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 with traverse of group 1-13 in the reply filed on 02/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden between groups. This is not found persuasive because
• The inventions would require searching in different classification areas such as classes/ subclasses or electronic resources.
• The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter.
• The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1, 4-5, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro (JP2016092027, English translation is provided), and further in view of Horio (PG pub 20090236087).
Regarding claim 1, Tashiro teaches a thermoelectric element comprising:
a first metal (copper ) substrate 4 [fig 1 para 7 of description section ];
a first insulating layer 3 disposed on the first substrate, and in direct contact with the first metal substrate [fig 1 para 8 of description section]
plurality of first electrode 21 disposed on the substrate [fig 1 para 6 of description section]
a plurality of thermoelectric legs (11, 12) disposed on the first electrodes [fig 1],
plurality of second electrode 22 disposed on thermoelectric legs [fig 1]
at least a portion of each side surface of the plurality of first electrodes 21 is
embedded in the first resin layer [fig 4]
the first resin layer disposed between two neighboring first electrodes 21 among the plurality of first electrodes 21includes a region having a thickness which decreases from side surfaces of the two first electrodes 21 to a central region between the two neighboring first electrodes 21 [fig 4].
Tashiro teaches the first insulating layer being made of epoxy resin [para 8 of description section], but Tashiro does not teach the first insulating layer being made of resin and filler, second insulating layer and second metal substrate as claimed.
Horio teaches a thermoelectric device comprising upper and lower substrate 31(a,b) and 34 (a,b) respectively with upper and lower insulating layer 32,35 respectively [fig 3 para 54] where the upper and lower substrate are made of copper and upper and lower insulating layer are made of epoxy resin and filler Al2O3 (the material of 31, 34, 32, 35 is the same of substrate 13 and insulating layer 14) [fig 1 3 para 31-32 54-55],
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the material of first substrate and insulating layer of Tashiro to be the same of Horio for improving thermal conductivity [para 32]. Also, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the additional substrate and additional insulating layer of Horio below the second electrode of Tashiro for achieving high reliability by reducing thermal resistance and thermal stress while increasing the maximum heat absorption coefficient [abstract].
Regarding claim 4, modified Tashiro et al teaches thickness of the first insulating layer under the plurality of first electrodes is smaller than a thickness of the first insulating layer in the center region between the two neighboring first electrodes [fig 4 of Tashiro].
Regarding claim 5, since thickness of the first insulating layer under the plurality of first electrodes is smaller than a thickness of the first insulating layer in the center region between the two neighboring first electrodes, distribution of the inorganic filler in the first insulating layer under the plurality of first electrodes 1s different from a distribution of the inorganic filler in the first insulating layer between the two neighboring first electrodes.
Regarding claim 12, modified Tashiro et al teaches the material of the fist insulating layer being the same as of the second insulating layer.
Claim(s) 2, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro (JP2016092027, English translation is provided), and Horio (PG pub 20090236087) and further in view of Lee et al (PG pub 20150333246).
Regarding claim 2, modified Tashiro teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Tashiro does not teach the heights of the side surfaces as claimed.
Lee et al teaches the electrode being partially embedded into the substrate 110B where the height of the electrode is embedded about 0.5 [fig 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the electrode of modified Tashiro to be partially half embedded into the insulating layer for stably mounted [para 30].
Regarding claim 3, modified Tashiro teaches the side surfaces of the first electrodes that are not embedded the first insulating layer exposed to the outside [para 30, fig 8, Lee et al].
Claim(s) 6, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro (JP2016092027, English translation is provided), and Horio (PG pub 20090236087 and further in view of Kim et al (PG pub 20110290293) or alternatively Onoue et al (PG Pub 6444893)
Regarding claim 6, modified Tashiro teaches the claimed limitation, but modified modified Tashiro does not teach the thickness of the insulating layer under the plurality of first electrode. It is noted that changing the thickness of the electrode, it would change the thickness of the insulation under the first electrodes.
Kim et al teaches the shape of the fist groove 111 would be any shape and the electrode would have the same shape of the first groove 111 [para 58 64]. Also, changing shape would change the size of the as well as the thickness of the insulation under the first electrodes.
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify thickness of insulation to arrive the claimed range by adjusting the thickness of the electrode such that the thickness of the insulation under the first electrodes for prevent the deviation in thickness of the first electrode from occurring [para 66] and since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, modified modified Tashiro teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Kurihara et al teaches the thickness of the insulating layer under the plurality of first electrode as claimed. It is noted that changing the thickness of the electrode, it would change the thickness of the insulation under the first electrodes.
Kim et al teaches the shape of the fist groove 111 would be any shape and the electrode would have the same shape of the first groove 111 [para 58 64]. Also, changing shape would change the size of the as well as the thickness of the insulation under the first electrodes.
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify thickness of insulation to arrive the claimed range by adjusting the thickness of the electrode such that the thickness of the first insulating layer in the central region between two neighboring first electrode being 1.1 to 3 times the thickness of the first insulating layer under the plurality of first electrodes for prevent the deviation in thickness of the first electrode from occurring [para 66] and since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Alternatively:
Regarding claim 6, modified Tashiro teaches the electrodes are fully embedded into the insulation layer, but modified Tashiro does not teach the thickness of the insulating layer under the plurality of first electrode.
Onoue et al teaches a thermoelectric device having electrode with thickness greater than 50 microns (claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the thickness of the electrode of modified Tashiro to be the same as Onoue et al since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
The first electrodes are fully embedded into the first insulation and first electrodes have thickness greater than 50micron which is fully embedded into 500 micron insulating layer, it is considered the thickness of the insulating layer under the plurality of first electrode arrives the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, modified Tashiro teaches the electrodes are fully embedded into the insulation layer, but modified Kurihara et al does not that the thickness of the first insulating layer in the central region between two neighboring first electrode being 1.1 to 3 times the thickness of the first insulating layer under the plurality of first electrodes
Onoue et al teaches a thermoelectric device having electrode with thickness greater than 50 microns (claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the thickness of the electrode of modified Tashiro to be the same as Onoue et al since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As for combination, the first electrodes are fully embedded into the first insulation and first electrodes have thickness greater than 50micron which is fully embedded into 500 micron insulating layer, it is considered that the thickness of the first insulating layer in the central region between two neighboring first electrode being 1.1 to 3 times the thickness of the first insulating layer under the plurality of first electrodes.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro (JP2016092027, English translation is provided), and Horio (PG pub 20090236087) and further in view of Yang et al (PG pub 20130081663).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tashiro teaches first region and second region where the first region is the region where the resin layer being disposed on and second region is the region where there is no resin layer, but modified Tashiro does not teach the substrate having structure as claimed.
Yang et al taches the substrate 111 and 112 having rough surface for improving adhesion [para 51, 52 fig 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the substrate of Tashiro to have a first region of modified Tashiro to be roughness as taught by Yang et al for improving the adhesion.
As for combination, a surface roughness of the second region is greater than a surface
roughness of the first region; and the first resin layer is disposed on the second region.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro (JP2016092027, English translation is provided), and Horio (PG pub 20090236087) and Yang et al (PG pub 20130081663) and further in view of Akabane (PG pub 20150311420).
Regarding claim 8, modified Tashiro teaches the claimed limitation, but Yang et al does not teach the sealing as claimed.
Akabane teaches a thermoelectric device comprising a sealing member 4 disposed in the first region [fig 5 para 39].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the sealing member of Akabane at the first region of modified Tashiro for effective hermetic sealing [para 29].
Regarding claim 9, modified Tashiro teaches the sealing part includes a sealing case disposed to be spaced apart from a side surface of the first insulating layer and a side surface of the second insulating layer by a predetermined distance, and a sealing material disposed between the sealing case and the first region [fig 5, Akabane para 27].
Claim(s) 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro (JP2016092027, English translation is provided), and Horio (PG pub 20090236087) and further in view of Toyoshima et al (PG Pub 20200388740).
Regarding claim 10, 11, modified Tashiro teaches epoxy resin and Al2O3 as set forth above, but modified Tashiro does not teach the insulating layer having polymer resin and inorganic filler with claimed weight.
Toyoshima et al teaches a thermoelectric device having insulation layer being made of rubber and the filler from 5 to 60% weight [para 69], it would lead to the polymer weight from 40-95%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the percent weight of filler and the polymer of modified Tashiro to be the same of Toyoshima et al for flexible and strength [para 69].
Alternatively rejection:
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (PG Pub 20130014795) and in view of Lee et al (PG pub 20150333246) and Tashiro (JP2016092027, English translation is provided).
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al teaches a thermoelectric element comprising:
a metal substrate 120 [fig 2 para 25];
a first insulating layer 134 disposed on the first substrate, and in direct contact with the first metal substrate [fig 2 para 25 29] and being made of polymer resin and aluminum nitride [para 29-31]
plurality of first electrode 144 disposed on the substrate [fig 3B]
thermoelectric legs (150) disposed on the first electrodes [fig 3B],
a second insulating layer 142 disposed on the plurality of second electrodes 29 [fig 2 para 29] and being made of polymer resin and aluminum nitride [para 29-31]
a second substrate 110 disposed on the second insulating layer 142 [fig 2]
Yang et al teaches the claimed limitation, but Yang et al does not teach the first electrodes being embedded into insulation layer.
Lee et al teaches the electrode being partially embedded into the substrate 110B where the height of the electrode is embedded about 0.5 [fig 8 para 30].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the electrode of modified Lee et al to be partially half embedded into the insulating layer for stably mounted [para 30]. As for combination, at least some of side surfaces of the plurality of first electrodes are embedded in the first insulating layer, wherein a thickness of the first insulating layer disposed between two neighboring first electrodes of the plurality of first electrodes decreases from each of side surfaces of the two neighboring first electrodes to a center region between the two neighboring first electrodes (the width of the insulation layer is larger than the first electrode, there is a center region between two electrodes where the electrodes are not embedded into the insulation layer).
Modified Yang et al teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified Yang et al does not teach the first resin layer disposed between two neighboring first electrodes among the plurality of first electrodes includes a region having a thickness which decreases from side surfaces of the two first electrodes to a central region between the two neighboring first electrodes.
Tashiro teaches a thermoelectric device comprising an insulating layer 3 including layer where a thickness of the first insulating layer 3 disposed between two neighboring first electrodes 21 of the plurality of first electrodes gradually decreases from each of side surfaces of the two neighboring first electrodes to a center region between the two neighboring first electrodes [fig 4]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the insulating layer of modified Yang et al to be concave in the center region between two neighboring electrodes as taught by Tashiro for firmly bonding [para 12 of description section].
PNG
media_image1.png
614
887
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Yang et al teaches the electrode being partially embedded into the substrate 110B where the height of the electrode is embedded about 0.5 [fig 8].
Regarding claim 3, modified Yang et al teaches the side surfaces of the first electrodes that are not embedded the first insulating layer exposed to the outside [para 30 , fig 8, Lee et al].
Regarding claim 4, since the electrodes are embedded into the insulation layer, modified Yang et al teaches thickness of the first insulating layer under the plurality of first electrodes is smaller than a thickness of the first insulating layer in the center region between the two neighboring first electrodes [fig 4 of Ogawa, fig 2a of Tashiro.
Regarding claim 5, since thickness of the first insulating layer under the plurality of first electrodes is smaller than a thickness of the first insulating layer in the center region between the two neighboring first electrodes, distribution of the inorganic filler in the first insulating layer under the plurality of first electrodes 1s different from a distribution of the inorganic filler in the first insulating layer between the two neighboring first electrodes.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yang et al teaches a surface of the first metal substrate facing the first insulating layer includes a first region and a second region disposed in the first region, a surface roughness of the second region is greater than a surface roughness of the first region, and the first insulating layer disposed on the second region [fig 2, Yang et al]
Regarding claim 12, modified Yang et al teaches the material of the fist insulating layer being the same as of the second insulating layer.
Claim(s) 4, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (PG Pub 20130014795) and in view of Lee et al (PG pub 20150333246) and Tashiro (JP2016092027, English translation is provided) and further in view of Kim et al (PG pub 20110290293).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yang et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Yang et al teaches the thickness of the insulating layer under the plurality of first electrode. It is noted that changing the thickness of the electrode, it would change the thickness of the insulation under the first electrodes.
Kim et al teaches the shape of the fist groove 111 would be any shape and the electrode would have the same shape of the first groove 111 [para 58 64]. Also, changing shape would change the size of the as well as the thickness of the insulation under the first electrodes.
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify thickness of insulation to arrive the claimed range by fully embedded the electrodes and adjusting the thickness of the electrode such that the thickness of the insulation under the first electrodes for prevent the deviation in thickness of the first electrode from occurring [para 66] and since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yang et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Yang et al teaches the thickness of the insulating layer under the plurality of first electrode. It is noted that changing the thickness of the electrode, it would change the thickness of the insulation under the first electrodes.
Kim et al teaches the shape of the fist groove 111 would be any shape and the electrode would have the same shape of the first groove 111 [para 58 64]. Also, changing shape would change the size of the as well as the thickness of the insulation under the first electrodes.
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify thickness of insulation to arrive the claimed range by adjusting the thickness of the electrode such that the thickness of the first insulating layer in the central region between two neighboring first electrode being 1.1 to 3 times the thickness of the first insulating layer under the plurality of first electrodes for prevent the deviation in thickness of the first electrode from occurring [para 66] and since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (PG Pub 20130014795) and in view of Lee et al (PG pub 20150333246) and Tashiro (JP2016092027, English translation is provided) and further in view Akabane (PG pub 20150311420).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yang et al teaches the claimed limitation, but Yang et al does not teach the sealing as claimed.
Akabane teaches a thermoelectric device comprising a sealing member 4 disposed in the first region [fig 5 para 39].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the sealing member of Akabane at the first region of modified Yang et al for effective hermetic sealing [para 29].
Regarding claim 9, modified Yang et al teaches the sealing part includes a sealing case disposed to be spaced apart from a side surface of the first insulating layer and a side surface of the second insulating layer by a predetermined distance, and a sealing material disposed between the sealing case and the first region [fig 5, Akabane para 27].
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (PG Pub 20130014795) and in view of Lee et al (PG pub 20150333246) andTashiro (JP2016092027, English translation is provided) and further in view of Toyoshima et al (PG Pub 20200388740).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yang et al teaches polymer resin and AlN as set forth above, but modified Yang et al does not teach the insulating layer having polymer resin and inorganic filler with claimed weight.
Toyoshima et al teaches a thermoelectric device having insulation layer being made of rubber and the filler from 5 to 60% weight [para 69], it would lead to the polymer weight from 40-95%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the percent weight of filler and the polymer of modified Yang et al to be the same of Toyoshima et al for flexible and strength [para 69].
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (PG Pub 20130014795) and Lee et al (PG pub 20150333246) and Tashiro (JP2016092027, English translation is provided) and Toyoshima et al (PG Pub 20200388740) and further in view of Horio (PG pub 20090236087).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yang et al teaches polymer resin and AlN as set forth above, but modified Yang et al does not teach the insulating layer having polymer resin being epoxy resin.
Horio teaches a thermoelectric device comprising a substrate 13(a,b) and insulating layer 14 [fig 1 para 54] where insulating layer 14 is made of epoxy resin and filler Al2O3 [para 31-32 fig 1],
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the material insulating layer of Kurihara et al to be the same of Horio for improving thermal conductivity [para 32].
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
Prosecution Insights