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 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 1 and 4-10 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.
Claim 1 contains the limitation “wherein, as a degree of conductivity is increased, a figure of merit of the thermoelectric material increases to between 4-7 and efficiency increases 18-22%; wherein the radiation source produces radiation from a radioisotope; emitting ionizing radiation that increases electrical conductivity of the n-type material or the p-type material”. It is unclear how the limitation “emitting ionizing radiation that increases electrical conductivity of the n-type material or the p-type material” is related to the limitation “as a degree of conductivity is increased”. Is the “degree of conductivity” referring to the electrical conductivity? Thermal conductivity? Or something else? Is the step of “emitting ionizing radiation that increases electrical conductivity” causing the claimed degree of conductivity to be increased? Or is it a separate step in the method? Appropriate clarification and/or correction are required.
Claims 4-10 are additionally rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and including all of the limitations thereof.
Claim 6 contains the limitation “wherein the thermoelectric converter responds to the radiation source strips electrons in the n-type material and/or the p-type material” which is unclear. The language used in the claim makes it unclear what is being required. It is suggested that claim 6 be amended to read “wherein the radiation source strips electrons in the n-type material and/or the p-type material”.
Claim 7-9 are additionally rejected as being dependent on rejected base claim 6 and including all of the limitations thereof.
Claim 8 contains the limitation “wherein the emitting ionizing radiation changes properties from radiation induced conductivity changes to electrical conductivity, from changes to thermal conductivity, or from changes to Seebeck coefficient” which is unclear. It is unclear what is required by claim 8 and how it relates to the “emitting ionizing radiation that increases electrical conductivity of the n-type material or the p-type material” limitation from claim 1. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are required.
Claim 9 contains the limitation “wherein the changing material properties take place over a specific range of temperatures”. The term “the changing material properties” does not have antecedent basis in the claim or in claims 6 or 1, from which claim 9 depends. Is the term “the changing material properties” referring to the limitation “increases electrical conductivity” set forth in claim 1 or some other “changing material properties”? Appropriate clarification and correction are required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728