontal portion of 22 in Fig. 3 in relation to 18), wherein the heat sink has a top side for facing toward the solar energy source and a bottom side for facing away from the solar energy source (horizontal portion of 22 in Fig. 3 in relation to 26), the top side of the heat sink mounted on the bottom side of the CHESS thin-film TEG (top side of the horizontal portion of 22 in relation to 18 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 37, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lu further discloses mounting a cooling system to the bottom side of the heat sink (cooling fins extending vertically from horizontal portion of 22 satisfy the limitation “cooling system”; [0014]).
Regarding claim 44, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lu further discloses the apparatus for harvesting energy from the solar energy source (Figures 1 and 3).
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 5-6, 8-9, 28-33, 41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 2013/0291919) as applied to claims 4, 7, and 27 above, in view of Venkatasubramanian et al. (US 2018/0138106).
Regarding claim 5, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Lu does not explicitly disclose the first p-type semiconductor material layer comprises p-type bismuth telluride; and the second p-type semiconductor material layer comprises p-type antimony telluride or a p-type bismuth selenide alloy.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a thin-film thermoelectric device comprising p-type controlled hierarchical engineered superlattice structure thermoelectric structures and n-type controlled hierarchical engineered superlattice structure thermoelectric structures ([0023]), and further discloses the first p-type semiconductor material layer comprises p-type bismuth telluride, and the second p-type semiconductor material layer comprises p-type antimony telluride ([0023]; [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use bismuth telluride and antimony telluride, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, for the first and second p-type semiconductor material layers of Lu, respectively, because as evidenced by Venkatasubramanian, the use of bismuth telluride and antimony telluride as p-type semiconductor material layers in a thermoelectric structure amounts to the use of known materials in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using bismuth telluride and antimony telluride for the first and second p-type semiconductor material layers of Lu based on the teaching of Venkatasubramanian.
Regarding claim 6, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Lu does not explicitly disclose the first p-type semiconductor material layer comprises a first periodic table Group V-VI compound doped to form a first p-type semiconductor material; and the second p-type semiconductor material comprises a second periodic table Group V-VI compound doped to form a second p-type semiconductor material.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a thin-film thermoelectric device comprising p-type controlled hierarchical engineered superlattice structure thermoelectric structures and n-type controlled hierarchical engineered superlattice structure thermoelectric structures ([0023]), and further discloses the first p-type semiconductor material layer comprises p-type bismuth telluride doped to form a first p-type semiconductor material, and the second p-type semiconductor material layer comprises p-type antimony telluride doped to form a second p-type semiconductor material (Venkatasubramanian - [0023]; [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use bismuth telluride and antimony telluride, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, for the first and second p-type semiconductor material layers of Lu, respectively, because as evidenced by Venkatasubramanian, the use of bismuth telluride and antimony telluride as p-type semiconductor material layers in a thermoelectric structure amounts to the use of known materials in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using bismuth telluride and antimony telluride for the first and second p-type semiconductor material layers of Lu based on the teaching of Venkatasubramanian.
Regarding claim 8, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Lu does not explicitly disclose the first n-type semiconductor material layer comprises n-type bismuth telluride; and the second n-type semiconductor material layer comprises n-type antimony telluride or a n-type bismuth selenide alloy.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a thin-film thermoelectric device comprising p-type controlled hierarchical engineered superlattice structure thermoelectric structures and n-type controlled hierarchical engineered superlattice structure thermoelectric structures ([0023]), and further discloses the first n-type semiconductor material layer comprises n-type bismuth telluride, and the second n-type semiconductor material layer comprises n-type antimony telluride ([0023]; [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use bismuth telluride and antimony telluride, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, for the first and second n-type semiconductor material layers of Lu, respectively, because as evidenced by Venkatasubramanian, the use of bismuth telluride and antimony telluride as n-type semiconductor material layers in a thermoelectric structure amounts to the use of known materials in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using bismuth telluride and antimony telluride for the first and second n-type semiconductor material layers of Lu based on the teaching of Venkatasubramanian.
Regarding claim 9, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Lu does not explicitly disclose the first n-type semiconductor material layer comprises a first periodic table Group V-VI compound doped to form a first n-type semiconductor material; and the second n-type semiconductor material comprises a second periodic table Group V-VI compound doped to form a second n-type semiconductor material.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a thin-film thermoelectric device comprising p-type controlled hierarchical engineered superlattice structure thermoelectric structures and n-type controlled hierarchical engineered superlattice structure thermoelectric structures ([0023]), and further discloses the first n-type semiconductor material layer comprises n-type bismuth telluride doped to form a first p-type semiconductor material, and the second n-type semiconductor material layer comprises p-type antimony telluride doped to form a second n-type semiconductor material (Venkatasubramanian - [0023]; [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use bismuth telluride and antimony telluride, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, for the first and second n-type semiconductor material layers of Lu, respectively, because as evidenced by Venkatasubramanian, the use of bismuth telluride and antimony telluride as n-type semiconductor material layers in a thermoelectric structure amounts to the use of known materials in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using bismuth telluride and antimony telluride for the first and second n-type semiconductor material layers of Lu based on the teaching of Venkatasubramanian.
Regarding claim 28, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Lu does not explicitly disclose the CHESS thin-film TEG has two adjacent layers with a bandgap difference of about 0.04 eV to about 0.17 eV at 300K.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a method for manufacturing a thermoelectric device and further discloses p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having p-type layers of varying thicknesses and n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having n-type layers of varying thicknesses ([0023],[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each of the respective CHESS structures of Lu with varying thicknesses, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, because as taught by Venkatasubramanian, a variety of CHESS structures may be formed, for example, through reliance of continuously engineering layers and periods of various thicknesses for optimal phonon blocking and bandgap characteristics along the thickness and an associated temperature gradient ([0032]).
Modified Lu discloses the CHESS thin-film TEG has two adjacent layers with a bandgap difference of 0.1636 eV at 300K (Venkatasubramanian – [0037]).
Regarding claim 29, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Lu does not explicitly disclose the CHESS thin-film TEG has two adjacent layers with a bandgap difference of about 0.04 eV to about 0.16 eV at 140K.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a method for manufacturing a thermoelectric device and further discloses p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having p-type layers of varying thicknesses and n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having n-type layers of varying thicknesses ([0023],[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each of the respective CHESS structures of Lu with varying thicknesses, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, because as taught by Venkatasubramanian, a variety of CHESS structures may be formed, for example, through reliance of continuously engineering layers and periods of various thicknesses for optimal phonon blocking and bandgap characteristics along the thickness and an associated temperature gradient ([0032]).
Modified Lu discloses the CHESS thin-film TEG has two adjacent layers with a bandgap difference of 0.13-0.09 eV at 140K (Venkatasubramanian – [0038]).
Regarding claim 30, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Lu does not explicitly disclose the CHESS thin-film TEG has a p-type bismuth telluride layer with a bandgap of about 0.13 eV at 300K adjacent to a p-type antimony telluride layer with a bandgap of about 0.17 eV at 300K.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a method for manufacturing a thermoelectric device and further discloses p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having p-type layers of varying thicknesses and n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having n-type layers of varying thicknesses ([0023],[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each of the respective CHESS structures of Lu with varying thicknesses, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, because as taught by Venkatasubramanian, a variety of CHESS structures may be formed, for example, through reliance of continuously engineering layers and periods of various thicknesses for optimal phonon blocking and bandgap characteristics along the thickness and an associated temperature gradient ([0032]).
Modified Lu discloses a p-type bismuth telluride layer with a bandgap of about 0.13 eV at 300K (Venkatasubramanian – [0038]) adjacent to a p-type antimony telluride layer with a bandgap of about 0.17 eV at 300K (Venkatasubramanian – [0038]).
Regarding claim 31, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Lu does not explicitly disclose the CHESS thin-film TEG has a p-type bismuth telluride layer with a bandgap of about 0.09 eV at 140K adjacent to a p-type antimony telluride layer with a bandgap of about 0.13 eV at 140K.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a method for manufacturing a thermoelectric device and further discloses p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having p-type layers of varying thicknesses and n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having n-type layers of varying thicknesses ([0023],[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each of the respective CHESS structures of Lu with varying thicknesses, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, because as taught by Venkatasubramanian, a variety of CHESS structures may be formed, for example, through reliance of continuously engineering layers and periods of various thicknesses for optimal phonon blocking and bandgap characteristics along the thickness and an associated temperature gradient ([0032]).
Modified Lu discloses the CHESS thin-film TEG has a p-type bismuth telluride layer with a bandgap of about 0.09 eV at 140K (Venkatasubramanian – [0038]) adjacent to a p-type antimony telluride layer with a bandgap of about 0.13 eV at 140K (Venkatasubramanian – [0038]).
Regarding claim 32, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Lu does not explicitly disclose the CHESS thin-film TEG has an n-type bismuth telluride layer with a bandgap of about 0.13 eV at 300K adjacent to an n-type bismuth selenide layer with a bandgap of about 0.3 eV at 300K.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a method for manufacturing a thermoelectric device and further discloses p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having p-type layers of varying thicknesses and n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having n-type layers of varying thicknesses ([0023],[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each of the respective CHESS structures of Lu with varying thicknesses, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, because as taught by Venkatasubramanian, a variety of CHESS structures may be formed, for example, through reliance of continuously engineering layers and periods of various thicknesses for optimal phonon blocking and bandgap characteristics along the thickness and an associated temperature gradient ([0032]).
Modified Lu discloses the CHESS thin-film TEG has an n-type bismuth telluride layer with a bandgap of about 0.13 eV at 300K (Venkatasubramanian – [0038]) adjacent to an n-type bismuth selenide layer with a bandgap of about 0.3 eV at 300K (Venkatasubramanian – [0038]).
Regarding claim 33, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Lu does not explicitly disclose the CHESS thin-film TEG has an n-type bismuth telluride layer with a bandgap of about 0.09 eV at 140K adjacent to an n-type bismuth selenide layer with a bandgap of about 0.25 eV at 140K.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a method for manufacturing a thermoelectric device and further discloses p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having p-type layers of varying thicknesses and n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having n-type layers of varying thicknesses ([0023],[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each of the respective CHESS structures of Lu with varying thicknesses, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, because as taught by Venkatasubramanian, a variety of CHESS structures may be formed, for example, through reliance of continuously engineering layers and periods of various thicknesses for optimal phonon blocking and bandgap characteristics along the thickness and an associated temperature gradient ([0032]).
Modified Lu discloses the CHESS thin-film TEG has an n-type bismuth telluride layer with a bandgap of about 0.09 eV at 140K (Venkatasubramanian – [0038]) adjacent to an n-type bismuth selenide layer with a bandgap of about 0.25 eV at 140K (Venkatasubramanian – [0038]).
Regarding claim 41, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Lu does disclose the p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures have no n-type layers and the n-type CHESS structures have no p-type layers (p legs and n legs disclosed in paragraph [0024]); Lu does not explicitly the p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures have p-type layers of varying thicknesses and the n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures have n-type layers of varying thicknesses.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a method for manufacturing a thermoelectric device and further discloses p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having p-type layers of varying thicknesses and n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having n-type layers of varying thicknesses ([0023],[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each of the respective CHESS structures of Lu with varying thicknesses, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, because as taught by Venkatasubramanian, a variety of CHESS structures may be formed, for example, through reliance of continuously engineering layers and periods of various thicknesses for optimal phonon blocking and bandgap characteristics along the thickness and an associated temperature gradient ([0032]).
Regarding claim 43, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Lu does not explicitly disclose the CHESS thin-film TEG has an n-type bismuth telluride layer adjacent to an n-type bismuth selenide alloy.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a method for manufacturing a thermoelectric device and further discloses p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having p-type layers of varying thicknesses and n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having n-type layers of varying thicknesses ([0023],[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each of the respective CHESS structures of Lu with varying thicknesses, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, because as taught by Venkatasubramanian, a variety of CHESS structures may be formed, for example, through reliance of continuously engineering layers and periods of various thicknesses for optimal phonon blocking and bandgap characteristics along the thickness and an associated temperature gradient ([0032]).
Modified Lu discloses the CHESS thin-film TEG has an n-type bismuth telluride layer adjacent to an n-type bismuth selenide alloy (Venkatasubramanian – [0038]).
Claims 19, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 2013/0291919) in view of Venkatasubramanian et al. (US 2018/0138106).
Regarding claim 19, Lu discloses a method for manufacturing an apparatus for harvesting energy for extra electrical power on a satellite to be orbited in space ([0012]), the method comprising: mounting a nano-engineered thin-film thermoelectric (NETT) device ([0023], [0024]) to a photovoltaic device (16 and 18 in Fig. 1; [0014]), the NETT device comprising controlled hierarchical engineered superlattice structure (CHESS) thermoelectric structures comprising p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures and n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures ([0023],[0024]), the photovoltaic device mounted on a first side of the NETT device (16 in relation to 18 in Fig. 1) and configured to harvest solar energy and generate electrical power for the satellite ([0012]); mounting a heat sink device to a second side of the NETT device opposite the photovoltaic device (horizontal portion of 22 in Fig. 3 (which connects the vertical cooling fins ([0014])) satisfies the limitation “heat sink device”); and mounting a cooling system to the heat sink device ([0014]; cooling fins attached to horizontal portion of 22 in Fig. 3 satisfy the limitation “cooling system”), wherein the p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures are between the photovoltaic device and the heat sink device (p legs and n legs disclosed in paragraph [0024]; 18 in relation to 16 and horizontal portion of 22 in Fig. 3), wherein the n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures are between the photovoltaic device and the heat sink device ((p legs and n legs disclosed in paragraph [0024]; 18 in relation to 16 and horizontal portion of 22 in Fig. 3), wherein the p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures are separate and apart from the n-type thermoelectric structures (p legs and n legs disclosed in paragraph [0024]).
While Lu does disclose the p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures have no n-type layers and the n-type CHESS structures have no p-type layers (p legs and n legs disclosed in paragraph [0024]); Lu does not explicitly the p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures have p-type layers of varying thicknesses and the n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures have n-type layers of varying thicknesses.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a method for manufacturing a thermoelectric device and further discloses p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having p-type layers of varying thicknesses and n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having n-type layers of varying thicknesses ([0023],[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each of the respective CHESS structures of Lu with varying thicknesses, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, because as taught by Venkatasubramanian, a variety of CHESS structures may be formed, for example, through reliance of continuously engineering layers and periods of various thicknesses for optimal phonon blocking and bandgap characteristics along the thickness and an associated temperature gradient ([0032]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lu further discloses the photovoltaic device comprises a multi-junction photovoltaic device ([0016]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lu further discloses the CHESS thermoelectric structures comprise a pair of electrical contacts for each p-type CHESS thermoelectric structure (Lu – [0024]; it is noted that any two of the layers in the disclosed p-type thermoelectric structure satisfy the limitation “a pair of electrical contacts.” The limitation “electrical contact” simply requires a material which is electrically conductive. The limitation does not specify the material of the electrical contacts recited.), wherein the CHESS thermoelectric structures further comprise a pair of electrical contacts for each n-type CHESS thermoelectric structure (Lu – [0024]; it is noted that any two of the layers in the disclosed n-type thermoelectric structure satisfy the limitation “a pair of electrical contacts”), wherein the pairs of electrical contacts for the p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures are different than the pairs of electrical contacts for the n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures (Lu – [0024]; the pair of layers in each p-type thermoelectric structure is different than the pair of layers in each n-type thermoelectric structure).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 2013/0291919) as applied to claim 27 above, in view of Venkatasubramanian et al. (US 2018/0138106) and further in view of Mack et al. (US 2003/0224168).
Regarding claim 42, Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Lu does not explicitly disclose the CHESS thin-film TEG has an p-type bismuth telluride layer adjacent to a p-type bismuth selenide alloy.
Venkatasubramanian discloses a method for manufacturing a thermoelectric device and further discloses p-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having p-type layers of varying thicknesses and n-type CHESS thermoelectric structures having n-type layers of varying thicknesses ([0023],[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each of the respective CHESS structures of Lu with varying thicknesses, as disclosed by Venkatasubramanian, because as taught by Venkatasubramanian, a variety of CHESS structures may be formed, for example, through reliance of continuously engineering layers and periods of various thicknesses for optimal phonon blocking and bandgap characteristics along the thickness and an associated temperature gradient ([0032]).
Modified Lu discloses the CHESS thin-film TEG has an p-type bismuth telluride layer adjacent to a p-type antimony telluride alloy (Venkatasubramanian – [0038]).
Modified Lu does not explicitly disclose the layer adjacent to the p-type bismuth telluride layer is a p-type bismuth selenide layer.
Mack discloses the use of nanostructured p-type bismuth selenide layer or a p-type antimony telluride layer as a thermoelectric material ([0016])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the inventio was filed to form the p-type thermoelectric material layer of modified Lu with a bismuth selenide alloy, as disclosed by Mack, instead of an antimony telluride alloy, because as evidenced by Mack, the use of a bismuth selenide alloy in place of an antimony telluride alloy for p-type thermoelectric material amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using a bismuth selenide alloy as a p-type thermoelectric material in modified Lu based on the teaching of Mack.
Claims 45 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 2013/0291919) in view of Huang et al. (US 2009/0250091).
Regarding claim 45, Lu discloses a method for manufacturing an apparatus for harvesting energy from an energy source in space ((0012]) comprising: mounting a controlled hierarchical engineered superlattice structure (CHESS) thin-film thermoelectric generator (TEG) ([0023], [0024]) to a heat sink ([0014]; 22 in Fig. 3), wherein the CHESS thin-film TEG has a top side for facing towards the energy source and a bottom side for facing away from the energy source (top and bottom sides of 18 in relation to 26 in Fig. 3), and wherein the heat sink has a bottom side for facing towards the energy source and a top side for facing away from the energy source, the bottom side of the heat sink mounted on the bottom side of the CHESS thin-film TEG (22 in relation to 18 in Fig. 3; it is noted that the terms “top” and “bottom” are dependent on the spatial orientation of the structure).
Lu does not explicitly disclose a cold thermal blanket mounted on the thermoelectric generator.
Huang discloses a method for manufacturing an apparatus for harvesting energy from an energy source (Fig. 9) and further discloses a radiator blanket (914 in Fig. 9; [0071]) mounted on a thermoelectric generator (906 and 908 in Fig. 9; [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to mount a thermal blanket, as disclosed by Huang, on the TEG of Lu, because as evidenced by Huang, the incorporation of a thermal blanket on the heat sink of a thermoelectric device amounts to the use of a known component/material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when including a thermal blanket on the heat sink of Lu based on the teaching of Huang.
Regarding claim 50, modified Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lu further discloses the apparatus is integrated in a satellite (Lu – [0012]).
Modified Lu does not explicitly disclose the apparatus generates power using on-board fuel source in a satellite for generating heat to survive a damaged battery event during an eclipse phase of the satellite.
Huang discloses a method for manufacturing an apparatus for harvesting energy from an energy source (Fig. 9) and further discloses a fuel source for generating heat (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a fuel source for generating heat, as disclosed by Huang, in the apparatus of modified Lu, because as taught by Huang, the control system controls a temperature gradient across the TEC module to control the electrical power produced by the thermal-to-electric energy conversion device ([0009]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “to survive a damaged battery event,” the combustion chamber of modified Lu provides heat to the TEC which allows operation during a damaged battery event.
It is further noted that with regard to the limitation “during an eclipse phase of the satellite,” the limitation does not preclude partial eclipses in which the apparatus is exposed to heat from the sun.
Claims 46 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 2013/0291919) in view of Huang et al. (US 2009/0250091) as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Pingree et al. (US 2011/0209739).
Regarding claim 46, modified Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lu further discloses the apparatus is integrated in a satellite (Lu – [0012]).
Modified Lu does not explicitly disclose the apparatus powers health monitoring sensors aboard the satellite or spacecraft.
Pingree discloses a method for manufacturing an apparatus for harvesting energy from an energy source in space ([0049]) and further discloses the apparatus powers health monitoring sensors aboard the satellite or spacecraft ([0004],[0048],[0049],[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the apparatus of modified Lu to power health monitoring sensors, as disclosed by Pingree, because as evidenced by Pingree, the use of a thermoelectric generator to power health monitoring sensors amounts to the use of known components in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using the apparatus of modified Lu to power health monitoring sensors based on the teaching of Pingree.
Regarding claim 47, modified Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lu further discloses the apparatus is integrated in a satellite (Lu – [0012]).
Modified Lu does not explicitly disclose the apparatus powers communication devices aboard the satellite or spacecraft.
Pingree discloses a method for manufacturing an apparatus for harvesting energy from an energy source in space ([0049]) and further discloses the apparatus powers communication devices aboard the satellite or spacecraft ([0004],[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the apparatus of modified Lu to power communication devices, as disclosed by Pingree, because as evidenced by Pingree, the use of a thermoelectric generator to power communication devices amounts to the use of known components in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using the apparatus of modified Lu to power communication devices based on the teaching of Pingree.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 2013/0291919) in view of Huang et al. (US 2009/0250091) as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Esser et al. (US 2005/0161072).
Regarding claim 48, modified Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above. Modified Lu further discloses the apparatus is integrated in a satellite (Lu – [0012]).
Modified Lu does not explicitly disclose the apparatus provides power to the satellite by charging a battery during an eclipse phase of the satellite.
Esser discloses a method for manufacturing an apparatus for harvesting energy from an energy source in space ([0032]), and further discloses the apparatus provides power to a satellite by charging a battery ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the apparatus of modified Lu to provide power to the satellite by charging a battery, as disclosed by Esser, because as evidenced by Esser, the configuration in which a thermoelectric generator provides power to charge a battery on a satellite or space craft amounts to the use of a known configuration in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using the thermoelectric generator of modified Lu to provide power to the satellite by charging a battery based on the teaching of Esser.
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “during an eclipse phase of the satellite,” the limitation does not preclude partial eclipses in which the apparatus is exposed to heat from the sun.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 2013/0291919) in view of Huang et al. (US 2009/0250091) as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Karimi et al. (US 2012/0232728).
Regarding claim 49, modified Lu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lu further discloses the apparatus is integrated in a satellite (Lu – [0012]).
Modified Lu does not explicitly disclose the apparatus provides power to the
satellite to survive a damaged battery event.
Karimi discloses a method for manufacturing an apparatus for harvesting energy from an energy source ([0022],[0035]) and further discloses the apparatus provides alternate power ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the apparatus of modified Lu as an alternate power source, as disclosed by Karimi, because as taught by Karimi, alternate power sources may provide faster dynamic response to power demands, as well as improved power availability and reliability ([0019]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “during an eclipse phase of the satellite,” the limitation does not preclude partial eclipses in which the apparatus is exposed to heat from the sun.
It is further noted that the alternate power source of modified Lu is capable of providing power in the event a battery is damaged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 4-9, 19, 23, and 25-50 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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