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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 14th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Claim 7 is rejoined.
The rejections based over Nakatsuji et al. ‘861 are maintained.
The rejections over Suzuki et al. are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
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.
Claim 9 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.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant recites, “the meandering wire includes a first wire including the thermoelectric material and a second wire including a conductor” in preceding claim 1, then recites in claim 9, “the meandering wire includes only a first wire including the thermoelectric material”. Its unclear if in claim 9 there is a second wire present or not as Applicant has limited the meandering wire to only a first wire. Appropriate action is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakatsuji et al. (US 2024/0147861 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Nakatsuji et al. discloses a thermoelectric conversion device (Figs. 29, 31-32 – Paragraph 0162-0163);
an element body (Fig. 32 – Paragraph 0166) including:
a plurality of stacked substrates (Figs. 31-32, #28fc is in a repeated configuration – Paragraph 0162);
a meandering wire inside the element body (Fig. 29, #12f/#13f) and that has a stacked structure (Figs. 31-32, #12fa/13fa – Paragraph 0163 – they are present in a stacked configuration and are provided on the silicon nitride insulating films 28fb);
wherein the meandering wire includes a thermoelectric material that has an anomalous Nernst effect (Fig. 1 & Paragraph 0060-0061 – “in the thermoelectric conversion element 101, an electromotive force E (∝M×∇T) is generated in the direction of an outer product orthogonal to both the direction of the heat flow Q (the +Z direction) and the direction of magnetization M (the −Y direction) by the anomalous Nernst effect);
a thermal conductivity of the plurality of stacked substrates is lower than that of the thermoelectric material (Paragraph 0163 – “low thermal conductive insulating film” & See Paragraph 0078 – “The low thermal conductive insulating films 14 are formed with an insulator that has a lower thermal conductivity than the materials of the first thermoelectric conversion elements 12 and the second thermoelectric conversion elements 13”);
the meandering wire extends in a main surface direction of each of the plurality of stacked substrates (Fig. 29, #12f/#13f extends along the substrates 28fc in a traditional “x-direction” in Fig. 32) and the stacked structure is arranged in a stacking direction of each of the plurality of stacked substrates (Fig. 32, the stacking direction would be the traditional “y-direction”);
the meandering wire includes a first wire including the thermoelectric material (Fig. 45, #12M) and a second wire including a conductor (Fig. 45, #25M – Paragraph 0212);
a width of the second wire can be smaller than a width of the first wire or a thickness of the second wire is smaller than a thickness of the first wire (Fig. 40, #17k and #18k have different dimensions in the standard “x” direction that correspond to either a width or thickness where one is smaller than the other; another different example is shown in Fig. 45, #12M and #25M where #25M has a smaller width/thickness than the first wire #12M).
In view of Claim 3, Nakatsuji et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Nakatsuji et al. teaches that the meandering wire extends in a stacking direction of each of the plurality of stacked substrates (Fig. 32, the stacking direction would be the traditional “y-direction” & see Fig. 30) and the stacked structure is arranged in a main surface direction of each of the plurality of stacked substrates (Fig. 29, #12f/#13f extends along the substrates 28fc in a traditional “x-direction” in Fig. 32).
In view of Claim 4, Nakatsuji et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Nakatsuji et al. teaches that the meandering wire has a coil shape (Fig. 29, #12f/#14f form an undulating coil shape type pattern).
In view of Claim 5, Nakatsuji et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Nakatsuji et al. teaches that the meandering wire is on a main surface of each of the plurality of stacked substrates (Fig. 29).
In view of Claim 6, Nakatsuji et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Nakatsuji et al. teaches that the meandering wire includes a first wire including the thermoelectric material and a second wire including a conductor (Paragraph 0078 – in regards to “a conductor” both sections of the material 12/13 are conducting thus any material that conducts is a “conductor” & see Figs. 6A/B, #12/13).
In view of Claim 7, Nakatsuji et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Nakatsuji et al. teaches the first wire and the second wire are alternately arranged on a main surface of each of the plurality of stacked substrates (Fig. 28, #12f/13f is present on each main surface of each substrate).
In view of Claim 9, Nakatsuji et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Nakatsuji et al. teaches that the meandering wire includes only a first wire including the thermoelectric material (Fig. 35, #12ga & #12gb – Paragraph 0169 – they can be formed of the same material, thus it can be considered “a first wire including the thermoelectric material).
In view of Claim 10, Nakatsuji et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Nakatsuji et al. teaches that the meandering wire is on a main surface of each of the plurality of stacked substrates (Figs. 31-32, #12fa/13fc protrude through main surface of substrate #28fc).
In view of Claim 11, Nakatsuji et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Nakatsuji et al. teaches that the thermoelectric material is selected from Fe3Ga and Co2MnGa, and Mn3Ge (Paragraph 0061).
In view of Claim 16, Nakatsuji et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Nakatsuji et al. teaches that the thermoelectric conversion device is a chip component (Fig. 32 & Paragraph 0110).
In view of Claim 17, Nakatsuji et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Nakatsuji et al. discloses that the component is magnetized in the predetermined directions in the Y+ and Y- directions, thus there would be a first magnet disposed on a first end surface of the chip component in the Y+ direction see in Figs. 6A & 7 (Paragraph 0086 & 0087).
In view of Claim 18, Nakatsuji et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 17. Nakatsuji et al. discloses that the component is magnetized in the predetermined directions in the Y+ and Y- directions, thus there would be a first magnet disposed on a first end surface of the chip component in the Y+ direction see in Figs. 6A & 7, and a subsequent second magnet disposed on a second end surface facing the first end surface in the Y- direction, wherein the first magnetic and second magnetic are oriented to the same pole (Paragraph 0086 & 0087).
In view of Claim 19, Nakatsuji et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Nakatsuji et al. teaches a thermal conductive member disposed on at least one end surface of the chip component (Fig. 6A, #22 is wiring lines that are thermal conductive – Paragraph 0088).
In view of Claim 20, Nakatsuji et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Nakatsuji et al. teaches at least one end surface of the chip component has irregularities (Fig. 6A, #22-#24 are irregular compared to the opposite side of the chip where these features are not present).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakatsuji (US 2023/0180614 A1).
In view of Claim 12, Nakatsuji discloses a thermoelectric conversion device (Fig. 14, #40) comprising a winding core (Fig. 14, #42 – Paragraph 0077 hollow member) that includes a first and second electrode such that a first end of the winding wire is electrically connected to the first electrode and a second end of the winding wire is electrically connected to the second electrode (See Fig. 14, where circuit is complete, there would be a first and second electrode present in the vicinity of the ends of the wire #44), wherein the winding wire consists only of Fe3Sn2 (Paragraph 0077) which has an anomalous Nernst effect (Fig. 5C & Paragraph 0021).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatsuji (US 2023/0180614 A1) in view of Nakatsuji et al. (US 2022/0246820 A1).
In view of Claim 13, Nakatsuji is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. While Nakatsuji discloses that the thermoelectric material is Fe3Sn2 is not explicitly disclosed its of the Markush group represented in claim 13.
Nakatsuji et al. ‘820 discloses a thermoelectric material made of Fe3Sn, Fe3Al, Fe3Ga, Co2MnGa (Paragraph 0020-0022) and in the same configuration (Fig. 9), wherein these materials exhibit high Nernst coefficient values (Paragraph 0061-0063). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use one of these materials as the material in Nakatsuji as these materials exhibit record high Nernst coefficient values.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatsuji et al. (US 2024/0147861 A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2010/0212713 A1).
In view of Claim 14, Nakatsuji et al. discloses a thermoelectric conversion device (Figs. 29, 31-32 – Paragraph 0162-0163);
a plurality of stacked substrates (Figs. 31-32, #28fc is in a repeated configuration – Paragraph 0162);
a meandering wire inside the element body (Fig. 29, #12f/#13f) and that has a stacked structure (Figs. 31-32, #12fa/13fa – Paragraph 0163 – they are present in a stacked configuration and are provided on the silicon nitride insulating films 28fb);
wherein the meandering wire includes a thermoelectric material that has an anomalous Nernst effect (Fig. 1 & Paragraph 0060-0061 – “in the thermoelectric conversion element 101, an electromotive force E (∝M×∇T) is generated in the direction of an outer product orthogonal to both the direction of the heat flow Q (the +Z direction) and the direction of magnetization M (the −Y direction) by the anomalous Nernst effect); and
a thermal conductivity of the plurality of stacked substrates is lower than that of the thermoelectric material (Paragraph 0163 – “low thermal conductive insulating film” & See Paragraph 0078 – “The low thermal conductive insulating films 14 are formed with an insulator that has a lower thermal conductivity than the materials of the first thermoelectric conversion elements 12 and the second thermoelectric conversion elements 13”).
Nakatsuji et al. does not disclose that the adjacent substrates of the plurality of substrates are arranged at an angle that is larger than 0 degrees and smaller than 180 degrees.
Sasaki et al. discloses the main surfaces of adjacent substrates of a plurality of substrates that can be arranged at an angle that is larger than 0 degrees and smaller than 180 degrees (Fig. 26, #107 substrate main surfaces are arranged angled to one another – Paragraph 0114-0115). Sasaki et al. teaches that this configuration supplies a simple ring structure that is not easily broken by impact as a whole (Paragraph 0009). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the main surfaces of adjacent substrates of the plurality of substrates are arranged at an angle that is larger than 0 degrees and smaller than 180 degrees for the advantage of providing a simple ring structure that is not easily broken by impact as a whole.
In view of Claim 15, Nakatsuji et al. and Sasaki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Nakatsuji et al. teaches that the thermoelectric material is selected from Fe3Ga and Co2MnGa, and Mn3Ge (Paragraph 0061).
Response to Arguments
Claim 7 has been rejoined after being inadvertently omitted.
Applicant argues that Nakatsuji et al. does not disclose that the meandering wire includes a first wire including the thermoelectric material and a second wire including a conductor, and a width of the second wire is smaller than a width of the first wire or a thickness of the second wire is smaller than a thickness of the first wire or both. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that Nakatsuji et al. discloses the meandering wire includes a first wire including the thermoelectric material (Fig. 45, #12M) and a second wire including a conductor (Fig. 45, #25M – Paragraph 0212); a width of the second wire can be smaller than a width of the first wire or a thickness of the second wire is smaller than a thickness of the first wire (Fig. 40, #17k and #18k have different dimensions in the standard “x” direction that correspond to either a width or thickness where one is smaller than the other; another different example is shown in Fig. 45, #12M and #25M where #25M has a smaller width/thickness than the first wire #12M).
Applicant argues that modified Nakatsuji does not disclose “the main surfaces of adjacent substrates of the plurality of substrates are arranged at an angle that is larger than 0 degrees and smaller than 180 degrees”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that Sasaki et al. discloses in a different embodiment that the main surfaces of adjacent substrates of a plurality of substrates that can be arranged at an angle that is larger than 0 degrees and smaller than 180 degrees (Fig. 26, #107 substrate main surfaces are arranged angled to one another – Paragraph 0114-0115).
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
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 DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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 T 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights