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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 16th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 16th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The rejections over Mei et al. are maintained.
A new objection follows.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant recites, “and in not contact”. This phrase is grammatically incorrect but would be corrected if recited, “and not in contact”. Appropriate correction 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mei et al. (WO 2020/137468 A1). Citations below are made to Mei et al. (US 2022/0077373 A1) which corresponds to the national stage of this application, and is therefore a translation thereof.
In view of Claim 1, Mei et al. teaches a thermoelectric module comprising a thermoelectric unit (Fig. 5b) including:
a first conductive layer including a first main face and a second main face and containing a metal (See Annotated Mei et al. Fig. 5b, below & Paragraph 0034);
a thermoelectric conversion layer located on the first main face and including an electron thermal excitation layer (Fig. 5b, #22a) and an electron transport layer (Fig. 5b, #22b – Paragraph 0030 & 0034 – the semiconductor layer portion of the electron transport stack);
an organic (Paragraph 0036 – can comprise polyethylene) electrolyte layer located on the thermoelectric conversion layer (Fig. 5b, #23 & Paragraph 0030);
a second conductive layer located on the second main face (Fig. 5b, #4a – Paragraph 0053);
wherein the electron transport layer (Fig. 5b, #22b bottom element) is located between the first main face (See Annotated Mei et al. Fig. 5b, below) and the electron thermal excitation layer (Fig. 5b, #22a bottom element),
wherein the first main face is located at one end of the first conductive layer in a stacking direction of the first conductive layer, the thermoelectric conversion layer, the organic electrolyte layer and the second conductive layer, and the second main face is located as an other end of the first conductive layer in the stacking direction (See Annotated Mei et al. Fig. 5b, below);
wherein the first conductive layer is interposed between the thermoelectric conversion layer and the second conductive layer (See Annotated Mei et al. Fig. 5b, below).
Annotated Mei et al. Fig. 5b
PNG
media_image1.png
586
1065
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 3, Mei et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mei et al. teaches that the thermoelectric module comprises a plurality of thermoelectric units including the thermoelectric unit (Figs. 4-5 & Paragraph 0009 – elements are layered in a stacked direction), wherein in each of the plurality of thermoelectric units, the organic electrolyte layer (Fig. 5b, #23), the thermoelectric conversion layer (Fig. 5b, #22) the first conductive layer (See Annotated Mei et al. Fig. 5b, above), and the second conductive layer (See Annotated Mei et al. Fig. 5b, above, 4A) are stacked in order (Figs. 5a-b, the structure repeats for a plurality of elements in a stacked direction).
In view of Claim 4, Mei et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mei et al. teaches that the electron transport layer includes an n-type semiconductor (Fig. 5b, #22b – Paragraph 0034 – the semiconductor layer portion of the electron transport stack can be n-type Si or the like), the electron thermal excitation layer includes an i-type semiconductor (Fig. 5b, #22a – Paragraph 0031 – may simply contain Germanium w/o mention of doping), and the organic electrolyte layer includes a p-type semiconductor (Fig. 5b, #23 & Paragraph 0036 – the solid electrolyte includes Cu/Fe).
In view of Claim 5, Mei et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. In regards to the limitation that the organic electrolyte layer has flexibility, Applicant discloses that a material that meets this limitation is polyethylene glycol with a MW of 600,000 or less (See US PGPub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0046-0047). Mei et al. teaches that the organic layer is made of the same material, polyethylene glycol with a MW of 600,000 or less (Paragraph). Mei et al. teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “flexibility”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In view of Claim 16, Mei et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mei et al. teaches that the second conductive layer is not in contact with the electron transport layer (See Annotated Mei et al. Fig. 5b, above, the second conductive layer is not touching the electron transport layer 22b).
In view of Claim 17, Mei et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mei et al. teaches that the organic electrolyte layer (Fig. 5b, #23), the electron thermal excitation layer (Fig. 5b, #22a), the electron transport layer (Fig. 5b, #22b), the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer are stacked in order in the stacking direction (See Annotated Mei et al. Fig. 5b, above).
In view of Claim 18, Mei et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mei et al. teaches that the second conductive layer is in contact with the second main face of the first conductive layer and not in contact with the first main face of the first conductive layer (See Annotated Mei et al. Fig. 5b, above).
In view of Claim 19, Mei et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mei et al. teaches that the second conductive layer is not interposed between the first conductive layer and the electron thermal excitation layer (See Annotated Mei et al. Fig. 5b, above).
In view of Claim 20, Mei et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mei et al.t eaches that the second conductive layer is not interposed between the first conductive layer and the electron transport layer (See Annotated Mei et al. Fig. 5b, 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.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei et al. (WO 2020/137468 A1) in view of Takahashi (US 2011/0041887 A1). Citations below are made to Mei et al. (US 2022/0077373 A1) which corresponds to the national stage of this application, and is therefore a translation thereof.
In view of Claim 2, Mei et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mei et al. does not disclose the second conductive layer includes a conductive organic material.
Takahashi teaches a conductive layer that includes a conductive organic material (Paragraph 0043-0044 – electrodes include an organic bonder and/or solvent), and that this configuration results in electrodes that allow temperature differential to arise smoothly at its end (Paragraph 0042). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the second conductive layer include a conductive organic material as disclosed by Mei et al. for the advantage of allowing temperature differentials to arise smoothly.
In view of Claim 8, Mei et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mei et al. teaches a first current collector (Fig. 5b, #11) located at one end in a stacking direction of the first conductive layer (Fig. 5b, #4 bottom element), the thermoelectric conversion layer (Fig. 5b, #22a & #22b semiconductor layer portion), the organic electrolyte layer (Fig. 5b, #23) and the second conductive layer (Fig. 5b, #22b – the Paragraph 0034 the metal layer portion of the electron transport stack), and a second current collector including a metal located at the other end in the stacking direction (Fig. 5b, #12 & Paragraph 0025-0027).
Met et al. does not disclose that the first current collector includes a conductive organic material.
Takahashi teaches a conductive layer that includes a conductive organic material (Paragraph 0043-0044 – electrodes include an organic bonder and/or solvent), and that this configuration results in electrodes that allow temperature differential to arise smoothly at its end (Paragraph 0042). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the first current collector includes a conductive organic material as disclosed by Mei et al. for the advantage of allowing temperature differentials to arise smoothly.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei et al. (WO 2020/137468 A1) in view of Nicolay et al. (US 2017/0204241 A1). Citations below are made to Mei et al. (US 2022/0077373 A1) which corresponds to the national stage of this application, and is therefore a translation thereof.
In view of Claim 6, Mei et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mei et al. does not disclose each of the first conductive layer, the thermoelectric conversion layer, the organic electrolyte layer and the second conductive layer have flexibility.
Nicolay et al. teaches that all the layers of a thermoelectric device can be made to have any arbitrary shape that is rigid, flexible, bendable, and/or twistable using methods known to a person of ordinary skill in the art (Paragraph 0406). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the first conductive layer, the thermoelectric conversion layer, the organic electrolyte layer and the second conductive layer have flexibility as disclosed by Nicolay et al. as one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the techniques known in the art to make the layers flexible and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143, I, D.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei et al. (WO 2020/137468 A1) in view of Ha et al. (US 2011/0083712 A1). Citations below are made to Mei et al. (US 2022/0077373 A1) which corresponds to the national stage of this application, and is therefore a translation thereof.
In view of Claim 9, Mei et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mei et al. discloses a first current collector located at one end in the stacking direction (See Annotated Mei et al. Fig. 5B, above, first and second conductive layer); and a second current collector located at the other end in the stacking direction (Fig. 5B, #12), wherein the first current collector includes the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer (See Annotated Mei et al. Fig. 5B, above, first and second conductive layer).
Mei et al. does not disclose that a third conductive layer that includes a metal such that the second conductive layer is located between the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer in the stacking direction.
Ha et al. discloses a four-layer conductive stack, wherein “third” metal conductive layers (Fig. 1, #17, #25-#26) are located intermediate first and second conductive layer (Fig. 1, #11 and #27 sandwich the other layers). Ha et al. discloses that this electrode configuration prevents deterioration of thermoelectric characteristics of a thermoelectric module while also stabilizing the module (Paragraph 0011). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a third conductive layer that includes a metal such that the second conductive layer is located between the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer in the stacking direction for the advantages of preventing deterioration of thermoelectric characteristics of a thermoelectric module while also stabilizing the module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Mei does not teach or suggest “wherein the first conductive layer is interposed between the thermoelectric conversion layer and the second conductive layer”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that Mei discloses that the first conductive layer is interposed between the thermoelectric conversion layer and the second conductive layer (See Annotated Mei et al. Fig. 5b, below).
Annotated Mei et al. Fig. 5b
PNG
media_image1.png
586
1065
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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