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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 03/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Newly submitted claims 34-46 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Group II, directed to process claims 34-40, and
Group III, directed to apparatus claims 41-46.
Groups II and III are independent or distinct from elected group I because:
Inventions I and III are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed are distinct because the products are mutually exclusive and can have a materially different design (metallic thermoelement, for example type J-K type metal alloys, for group I, and p-n type thermoelement as claimed in group III). Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus in which a photovoltaic device is used to absorb the heat radiated from the computing device that is subsequently converted to electricity to provide electricity to the fan.
Since applicant elected group I in the response filed on 03/27/2026, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 34-46 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Therefore, claims 34-46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/27/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suski (US 5,419,780).
Regarding claim 1, Suski discloses an apparatus (figures 1 and 3-6) comprising:
a fan (70, fig. 3) mounted on a computing device (computer system 10, fig. 1 and 3, 4:51-68);
a first thermoelectric device (thermoelectric generator or Peltier device 50, figs. 3-6, embedded in the computing device (10) (the Peltier device 50 is installed on the motherboard 14 of the computer system 10, and thus embedded in the computer device 10, see figure 3); and
a detection device (second thermoelectric generator 50, not shown in figures but disclosed in 7:11-14, is interpreted as the detection device as detects temperature gradient across the device and generates electricity based on that; see also instant claims 5-7 that discloses the detection device is a thermoelectric device that generates voltage/electricity) coupled to the first thermoelectric device (first thermoelectric generator 50) (7:11-14) and the fan (70) (the electricity is supplied to the fan 70 by being connected through wire 72);
PNG
media_image1.png
433
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the detection device (second thermoelectric generator 50) is configured to determine an electrical signal generated by the first thermoelectric device (first thermoelectric generator 50) and control a rotational speed of the fan (70) in response to the electrical signal (the thermoelectric generators 50 generate electricity to activate or run the fan 70; see figures 3-6, and thus controls the rotational speed based on the electricity being produced).
Regarding claim 2, Suski further discloses that wherein the detection device (second thermoelectric generator 50) is further configured to reduce an operating frequency of the computing device (70) in response to the electrical signal (see figures 1 and 3-6, 4:51-7:26).
Regarding claim 3, Suski further discloses that a second thermoelectric device (“two or more thermoelectric generator”, 7:11-14, and thus third thermoelectric generator 50 is interpreted as the second thermoelectric generator) embedded in the computing device (10), wherein the detection device (second thermoelectric generator 50) is further configured to activate the second thermoelectric device to cool the computing device (10) in response to the electrical signal (7:11-14).
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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suski as applied above, and further in view of Pomerene et al. (US 6,559,538 B1) and Tan et al. (US 2019/0295943 A1).
Regarding claim 4 or 5, Suski further discloses that the computing device (10) comprises a plurality of processing units (computer system 10 comprises plurality of processing units such as integrated circuits 12 which is a microprocessor, 6:13-26, computer processors that runs the computer system 10, see fig. 1) disposed on a substrate (motherboard 14, fig. 3/1). However, Suski does not disclose that the first thermoelectric device (first thermoelectric generator 50) comprises a through-silicon via structure extending through the substrate, the through-silicon via structure comprising a first through-silicon via containing a first conductivity type material and a second through-silicon via containing a second conductivity type material opposite the first conductivity type material, or the detection device (second thermoelectric generator 50) comprises: a first through-silicon via (TSV) extending through a substrate of the computing device, wherein the first TSV comprises a first material of a first conductivity type; a second TSV extending through the substrate of the computing device, wherein the second TSV comprises a second material of a second conductivity type, the second conductivity type being opposite to the first conductivity type; and a first conductive layer disposed on a first surface of the substrate of the computing device, wherein a first portion of the first conductive layer is coupled between a first end of the first TSV and a first end of the second TSV.
Pomerene discloses an integrated circuit device (figures 2c-2g) having a built-in cooling mechanism (see Abstract), comprising a thermoelectric device comprising a through-semiconductor via structure (N+ and P+ regions, figs. 2e-2f, 3:7-34) extending through the substrate (28)),
PNG
media_image2.png
330
657
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the through-semiconductor via structure comprising a first through-semiconductor via (N+ region) containing a first conductivity type material (n-type) and a second through-semiconductor via (P+ region) containing a second conductivity type material (p-type) opposite the first conductivity type material (n-type) (figs. 2e-2f, 3:7-34) and
a first conductive layer (conductive layer 27, fig. 2c, 2-65-66) on the first surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor substrate (28) and comprising a first portion (middle portion) coupled to a first end (bottom end) of the first through-semiconductor via (N+ region) and a first end (bottom end) of the second through-semiconductor via (P+ region) (see figure 2f).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the thermoelectric generator of Pomerene as the thermoelectric generators (both the thermoelectric device 50 and the detection device 50) of Suski in order to provide cooling, as shown by Pomerene and also desired by Suski.
Suski as modified by Pomerene further discloses that the semiconductor substrate (28) is bismuth telluride, lead telluride or chalcogenide (3:5-7). However, Suski as modified by Pomerene does not explicitly disclose that the semiconductor substrate is a silicon substrate.
Tan is directed to a semiconductor device ([0045], last sentence) wherein substrate (101) is made of Si or lead telluride ([0045]). Thus, Tan explicitly discloses that the Si and lead telluride are art-recognized equivalent semiconductor material that can be used to form substrate of a semiconductor device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have used the Si material as taught by Tan to form the substrate of Suski as modified Pomerene because substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious. See MPEP §2144.06 (II).
Regarding claim 6, Suski as modified discloses a voltage across the first TSV and the second TSV exists when there is a temperature difference between the first surface of the substrate and a second surface of the substrate, the second surface of the substrate being opposite to the first surface of the substrate (the thermoelectric generator 50 generating electricity to activate or run the fan 70; see figures 3-6 of Suski).
Regarding claim 7, Suski as modified the voltage across the first TSV and the second TSV is a function of the temperature difference between the first surface of the substrate and the second surface of the substrate (the thermoelectric generator 50 generating electricity to activate or run the fan 70; see figures 3-6 of Suski).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/GOLAM MOWLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights