Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/769,867

MASS FABRICATION METHOD FOR A SPACER INSERTED THERMOELECTRIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 11, 2024
Examiner
DINH, BACH T
Art Unit
1726
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation Yonsei University
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
530 granted / 966 resolved
-10.1% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1016
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 966 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Summary This is the Office Action in response to the Response to Election/Restriction requirement filed on 01/30/2026. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application with claims 1, 3-6, 12 and 14-16 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 2, 7-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites “a mass-manufacturing method of new structure thermoelectric elements” (emphasis added) that renders the claims indefinite for the following reasons. The word “mass” implies a quantity of thermoelectric elements being produced; however, when the word “mass” is read in light of the specification, it is unclear as to how many thermoelectric elements have to be produced by a method in order for the method to be considered as a mass-manufacturing method”. The word “new” is a relative term; however, it is unclear as to what new structure means when the word “new” is read in light of the specification. Claims 7-11 and 13 are rejected as dependents of claim 2. 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) 2, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagawa et al. (US 5,969,290) in view of Park et al. (KR20210112887 with provided machine English translation). Addressing claim 2, Kagawa discloses a mass-manufacturing method (the method produces more than one thermoelectric elements, which qualifies the method as mass-manufacturing) of new structure (the structure is not used after it is made; therefore, it is new) thermoelectric elements (fig. 3 and 12-14), comprising: filing a thermoelectric material powder 16a (powder of thermoelectric material as described in the Abstract) to surround inner and outer parts of a plurality of spacer portions 18 (annotated figs. 6-7 below show the inner and outer parts of a plurality of spacer portions 18 being surrounded by the thermoelectric powder) located inside a mold portion 12 (die 12 in fig. 3); pressurizing, by a punch portion 20, the plurality of spacer portions 18; sintering the thermoelectric material powder to generate a plurality of sintered bodies (figs. 6-7, col. 4 ln 27-36); and cutting the plurality of sintered bodies to a preset size to manufacture a plurality of thermoelectric elements (col. 4 ln 41-56; fig. 14, col. 9 ln 57-65). PNG media_image1.png 588 652 media_image1.png Greyscale Kagawa is silent regarding the step of sintering by spark plasma sintering device. Park discloses a manufacturing method of thermoelectric elements; wherein, a die is filled with a plurality layers A of thermoelectric powder separated by spacers B. The plurality of layers are pressurized by punch portion 210 followed by sintering the thermoelectric material powder by spark plasma sintering device to generate a plurality of sintered bodies (paragraphs [0016 and 0030] of the translation document). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of Kagawa with the known spark plasma sintering device and step disclosed by Park in order to form the sintered bodies of thermoelectric material via rapid temperature increase, which allows controlled particle grown and production of dense sintered bodies in a short period of time (Park, [0033]). Addressing claim 7, Kagawa discloses that the spacers 18 and thermoelectric powder layers 16a are sequentially deposited in the die; therefore, the step (a) (annotated fig. 3 below) of Kagawa comprises: a1. supplying the thermoelectric material powder 16a (the lower most layer 16a in fig. 3) into a spacer portion 18 located at a lower most position after the spacer portion located at the lowermost position among the plurality of spacer portions is located at an upper part of a lower punch provided in the punch portion; a2. supplying the thermoelectric material powder 16a into an n-layer spacer portion (annotated fig. 3) after the n-layer spacer portion among the plurality of spacer portions is placed at an upper part of the spacer portion located at the lowermost position; and a3. supplying the thermoelectric powder 16a into a spacer portion located at an uppermost position after the spacer portion located at the uppermost position among the plurality of spacer portions is placed at an upper part of the n-layer spacer portion (annotated fig. 3 shows the layer identified as the spacer portion located at the uppermost position among the plurality of spacer portions at the time it is positioned within the die since the plurality of layers disclosed by Kagawa are positioned sequentially, which meets the limitation of current claim). PNG media_image2.png 384 642 media_image2.png Greyscale Addressing claim 11, Kagawa discloses in col. 6 ln 21-28 that the assemblies are separated after pressure sintering, which implies the step of current claim wherein the sintered bodies are separated from the mold portion after the upper punch and lower punch provided in the punch portion move upward and downward to be separated from the mold portion. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagawa et al. (US 5,969,290) in view of Park et al. (KR20210112887 with provided machine English translation) as applied to claims 2, 7 and 11 above, and further in view of Tomida et al. (US 2019/0097115). Addressing claim 13, Kagawa discloses the sintered bodies are cut into strips 21 and 22 and subsequently cut along lines 51 (fig. 14) to the finished thermoelectric elements shown in fig. 15. Kagawa is silent regarding the limitation of current claim. Tomida discloses the sintered bodies of thermoelectric material are cut into cube shaped thermoelectric elements 40 by the following annotated steps: d1. cutting both sides of the plurality of sintered bodies in a vertical direction; d2. cutting the plurality of sintered bodies in a horizontal direction while maintaining a predetermined gap in the vertical direction; d3. cutting the plurality of sintered bodies in the vertical direction while maintaining a predetermined gap in the horizontal direction; and d4. Manufacturing the plurality of thermoelectric elements 40. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in art would have found it obvious to modify the method of Kagawa with the known cutting steps disclosed by Tomida in order to obtain the predictable result of manufacturing cube shaped thermoelectric elements (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143). Allowable Subject Matter Pending the 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection above, claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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. /BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 03/11/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 11, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595176
PREPARATION METHOD OF LITHIUM IRON PHOSPHATE CATHODE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597882
PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER GENERATION MODULE USING CONDENSING LENS HAVING MEDIUM THEREIN AND PHOTOVOLTAIC/SOLAR HEAT POWER GENERATION SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580517
PHOTOVOLTAIC ROOFING TILE FOOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570173
Vehicular Electricity Generating Canopy Appliance
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563857
PHOTOVOLTAIC DEVICE INCLUDING A P-N JUNCTION AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+32.5%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 966 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month