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 of group I in the reply filed on 05/08/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nies et al (PG Pub 2014026002).
Regarding claim 1, Nies et al teaches a thermoelectric generator 150 comprising:
a hot-side substrate 114 comprising a plurality of solder pads 112, with each solder pad having a p-type semiconductor pellet (108, 110) and an n-type semiconductor pellet (3108, 110) affixed thereto [fig 1 para 72]
a cold-side substrate 116 comprising a corresponding plurality of solder pads 118 dimensioned and arranged according to the plurality of solder pads of the hot-side substrate, wherein the corresponding plurality of solder pads of the cold-side substrate is affixed to the hot-side substrate at locations of the plurality of solder pads of the hot-side substrate [para 83].
Regarding claim 6, since Nies et al teaches the plurality of solder pads of the hot side substrate having the dimension and arranged, it is considered that it would reduced the thermal expansion. The recitation “to reduce the thermal expansion” 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.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nies et al (PG Pub 2014026002) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao et al (PG Pub 20110048484).
Regarding claim 2, Nies et al teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but Nies et al does not teach claimed controller.
Gao et al teaches a controller being used for adjusting the power output generated by TE (claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the controller of Gao et al in the system of Nies for controlling the power output of TE (claim 9).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nies et al (PG Pub 2014026002) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO2016134285, hereinafter as ‘285.
Regarding claim 3, Nies et al teaches the hot side substate forming a first cartridge of the TEG, but Nies et al does not teach a plurality of cartridges, each configured as the first cartridge and affixed to other locations of the cold side substrate.
‘285 teaches a thermoelectric device comprising top and bottom header which is considered to be the substrate at opposite direction [fig 1] where the top header includes 4 separate tiles 32 [fig 4 para 15 of description section]. Each tiles is considered as one cartridge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have cold side substrate of Nies et al to be included of plurality of cartridges as taught by ‘285 for high efficiency operation at high temperatures [para 16 of description section].
Regarding claim 4, modified Nies et al teaches the cold side substrate comprises at least one circuit trace 26 connecting at least two of the cartridges 32 [fig 5, ‘285]
Regarding claim 5, modified Nies et al teaches each of the cartridges are separated on the cold side substrate [fig 4, ‘285]. The recitation “to reduce thermal expansion” 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.
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