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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-20 are currently pending.
Claim 1 has been amended
Claims 13-20 have withdrawn
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 08/06/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 05/14/2026
The examiner modified the rejection below to address claim amendment.
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) 1-5, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (PG Pub 20130081663) and in view of Lee et al (PG pub 20150333246), Tashiro (JP2016092027, English translation is provided) and JP2011220951, hereinafter as ‘951.
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al teaches a thermoelectric element comprising:
a metal substrate (121,123) [fig 2 para 52];
a first insulating layer 122 disposed on the first substrate, and in direct contact with the first metal substrate [fig 2]. The fist insulating layer being made of polymer resin, first inorganic filler and second inorganic filler (filler has different size) [para 60 63-70]
plurality of first electrode 132 disposed on the substrate [fig 2]
thermoelectric legs (140, 150) disposed on the first electrodes [fig 2],
a second insulating layer 112 disposed on the plurality of second electrodes 29 [fig 2 para 29] and being made of polymer resin [para 60]
a second substrate 111 disposed on the second insulating layer 112 [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 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 Yang et al to be partially half embedded into the insulating layer as taught by Lee et al 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].
Modified Yang et al teaches the first metal substrate having roughness surface 123 for improving adhesive [fig 3A], but modified Yang et al does not teach a surface roughness of a surface of the first metal substrate facing the first resin layer is greater than a particle size D50 of the first inorganic filler and less than a particle size D50 of the second inorganic filler.
‘951 teaches the surface roughness being controlled to improve the adhesion between substrate and resin [description section].
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[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.).
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the surface roughness of the first substrate as taught by Yang et al to arrive the claimed range for improving adhesive.
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, Lee et al].
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 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 10, modified Yang et al teaches the first and second filler having weight of 70% (the metal filler being less than 50%), thus it leads to the weight of the polymer resin overlapped the claimed range [para 18 67 76]
Regarding claim 11, modified Yang et al teaches insulating layer having polymer resin being epoxy resin and first and second inorganic filler being boron nitride [para 15 17 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 [para 60, Yang et al]
Claim(s) 4, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (PG Pub 20130081663) and Lee et al (PG pub 20150333246), Tashiro (JP2016092027, English translation is provided) and JP2011220951 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 20130081663) and Lee et al (PG pub 20150333246), Tashiro (JP2016092027, English translation is provided) and JP2011220951 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) and Tashiro (JP2016092027, English translation is provided) and JP2011220951 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 first and second filler and the polymer of modified Yang et al to be the same of Toyoshima et al for flexible and strength [para 69].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/06/2026 are deemed moot in view of the following new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims which significantly affected the scope thereof (i.e., by incorporating new limitations into the independent claims, which require further search and consideration).
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 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