DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed September 16, 2025.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed September 16, 2025, the rejections of claims 6-9, 11-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously presented in the Office Action sent June 16, 2025 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed September 16, 2025, the rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent June 16, 2025 have been substantially maintained and modified only in response to the Amendments to the Claims.
Claims 1, 4-10, and 16-20 are currently pending while claim 10 has been withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shiraishi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0082564 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Shiraishi et al. discloses a thermoelectric array display, comprising
a plurality of pixels (see Fig. 5 depicting a plurality of pixels including the left most pair of members 130/140 and corresponding patterns 111/121 and adjacent pair of members 130/140 and corresponding patterns 111/121), wherein the each pixel of the plurality of pixels comprises
a bottom electrode (121, Fig. 5),
a P-type thermoelectric leg (130, Fig. 5 and see [0048]),
an N-type thermoelectric leg (140, Fig. 5 and see [0048]), and
a top electrode (111, Fig. 5), the
P-type thermoelectric leg is arranged on the bottom electrode (as depicted in Fig. 5, the cited P-type thermoelectric leg 130 is arranged on the cited bottom electrode 121), and
a top of the P-type thermoelectric leg is connected in series to a top of the N-type thermoelectric leg by the top electrode (as depicted in Fig. 5, top of the cited P-type thermoelectric leg 130 is connected in series to a top of the cited N-type thermoelectric leg 140 by the cited top electrode 111); wherein
a N-type thermoelectric leg of one pixel of the plurality of pixels is structurally connected in series to a P-type thermoelectric leg of an adjacent pixel of the plurality of pixels by a bottom electrode of the adjacent pixel (as depicted in Fig. 5, a N-type thermoelectric leg 140 of the left most pixel of the plurality of pixels is structurally connected in series to a P-type thermoelectric leg 130 of an adjacent pixel of the plurality of pixels by a bottom electrode 121 of the adjacent pixel); wherein
the plurality of pixels are arranged to form a square matrix (as depicted in Fig. 1 and 4, the plurality of pixels are arranged to form a square matrix); wherein
a first group of pixels of the plurality of pixels are connected to a first current (as depicted in Fig. 1, a first group of pixels 10 which is cited to read on the claimed “are connected to a first current” because they are structurally capable of being connected to a first current at the cited electrodes), and
a second group of pixels of the plurality of pixels are connected to a second current (as depicted in Fig. 1, a second group of pixels 10 which is cited to read on the claimed “are connected to a second current” because they are structurally capable of being connected to a second current at the cited electrodes); and wherein
the first current is different from the second current, causing the plurality of pixels to display a two-dimensional code pattern under an infrared detector (the cited first and second group of pixels 10 are cited to read on the claimed “wherein the first current is different from the second current, causing the plurality of pixels to display a two-dimensional code pattern under an infrared detector” because they are structurally capable of being connected to first and second currents which are different, causing the plurality of pixels to display a two-dimensional code pattern under an infrared detector because they are structurally capable of being connected at the cited electrodes of each cited group of pixels 10 which are electrically independent from each other, see [0054]).
With regard to claim 1, Shiraishi et al. discloses a thermoelectric array display, comprising
a plurality of pixels (see Fig. 5 depicting a plurality of pixels including the left most pair of members 130/140 and corresponding patterns 111/121 and adjacent pair of members 130/140 and corresponding patterns 111/121), wherein the each pixel of the plurality of pixels comprises
a bottom electrode (121, Fig. 5),
a P-type thermoelectric leg (130, Fig. 5 and see [0048]),
an N-type thermoelectric leg (140, Fig. 5 and see [0048]), and
a top electrode (111, Fig. 5), the
P-type thermoelectric leg is arranged on the bottom electrode (as depicted in Fig. 5, the cited P-type thermoelectric leg 130 is arranged on the cited bottom electrode 121), and
a top of the P-type thermoelectric leg is connected in series to a top of the N-type thermoelectric leg by the top electrode (as depicted in Fig. 5, top of the cited P-type thermoelectric leg 130 is connected in series to a top of the cited N-type thermoelectric leg 140 by the cited top electrode 111); wherein
a N-type thermoelectric leg of one pixel of the plurality of pixels is structurally connected in series to a P-type thermoelectric leg of an adjacent pixel of the plurality of pixels by a bottom electrode of the adjacent pixel (as depicted in Fig. 5, a N-type thermoelectric leg 140 of the left most pixel of the plurality of pixels is structurally connected in series to a P-type thermoelectric leg 130 of an adjacent pixel of the plurality of pixels by a bottom electrode 121 of the adjacent pixel); wherein
the plurality of pixels are arranged to form a square matrix (as depicted in Fig. 1 and 4, the plurality of pixels are arranged to form a square matrix); wherein
a first group of pixels of the plurality of pixels are connected to a first current (as depicted in Fig. 1, a first group of pixels 10 which is cited to read on the claimed “are connected to a first current” because they are connected to a first current generated at the cited first group of pixels 10 in response to a heat flow at the cited first group of pixels 10), and
a second group of pixels of the plurality of pixels are connected to a second current (as depicted in Fig. 1, a second group of pixels 10 which is cited to read on the claimed “are connected to a second current” because they are connected to a second current generated at the cited second group of pixels 10 in response to a heat flow at the cited second group of pixels 10); and wherein
the first current is different from the second current, causing the plurality of pixels to display a two-dimensional code pattern under an infrared detector (see [0035-0038] teaching different heat flows at each group of pixels 10 provide different currents generated by the thermoelectric conversion elements/pixels within each group of pixels in which, the cited first current and cited second current being different causes the cited plurality of pixels to display a two-dimensional code pattern detectable under an infrared detector as a heat pattern due to the different heat flows).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0082564 A1).
With regard to claim 4, independent claim 1 is anticipated by Shiraishi et al. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as discussed above.
Shiraishi et al. does not disclose wherein a distance between adjacent pixels of the plurality of pixels is 0.2 mm to 5 cm.
However, the distance between adjacent pixels of the plurality of pixels is a result effective variable and Shiraishi et al. teaches the spacing between adjacent members 130/140, which corresponds to the distance between the cited adjacent pixels of the plurality of pixels, can be varied to increase density and electromotive force generated (see [0047]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the distance between adjacent pixels of the plurality of pixels in the display of Shiraishi et al. and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the density and electromotive force generated.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0082564 A1) in view of Himmer (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0034138 A1).
With regard to claim 5, independent claim 1 is anticipated by Shiraishi et al. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as discussed above. Shiraishi et al. discloses wherein
a thermally conductive and insulating material is filled between adjacent pixels of the plurality of pixels (such as depicted in Fig. 5, a thermally conductive and insulating material 100 is filled between adjacent pixels of the plurality of pixels; see [0044]).
Shiraishi et al. does not disclose wherein the thermally conductive and insulating material is silica gel.
However, Himmer discloses a thermoelectric device (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a filler material between adjacent thermoelectric elements can include silica gel (see [0070] cited to read on the claimed “thermally conductive and insulating material” as it is thermally insulating and includes some degree of thermal conductivity).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the silica gel material of Himmer for the filler material 100 of Shiraishi et al. because the selection of a known material base on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case a filler material between adjacent thermoelectric legs, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
With regard to claim 6, dependent claim 5 is obvious over Shiraishi et al. in view of Himmer under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Shiraishi et al. discloses wherein
the top electrode is a metallic material or a non-metallic material; when the top electrode is the metallic material, the top electrode is gold, silver, or copper; and when the top electrode is the non-metallic material, the top electrode is carbon paste (see [0049] teaching cited top electrode 111 as “copper”).
With regard to claim 7, dependent claim 6 is obvious over Shiraishi et al. in view of Himmer under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Shiraishi et al. discloses wherein
both the P-type thermoelectric leg and the N-type thermoelectric leg are manufactured from bismuth telluride, antimony telluride, a magnesium silicon material, or silver selenide (see [0048] teaching bismuth antimony telluride alloy bismuth telluride alloy).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0082564 A1), and in further view of Himmer (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0034138 A1).
With regard to claim 16, dependent claim 4 is obvious over Shiraishi et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Shiraishi et al. discloses wherein
a thermally conductive and insulating material is filled between adjacent pixels of the plurality of pixels (such as depicted in Fig. 5, a thermally conductive and insulating material 100 is filled between adjacent pixels of the plurality of pixels; see [0044]).
Shiraishi et al. does not disclose wherein the thermally conductive and insulating material is silica gel.
However, Himmer discloses a thermoelectric device (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a filler material between adjacent thermoelectric elements can include silica gel (see [0070] cited to read on the claimed “thermally conductive and insulating material” as it is thermally insulating and includes some degree of thermal conductivity).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the silica gel material of Himmer for the filler material 100 of Shiraishi et al. because the selection of a known material base on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case a filler material between adjacent thermoelectric legs, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
With regard to claim 17, dependent claim 16 is obvious over Shiraishi et al. in view of Himmer under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Shiraishi et al. discloses wherein
the top electrode is a metallic material or a non-metallic material; when the top electrode is the metallic material, the top electrode is gold, silver, or copper; and when the top electrode is the non-metallic material, the top electrode is carbon paste (see [0049] teaching cited top electrode 111 as “copper”).
With regard to claim 18, dependent claim 17 is obvious over Shiraishi et al. in view of Himmer under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Shiraishi et al. discloses wherein
both the P-type thermoelectric leg and the N-type thermoelectric leg are manufactured from bismuth telluride, antimony telluride, a magnesium silicon material, or silver selenide (see [0048] teaching bismuth antimony telluride alloy bismuth telluride alloy).
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0082564 A1) in view of Himmer (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0034138 A1), and in further view of Park et al. (KR 2020074824 A).
With regard to claims 8 and 19, dependent claims 7 and 18 are obvious over Shiraishi et al. in view of Himmer under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Shiraishi et al. does not disclose wherein the top electrode is connected to the top of the P-type and N-type thermoelectric legs by a solder or conductive adhesive.
However, Park et al. discloses a thermoelectric device (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a top electrode 20b connected to the top of P-type an N-type thermoelectric legs 30 (see Fig. 3) can includes solder (see 40, Fig. 3 and Abstract).
Park et al. teaches the solder can provide high temperature reliability (see Abstract).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the connection of the top electrode to the top of the P-type and N-type thermoelectric legs of Shiraishi et al. to include the solder of Park et al. because it would have provided for high temperature reliability.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0082564 A1) in view of Himmer (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0034138 A1) and Park et al. (KR 2020074824 A), and in further view of Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0069190 A1).
With regard to claims 9 and 20, dependent claims 8 and 19 are obvious over Shiraishi et al. in view of Himmer and Park et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Shiraishi et al. discloses wherein
the bottom electrode comprises a bottom electrode substrate and a first conductive layer coated on the bottom electrode substrate (as depicted in Fig. 5, the cited bottom electrode comprises a bottom electrode substrate 120 and a first conductive layer 121 coated on the bottom electrode substrate 120);
the top electrode comprises a top electrode substrate and a second conductive layer coated on the top electrode substrate (as depicted in Fig. 5, the cited top electrode comprises a top electrode substrate 110 and a second conductive layer 111 coated on the top electrode substrate 110); and
both the P-type thermoelectric leg and the N-type thermoelectric leg are circular, square, triangular, or polygonal (as depicted in Fig. 4, both the cited P-type thermoelectric leg 130 and the N-type thermoelectric leg 140 are circular).
Shiraishi et al. does not disclose wherein both the bottom electrode substrate and the top electrode substrate are manufactured from paper, polyimide, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), silicon dioxide, aluminum silicate, an epoxy resin substrate plate, aluminum nitride, or aluminum oxide.
However, Kim discloses a thermoelectric device (see Title and Abstract) and teaches top and bottom electrode substrates can be formed of PET (see [0063]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the PET material of Kim for the material of the top and bottom electrode substrates of Shiraishi et al. because the selection of a material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes the newly added claimed limitations are not found within the previously cited prior art references. However, this argument is addressed in the rejections of the claims above.
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 DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 November 26, 2025
Prosecution Insights