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
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I claim 33-48 in the reply filed on 10/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 33, 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hodes et al (PG Pub 20090294117).
Regarding claim 33, Hodes et al teaches a thermoelectric device comprising:
a pair of thermally conductive substrates [fig 12 see drawing below]],
a plurality of electrically conductive contacts disposed on opposing faces of said pair of substrates [fig 12 para 50]; and
a plurality of thermoelectric legs 1210 interposed between said pair of substrates, each of said plurality of conductive contacts connecting thermoelectric legs to each other in series [fig 12 para 50]; and
wherein, at least one of said thermally conductive substrate is a vapor chamber (abstract); and each of said thermoelectric legs has a first end connected to one of said conductive contacts of one of said substrates and a second end connected to one of said conductive contacts of the other of said substrates [fig 12];
since Hodes et al teaches the claimed structure, the recitation “vaper chamber improves performances of cooling capacity, temperature difference and efficiency of said thermoelectric module” is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2111. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
PNG
media_image1.png
766
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 48, Hodes et al teaches said plurality of thermoelectric legs are a plurality of P-type and N-type thermoelectric elements interposed between said pair of substrates, each of said plurality of conductive contacts connecting adjacent P-type and N-type thermoelectric elements to each other in series and wherein each of said P-type and N-type elements has a first end connected to one of said conductive contacts of one of said substrates and a second end connected to one of said conductive contacts of the other of said substrates [fig 12].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodes et al (PG Pub 20090294117).
Regarding claim 34, Hodes et al teaches vapor chamber substrate including a thermal conductive block 1260 being attached to thermoelectric leg [para 50], but Hodes et al does not teach vapor chamber substrate being made of aluminum.
Hodes et al teaches vapor chamber 420 having thermal conductive wall 510 being made of aluminum and being attached to the thermoelectric leg [para 31].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the thermal conductive block to be made of aluminum as taught by Hodes et al for thermal conductive and Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP2144.07).
Claim(s) 35-39, 41-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodes et al (PG Pub 20090294117) and further in view of EP 2131405, hereinafter as ‘405.
Regarding claim 35-36, Hodes et al teaches the claimed limitation, but Hodes et al does not teach electrically insulated and thermal conductive film.
‘579 teaches a thermoelectric device comprising insulating layer 17 between the thermoelectric leg and het sink 16 where insulating film 17 is electrical insulation and thermal conductive and is made of aluminum nitride and epoxy resin [para 31].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the film of ‘405 between vapor chamber and thermoelectric leg for maintaining relatively good heat transfer characteristics [para 31
Regarding claim 37, modified Hodes et al teaches the electrical insulating and thermal conductive film being attached to the vapor chamber as set forth above. The recitation “are made by oxidizing surface of said vapor chamber” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 38, modified Hodes et al teaches the electrical insulating and thermal conductive film being attached to the vapor chamber as set forth above. The recitation “are coated on the surface of said vapor chamber.” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 39, modified Hodes et al teaches the electrical insulating and thermal conductive film being attached to the vapor chamber as set forth above. The recitation “are made by explosion bonding of ceramic layer on the surface of said vapor chamber” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 41, modified Hodes et al teaches the electrical insulating and thermal conductive film being attached to the vapor chamber using epoxy adhesive [para 71]. The recitation “by adhesion using epoxy or silicone adhesives capable to deal with mismatch of GTE” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 42, modified Hodes et al teaches the electrical insulating and thermal conductive film being attached to the vapor chamber as set forth above. The recitation “are coupled to said vapor chamber by Direct Copper Bonding Technology” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 43, modified Hodes et al teaches the electrical insulating and thermal conductive layer having thickness of 10-100 micron [para 31[ which is overlapped the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 44, modified Hodes et al teaches the electrical insulating and thermal conductive film being attached to the vapor chamber as set forth above. The recitation “are coupled to said vapor chamber by Direct Aluminum Bonding Technology” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 45, modified Hodes et al teaches the electrical insulating and thermal conductive film being attached to the vapor chamber and as one unit as set forth above. The recitation “are made as one unit by a 3D printing selected from a printed material of copper, aluminum, or titanium.” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 46, modified Hodes et al teaches the electrical insulating and thermal conductive film being attached to the vapor chamber as set forth above. The recitation “is made by a 3D printing selected from a printed material of alumina, zirconia, or AIN” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 47, modified Hodes et al teaches the electrical insulating and thermal conductive film being attached to the vapor chamber and as one unit as set forth above. The recitation “are made as a unit by multilayer 3D printing of metal and ceramics” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodes et al (PG Pub 20090294117) and CN 102239579 and further in view of RU 118796, hereinafter as ‘796.
Regarding claim 40, modified Hodes et al teaches electrical insulating and thermal conductive film being attached to the vapor chamber as set forth above, but modified Hodes et al does not teach solder being used.
‘796 teaches a thermoelectric module comprising solder 4 being soldering between the TE leg and heat conductor 3 [fig 1 2 description section].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have solder between electrical insulating and thermal conductive film and vapor chamber as taught by modified Hodes et al for improving bonding. The recitation “by soldering using solder capable to deal with mismatch of Coefficients of Thermal” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Conclusion
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726