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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/15/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-3, 8-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0226890 to Johnson et al. (Johnson).
In reference to claim 1, Johnson teaches (abstract; FIG. 6) comprising a plurality of superlattice periods (par 0007; 0020 and 0021), each superlattice period comprising a first material layer (par 0006; first constituent A, par 0030) disposed adjacent a second material layer (second constituent B, par 0030), each superlattice period being structured to have a desired bandgap (par 0029) and period thickness (par 0029 and 0030); wherein the plurality of superlattice periods comprises a first superlattice period (par 0029 and 0030), wherein a first period thickness of the first superlattice period and a first period bandgap of the first superlattice period are based on a thickness of a first material layer of the first superlattice period and a thickness of the second material layer of the first superlattice period (par 0029 and 0030); and a second superlattice period (par 0030), wherein a second period thickness of the second superlattice period and a second period bandgap of the second superlattice period are based on a thickness of a first material layer of the second superlattice period and a thickness of the second material layer of the second superlattice period (par 0029 and 0030); wherein the first period thickness is different from the second period thickness and the first period bandgap is different from the second period bandgap (par 0029); wherein a thickness of the second material layer of each superlattice period of the thin-film structure is different (par 0030).
In reference to claim 2, Johnson teaches the thin-film structure as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Johnson additionally teaches wherein the thickness of the first material layer of the first superlattice period is x and the thickness of the second material layer of the first superlattice period is 3x; and wherein the thickness of the first material layer of the second superlattice period is x and the thickness of the second material layer of the second superlattice period is 4x (all par 0030).
In reference to claim 3, Johnson teaches the thin-film structure as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Johnson additionally teaches a third superlattice period is disposed adjacent the second superlattice period, wherein a thickness of a first material layer of the third superlattice period is x and a thickness of a second material layer of the third superlattice period is 5x; a fourth superlattice period disposed adjacent the third superlattice period, wherein a thickness of a first material layer of the fourth superlattice period is x and a thickness of a second material layer of the fourth superlattice period is 6x; and a fifth superlattice period disposed adjacent the fourth superlattice period, wherein a thickness of a first material layer of the fifth superlattice period is x and a thickness of a second material layer of the fifth superlattice period is 7x (par 0030).
In reference to claim 8, Johnson teaches the thin-film structure as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Johnson additionally teaches wherein, for each superlattice period, the first material layer is Bi2Te3 (par 0007).
In reference to claim 9, Johnson teaches the thin-film structure as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Johnson additionally teaches wherein, for each superlattice period, the second material layer is Sb2Te3 or BizTe3-xSex (par 0021, 0029 and 0031).
In reference to claim 10, Johnson teaches the thin-film structure as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Johnson additionally teaches wherein, for each superlattice period, the first material layer and the second material layer are periodic table Group IV-VI compounds (par 0031).
In reference to claim 11, Johnson teaches the thin-film structure as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Johnson additionally teaches wherein, for each superlattice period, the first material layer and the second material layer are doped to be n-type semiconductor materials (par 0035).
In reference to claim 12, Johnson teaches the thin-film structure as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Johnson additionally teaches wherein, for each superlattice period, the first material layer and the second material layer are doped to be p-type semiconductor materials (interchangeable with n-type from par 0035).
In reference to claim 13, Johnson teaches the thin-film structure as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Johnson additionally teaches wherein the plurality of superlattice periods is a first plurality of superlattice periods; wherein the thin-film structure comprises a first band comprising the first plurality of superlattice periods and a second band comprising a second plurality of superlattice periods; wherein the first band is adjacent to the second band; and wherein the first plurality of superlattice periods of the first band and second plurality of superlattice periods of the second band have a same arrangement and thicknesses of material layers (par 0029; band gaps).
In reference to claim 14, Johnson teaches the thin-film structure as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Johnson additionally teaches wherein the thin-film structure is part of a thermoelectric leg further comprising a bandgap gradient along the thermoelectric leg or a doping gradient along the thermoelectric leg (par 0029).
In reference to claim 15, Johnson teaches the thin-film structure as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Johnson additionally teaches wherein the thin-film structure is a component of a cooler device configured to perform thermal control (intended use recitation; the system in FIG. 1-8 is capable of performing said functional language; par 0004).
In reference to claims 16, 17 and 20, they claim the same features as claimed in claims 1-15 above; thus, said claims 16, 17 and 20 are rejected in the same manner, as explained in detail above.
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.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0001641 to Patel et al. (Patel).
In reference to claims 4-5, Johnson teaches the thin-film structure as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Johnson additionally teaches wherein a thickness of a first material layer of the first superlattice period is x and a thickness of a second material layer of the first superlattice period is 3x; a second superlattice period disposed adjacent the first superlattice period, wherein a thickness of a first material layer of the second superlattice period is x and a thickness of a second material layer of the second superlattice period is 4x; a third superlattice period disposed adjacent the second superlattice period, wherein a thickness of a first material layer of the third superlattice period is x and a thickness of a second material layer of the third superlattice period is 5x; a fourth superlattice period disposed adjacent the third superlattice period, wherein a thickness of a first material layer of the fourth superlattice period is x and a thickness of a second material layer of the fourth superlattice period is 6x; and a fifth superlattice period disposed adjacent the fourth superlattice period, wherein a thickness of a first material layer of the fifth superlattice period is x and a thickness of a second material layer of the fifth superlattice period is 7x (all par 0030), but does not teach wherein a thickness of each first material layer of the each superlattice period is 2x and not x.
Patel teaches a defect mitigation structures for semiconductor devices (FIG. 1-8) wherein the thickness of each first material layer (102b, FIG. 1-8) of the each superlattice period (102, FIG. 1-8) may vary from x to 4x (1000nm-4000nm, par 0032) without changing the principal desired properties, defect contentment to trap defects, for example, dislocations (par 0032) in order to improve the ductile property of the substrate while said trap defects from propagating to the top layer (par 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Johnson, to have a thickness of each first material layer of the each superlattice period is 2x and not x, as taught by Patel, in order to improve the ductile property of the substrate while said trap defects from propagating to the top layer.
In reference to claims 6-7, Johnson teaches the thin-film structure as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Johnson additionally teaches wherein a thickness of a first material layer of the first superlattice period is x and a thickness of a second material layer of the first superlattice period is 3x; a second superlattice period disposed adjacent the first superlattice period, wherein a thickness of a first material layer of the second superlattice period is x and a thickness of a second material layer of the second superlattice period is 4x; a third superlattice period disposed adjacent the second superlattice period, wherein a thickness of a first material layer of the third superlattice period is x and a thickness of a second material layer of the third superlattice period is 5x; a fourth superlattice period disposed adjacent the third superlattice period, wherein a thickness of a first material layer of the fourth superlattice period is x and a thickness of a second material layer of the fourth superlattice period is 6x; and a fifth superlattice period disposed adjacent the fourth superlattice period, wherein a thickness of a first material layer of the fifth superlattice period is x and a thickness of a second material layer of the fifth superlattice period is 7x (all par 0030), but does not teach wherein a thickness of each first material layer of the each superlattice period is 3x and not x.
Patel teaches a defect mitigation structures for semiconductor devices (FIG. 1-8) wherein the thickness of each first material layer (102b, FIG. 1-8) of the each superlattice period (102, FIG. 1-8) may vary from x to 4x (1000nm-4000nm, par 0032) without changing the principal desired properties, defect contentment to trap defects, for example, dislocations (par 0032) in order to improve the ductile property of the substrate while said trap defects from propagating to the top layer (par 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Johnson, to have a thickness of each first material layer of the each superlattice period is 3x and not x, as taught by Patel, in order to improve the ductile property of the substrate while said trap defects from propagating to the top layer.
In reference to claims 18 and 19, they claim the same features as claimed in claims 4-5 and 6-7 above; thus, said claims 18 and 19 are rejected in the same manner, as explained in detail above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached PTO-892 for relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5.
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, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/FILIP ZEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
9/30/2026
Prosecution Insights