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 § 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-10, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0246820 to Nakatsuji (included in Applicant’s 3/27/2024 IDS).
Regarding claims 1-4, 8-10, 12, and 13, Nakatsuji teaches a sensor (¶0074, 0094, 0095) comprising a thermoelectric conversion element comprising
A magneto-thermoelectric conversion body 24 extending linearly (in the “x” direction of Fig. 7) (¶0069, 0083)
A wiring 25 (element 25 extends primarily in the “x” direction of Fig. 7) electrically connected to the magneto-thermoelectric conversion body 24 (¶0085).
The body 24 and wiring 25 differ only in the direction of their magnetization (¶0084). The reference also teaches that such a difference can be achieved using a single material (Figs. 16B, 17B, 18B, 19A, 20B, 21B, 21C, ¶0069, 0133, 0137, 0139). Therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage an embodiment of Nakatsuji’s invention in which the magneto-thermoelectric body 24 and the wiring 25 are formed of the same material. A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim even if the reference does not describe "the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015), MPEP §2131.02.III.
As such, the Seebeck coefficient Sm in a length direction of the magneto-thermoelectric body and a Seebeck coefficient Sc in a length direction of the wiring are necessarily equal, and an absolute value of a difference between Sm and Sc is zero μV/K. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2112.01.
Per claims 2-4, Nakatsuji teaches the limitations of claim 1. A person having ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage an embodiment of Nakatsuji’s element in which the material of the magneto-thermoelectric conversion body 24 and the wiring 25 are both formed of Fe3Ga (Figs. 10, 11, ¶0020, 0021, 0099-0102). The Seebeck coefficients Sm and Sc would therefore necessarily represent values of the same sign. While the sign and absolute value of the Seebeck coefficient of Fe-3Ga is not taught explicitly by Nakatsuji, the instant specification confirms that such bodies would necessarily have an absolute value of 10 μV/K or more, and a value of 0 or less (Table 1 on p. 20 of the instant specification. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification – the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. See, e.g., In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149-50, 104 USPQ2d 1337, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2012). MPEP §2111.01.III.
Per claims 8 and 9, Nakatsuji teaches the limitations of claim 1. The magneto-thermoelectric conversion body 24 is an alloy having a body-centered cubic lattice crystal structure, the alloy containing Fe (Fig. 1, ¶0062-0066).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage an embodiment of the alloy in which the content of Fe in the alloy is 50% or more based on the number of atoms (Figs. 13A, 14A list suitable materials in which Fe is approximately 75%, ¶0105, 0106), and a content of the element other than Fe in the alloy is 10% or more based on the number of atoms (approximately 25%).
Per claims 10 and 12, Nakatsuji teaches the limitations of claim 1. The magneto-thermoelectric conversion body 24 has a plurality of first thin wires (Fig. 7, ¶0093), the wiring 25 has a plurality of second thin wires, and the first thin wires and the second thin wires are electrically connected to each other in series.
The first thin wires and the second thin wires form a meander pattern (Fig. 7, MPEP §2125).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatsuji as applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 11, Nakatsuji teaches the limitations of claim 10. The reference teaches that each of the thin wire pairs formed by the first thin wires and the second thin wires consist of the first thin wire and the second thin wire (portions of material 24b, 25b establish electrical continuity, ¶0085), and also teaches that that the number of thin wire pairs formed from the first thin wires and the second thin wires is not specifically limited (¶0083). Further a skilled artisan would understand that the number of thin wire pairs in series increases the output voltage of the element (¶0087). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of thin wire pairs in order to achieve the desired voltage output. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0068881 to Maeda.
Regarding claims 1-6 and 10-13, Maeda teaches a sensor (¶0005, 0006) comprising a thermoelectric conversion element comprising
A magneto-thermoelectric conversion body 21 extending linearly (along y in Fig. 2, ¶0041-0044)
A wiring 22 electrically connected to the magneto-thermoelectric conversion body 21 (¶0045).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the magneto-thermoelectric conversion body 21 of Fe3Ga or Co2MnGa, as it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art recognized purpose (¶0044). Further, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the wiring of nickel, as it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
As such, the Seebeck coefficient Sm in a length direction of the magneto-thermoelectric body and a Seebeck coefficient Sc in a length direction of the wiring are -19 μV/K and -15 μV/K, respectively, as stated in Table 1 of the instant specification. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification – the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. See, e.g., In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149-50, 104 USPQ2d 1337, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2012). MPEP §2111.01.III. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2112.01.
An absolute value of a difference between Sm and Sc is 10 μV/K or less.
Per claims 2-4, modified-Maeda teaches the limitations of claim 1. The Seebeck coefficients Sm and Sc necessarily represent values of the same sign.
An absolute value of the Seebeck coefficient Sm is more than 10 μV/K.
The Seebeck coefficient Sc has a value of less than 0.
Per claim 5, modified-Maeda teaches the limitations of claim 1. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the dimensions of the wiring to have a low specific resistance (¶0066, 0091, 0092). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
As such, a specific resistance of the wiring in the claimed range is an obvious result of such optimization.
Per claim 6, modified-Maeda teaches the limitations of claim 1. The wiring of modified-Maeda comprises Ni, at a content of 50% or more based on the number of atoms (Ibid.).
Per claims 10-12, modified-Maeda teaches the limitations of claim 1. The magneto-thermoelectric conversion body 21 has a plurality of first thin wires (Fig. 2, ¶0043), the wiring 22 has a plurality of second thin wires, and the first thin wires and the second thin wires are electrically connected to each other in series (¶0046).
The first thin wires and the second thin wires form fifty or more thin wire pairs (¶0039 recites that the element comprises 50-100 substrates 10 in some embodiments; if each substrate 10 comprises at least one wire pair, Maeda necessarily teaches fifty or more thin wire pairs).
Each of the fifty or more thin wire pairs consists of the first thin wire and the second thin wire (Ibid.).
The first thin wires and the second thin wires form a meander pattern.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, and further in view of WO02/17406A1 to Yamashita.
Regarding claim 7, modified-Maeda teaches the limitations of claim 1. Maeda teaches that the wiring may comprise Cu, Ag, or Au (¶0045), but does not specifically teach that the wiring comprises one of those metals and at least one Group 8, Group 9, or Group 10 element. Yamashita teaches that a material for a wiring used in conjunction with a magneto-thermoelectric conversion body can comprise alloys of Cu, Ag, and Pt (Group 10), or alloys of Cu, Au, Al, and Pt (bottom p. 3, top p. 5, of translation) in order to improve the thermoelectric conversion efficiency. Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the wiring to comprise at least one metal selected from Cu, Ag, Au, and Al, and at Group 10 element Pt, in order to improve thermoelectric conversion efficiency.
As such, the result of a wiring having the claimed composition with a Seebeck coefficient Sc in a length direction that is within 10 μV/K of Sm is an obvious result of improving thermoelectric conversion efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726