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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plissonnier et al. (US 7,868,243) in view of Leavitt et al. (US 2010/0269879).
Regarding claim 1, Plissonnier discloses a thermoelectromotive force generating element (abstract) including a substrate (8 in Fig. 2); a thermoelectric conversion layer that is stacked on the substrate and includes a P-type thermoelectric material and an N-type thermoelectric material (7 and 9 in Fig. 2); a first electrode connected to one end of the thermoelectric conversion layer (C3/L66; 13); a second electrode connected to the other end of the thermoelectric conversion layer (C4/L2; 14); and an absorption portion that is stacked in contact with the second electrode (C4/L58-67; note: the limitation “in contact” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components), the P-type thermoelectric material and the N-type thermoelectric material forming a PN series connection (C5/L50).
Plissonnier further discloses the thermoelectric conversion layer contains Si and Ge (C4/L55).
While Plissonnier does disclose doped semiconducting material of a first and second type (C3/L10-20), Plissonnier does not explicitly disclose the thermoelectric conversion layer further contains P, As, Sb, Al, or Ga.
Leavitt discloses a thermoelectric device (abstract) and further discloses a thermoelectric conversion layer containing phosphorous or antimony ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the n-type thermoelectric layer of Plissonnier with a phosphorous or antimony dopant, as disclosed by Leavitt, because as evidenced by Leavitt, the formation of an n-type thermoelectric material by doping with phosphorous or antimony amounts to the use of known materials in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the n-type thermoelectric material of Plissonnier with a phosphorous or antimony dopant based on the teaching of Leavitt.
With regard to the limitations “on a low temperature side,” “on a high temperature side,” and “absorbs heat received from outside,” the limitations are directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 2, modified Plissonnier discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Plissonnier further discloses the thermoelectric conversion layer is formed in a core-shell structure in which a periphery of the N-type thermoelectric material being covered by the P-type thermoelectric material (9 in relation to 7 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Plissonnier discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Plissonnier further discloses an insulation film for insulating a surface between the P-type thermoelectric material and the N-type thermoelectric material (10 in relation to 7 and 9 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Plissonnier discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Plissonnier further discloses the insulation film contains silicon oxide (C6/L48-49; C4/L55).
Regarding claim 8, modified Plissonnier discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Plissonnier further discloses the thermoelectric conversion layer includes a plurality of thermoelectric conversion layers (7 and 9 in Fig. 2), the thermoelectromotive force generating element further comprising an insulating filling portion for filling a gap between the thermoelectric conversion layers (10 in relation to 7 and 9 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, modified Plissonnier discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Plissonnier further discloses the thermoelectric conversion layer has a columnar shape (columnar shape depicted in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, modified Plissonnier discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above.
While Plissonnier does not explicitly disclose the thermoelectric conversion layer
has an aspect ratio (columnar height/diameter of a base circle) of 10 or more; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the thermoelectric conversion layer of Plissonnier such that it has an aspect ratio of 10 or more because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 12, modified Plissonnier discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Plissonnier further discloses the absorption layer has electrical conductivity (C4/L60 discloses platinum), the thermoelectromotive force generating element further comprising an electrical insulation heat transfer body (10 in Fig. 2).
With regard to the limitation “that transfers heat to the second electrode,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 16, modified Plissonnier discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “the thermoelectromotive force generating element is a thermoelectric conversion element that generates thermoelectromotive force corresponding to an amount of heat absorbed from outside,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 17, modified Plissonnier discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “the absorption layer absorbs heat due to incident light, and the thermoelectromotive force generating element is an infrared photodetector,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 18, modified Plissonnier discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “the thermoelectromotive force is output from an extraction electrode connected to the first electrode,” the extraction electrode claimed is not recited as part of the thermoelectromotive force generating element, and the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 19, modified Plissonnier discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “the extraction electrode outputs the thermoelectromotive force from one of a side of the substrate where the thermoelectric conversion layer is stacked and a side of the substrate where the thermoelectric conversion layer is not stacked,” the extraction electrode claimed is not recited as part of the thermoelectromotive force generating element, and the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plissonnier et al. (US 7,868,243) in view of Leavitt et al. (US 2010/0269879) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Zinn et al. (US 2011/0088739).
Regarding claim 9, modified Plissonnier discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above.
While modified Plissonnier does disclose an insulating filling portion (Plissonnier–
10 in Fig. 2), modified Plissonnier does not explicitly disclose the insulation filling portion is formed of a porous material.
Zinn discloses a thermoelectric device (abstract) and further discloses the use of porous alumina as an insulating material ([0078] L10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the insulating filling portion of modified Plissonnier with porous alumina, as disclosed by Zinn, because as evidenced by Zinn, the use of porous alumina as an insulating material in a thermoelectric device amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the insulating filling portion of Plissonnier with porous alumina based on the teaching of Zinn.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plissonnier et al. (US 7,868,243) in view of Leavitt et al. (US 2010/0269879) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasutake (US 2006/0180191).
Regarding claim 13, modified Plissonnier discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above.
Modified Plissonnier does not explicitly disclose the first electrode or the second electrode contains Au, Pt, Cu, Ag, Ni, Al, or graphene.
Yasutake discloses a thermoelectric module (abstract) and further discloses the electrode contains copper ([0045] L7-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first or second electrode of modified Plissonnier with copper, as disclosed by Yasutake, because as evidenced by Yasutake, the use of copper in an electrode of a thermoelectric device amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when using copper in the electrodes of Plissonnier based on the teaching of Yasutake.
Regarding claim 14, modified Plissonnier discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Plissonnier does not explicitly disclose the first electrode or the second electrode further includes an electrode seed layer on a side to be connected to the thermoelectric conversion layer.
Yasutake discloses a thermoelectric module (abstract) and further discloses an electrode including an electrode seed layer on a side connected to the thermoelectric conversion layer ([0045] L8-11; note: the limitation “connected” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first or second electrode of modified Plissonnier with an electrode seed layer, as disclosed by Yasutake, because as evidenced by Yasutake, the use of an electrode seed layer to form an electrode of a thermoelectric device amounts to the use of a known component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the electrodes of Plissonnier with a seed layer based on the teaching of Yasutake.
Regarding claim 15, modified Plissonnier discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Plissonnier further discloses the electrode seed layer contains chromium (Yasutake – [0045] L8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 6-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights