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 I and species A in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the USPTO has the burden of explaining why each group lacks unity with each other group specifically describing special technical features in each group but he USPTO has not met its burden. This is not found persuasive because these two groups require the technical feature of a thermistor being embedded inside the first substrate or second substrate and this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the recited prior art. Also, it is noted that it is inappropriate to use the Written Opinion of the international searching authority and decide if the claims are lacking unity of invention or not. Moreover, the two recited references are in the same field of endeavor, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR101401275, and further in view of CN112614864 or alternatively CN 101047224, hereinafter as ‘275, ‘864, ‘224.
Regarding claim 1, ‘275 teaches a thermoelectric module comprising:
a first substrate 147 having a first principal surface and a second principal surface opposite to the first principal surface [fig 1 2];
a second substrate 141 having a third principal surface facing the second principal surface and a fourth principal surface opposite to the third principal surface [fig 1 2];
a first electrode143 provided on the second principal surface [fig 1 2];
a second electrode 142 provided on the third principal surface [fig 1 2];
a P-type thermoelectric element layer146 and an N-type thermoelectric element layer 145 sandwiched between the first electrode and the second electrode and arrayed along the second principal surface and the third principal surface [fig 1 2]; and
a thermometer 161 for temperature detection being buried or embedded in the substrate 141 [ fig 2 5 para 28 36].
‘275 teaches the thermometer buried in the substrate as set forth above, but ‘275 does not teach current -carrying electrodes as claimed.
‘864 teaches thermal stack sensor comprising thermal pile structure 20 arrange on support substrate 10 and a thermistor 11 for temperature detection being embedded in the support substrate 10 [fig 1 2 6 para 30-41]. Also, the thermistor is electrically led out from the lower cover 13, specifically, the lower surface of the lower cover 13 is provided with a conductive bump 14, the thermistor 11 through the lower cover 13 of the conductive column 15 electrically connected with the conductive bump 14 [fig 1-2]. Conductive column 15 and 14 are considered to be current carrying electrode and located on one surface of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the thermometer of ‘275 as taught by ‘864 being connected to current carrying electrode as taught by ‘864 for electrical connection and since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Or alternatively,
‘224 teaches a thermoelectric device comprising temperature detecting element 14 which is connected to the wiring pattern 17 where the wiring pattern 17 is considered to be current carrying electrode [fig 3 wiring pattern section] and located on one surface of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the thermometer of ‘275 as taught by ‘864 being connected to current carrying electrode as taught by ‘’224 for electrical connection and since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
The recitation “configured to energizer the thermistor” is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2111. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 3, modified ‘275 teaches the current-carrying electrodes are located on the first principal surface of the first substrate or the fourth principal surface of the second substrate, and are provided as a pair of electrodes spaced apart from each other [fig 3, ‘224] (it is noted that since modified ‘275 teaches the whole system comprising each element being formed on each other, in either direction (top or bottom) the current carrying electrodes are located as claimed).
Regarding claim 4, since the thermistor being embedded inside the substrate and connected to the electrode, it is considered that the thermistor and the current-carrying electrodes are connected along a thickness direction of the first substrate or the second substrate.
Regarding claim 5, modified ‘275 teaches the first and second substrate being made of ceramic [para 44].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR101401275, and CN112614864 or alternatively CN 101047224, and further in view of KR 20130009442, hereinafter as ‘442.
Regarding claim 2, modified ‘275 teaches the system being Peltier [para 20], but modified ‘275 does not teach first and second dissipation layer.
‘442 teaches a thermoelectric device comprising first and second heat dissipation layer 112, 122 [abstract para 26 fig 2]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the first and second heat dissipation layer of ‘442 to first and second substrate as taught by ‘275 since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
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