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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, lines 5 through 7 recite “an electrode, wherein the N type semiconductor pellet is electrically arranged to conduct electrical current in an opposite direction relative to at least one of the P type semiconductor pellets through the electrode,” however, the limitation is not described in the as-filed specification. The as-filed specification describes an N type pellet that reverses current at an output electrode ([0026],[0075]). The as-filed specification describes the N type semiconductor pellet is operable to reverse electrical current to at least one of the P type semiconductor pellets through the electrode ([0007]). Paragraph [0065] of the as-filed specification describes the N type pellet 106 is used to reverse the electrical current of the TEG 100. The as-filed specification does not describe “an electrode, wherein the N type semiconductor pellet is electrically arranged to conduct electrical current in an opposite direction relative to at least one of the P type semiconductor pellets through the electrode” as recited in lines 5 through 7 of claim 1. Claims 2-16 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
Claims 1-16 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. Specifically, lines 5 through 7 recite “an electrode, wherein the N type semiconductor pellet is electrically arranged to conduct electrical current in an opposite direction relative to at least one of the P type semiconductor pellets through the electrode,” however, the direction required by the limitation “in an opposite direction relative to at least one of the P type semiconductor pellets through the electrode” is unclear. The phrase “An opposite direction relative to at least one of the P type semiconductor pellets through the electrode” does not specify the direction referred to by “relative to,” therefore, the claim does not include a direction to which the claimed opposite direction is relative to. The structural/functional requirements of the limitation are subsequently indefinite. Claims 2-16 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatasubramanian et al. (US 7,235,735).
Regarding claim 1, Venkatasubramanian discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) comprising P type semiconductor pellets (Fig. 6) configured on a substrate (64 in Fig. 6) and interconnected by vertical (vertical portion of 66 in Fig. 6) and horizontal interconnects (horizontal portion of 66 in Fig. 6); an N type semiconductor pellet configured on the substrate (Fig. 6); and an electrode (shown in annotated Fig. 6 below).
While Venkatasubramanian does disclose P type semiconductor pellets in Fig. 6, Venkatasubramanian does not explicitly disclose a plurality of pairs of P type semiconductor pellets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form a plurality of pairs of P-type semiconductor pellets in addition to the pair of P-type semiconductor pellets depicted in Fig. 6 of Venkatasubramanian because such a modification amounts to a duplication of known parts of a device, and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
While Venkatasubramanian does disclose the N type semiconductor pellet is electrically arranged to conduct electrical current in an opposite direction (Fig. 6), with regard to the limitation “wherein the N type semiconductor pellet is electrically arranged to conduct electrical current in an opposite direction relative to at least one of the P type semiconductor pellets through the electrode,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which that apparatus is intended to be used, and a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
It is further noted that if the depiction of 66 in Fig. 6 does not explicitly disclose vertical and horizontal interconnects, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the depicted interconnection with vertical and horizontal interconnects because such a modification would be the result of a rearrangement of parts of an invention, and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
[AltContent: textbox (electrode)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
285
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Venkatasubramanian discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Venkatasubramanian further discloses the P type semiconductor pellets have a zT value of about 2.6 (C8/L7 discloses a zT value of approximately 2.5).
Regarding claim 4, modified Venkatasubramanian discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “the vertical interconnects are operable to direct electrical current in a series circuit from a top surface of one P-type semiconductor pellet to a bottom surface of a neighboring P-type semiconductor pellet,” it is noted that the electrical current is directed to all surfaces of the P-type semiconductor pellets depicted in Fig. 6 of Venkatasubramanian, and it is further noted that the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatasubramanian et al. (US 7,235,735) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nakada (US 2019/0067548).
Regarding claim 3, modified Venkatasubramanian discloses all the claim
limitations as set forth above.
Modified Venkatasubramanian does not explicitly disclose at least the vertical interconnects are configured from graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, an aerogel, a metal sidewall on an insulator, or a metal doped BiTe pellet.
Nakada discloses a thermoelectric generator (Fig. 3) and further discloses vertical interconnects configured from a metal sidewall on an insulator (23 in Fig. 3; [0109]; 23 on a gap between 11 and 23 in Fig. 3 satisfies the limitation “on an insulator”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the vertical interconnect of modified Venkatasubramanian such that it is configured from a metal sidewall on an insulator, as disclosed by Nakada, because as evidenced by Nakada, the formation of an interconnect of a thermoelectric device from metal on a gap (insulator) amounts to the use of a known component/material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the vertical interconnect of modified Venkatasubramanian with a metal sidewall on an insulator based on the teaching of Nakada.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatasubramanian et al. (US 7,235,735) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nakamura (WO 2019003582A1 – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, modified Venkatasubramanian discloses all the claim
limitations as set forth above.
Modified Venkatasubramanian does not explicitly disclose at least the vertical interconnects are configured from graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, an aerogel, a metal sidewall on an insulator, or a metal doped BiTe pellet.
Nakamura discloses a thermoelectric generator ([0001]) and further discloses the conductive connector 20 may be a metal wire coated with resin ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the vertical interconnects of modified Venkatasubramanian with a metal wire coated with resin, as disclosed by Nakamura, because as evidenced by Nakamura, forming a conductive connector of a thermoelectric module with a metal wire coated with resin amounts to the use of a known component/material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the vertical interconnects of modified Venkatasubramanian with a metal wire coated with resin based on the teaching of Nakamura.
Modified Venkatasubramanian discloses the vertical interconnects are configured from a metal sidewall on an insulator (Nakamura – [0031]; it is noted that the metal wire disclosed satisfies the limitation requiring a metal sidewall given the breadth of the term “sidewall”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Venkatasubramanian discloses all the claim
limitations as set forth above.
Modified Venkatasubramanian does not explicitly disclose the vertical interconnects comprise a shape including at least one of a z-shaped strip, a cuboid, a cylinder, a sphere, a trapezoid, or a pyramid.
Nakamura discloses a thermoelectric generator ([0001]) and further discloses the shape of the conductive connector 20 is not limited to a wire shape ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the vertical interconnect of modified Venkatasubramanian in any of the claimed shapes, because as evidenced by Nakamura, the shape of a conductive connector in a thermoelectric module is not limited to a wire shape ([0029]). A modification of the shape of the vertical interconnect of modified Venkatasubramanian would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 6-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatasubramanian et al. (US 7,235,735) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Petkie et al. (US 2020/0403135).
Regarding claim 6, modified Venkatasubramanian discloses all the claim
limitations as set forth above.
Modified Venkatasubramanian does not explicitly disclose the P type semiconductor pellets are metallized with a metal layer surrounding each of the P type semiconductor pellets; each metal layer comprises an aperture that exposes its respective P type semiconductor pellet about a perimeter of the P type semiconductor pellet at a predetermined sidewall height of the P type semiconductor pellet; and the metal layer remains at the sidewall of each P type semiconductor pellet.
Petkie discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) and further discloses P type semiconductor pellets ([0068]) are metallized with a metal layer surrounding each of the P type semiconductor pellets ([0080]); each metal layer comprises an aperture that exposes its respective P type semiconductor pellet about a perimeter of the P type semiconductor pellet at a sidewall height of the P type semiconductor pellet ([0030],[0080]); and the metal layer remains at the sidewall of each P type semiconductor pellet ([0030],[0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the thermoelectric generator of modified Venkatasubramanian with metallized P type semiconductor pellets comprising an aperture, as disclosed by Petkie, because as taught by Petkie, thermoelectric generator performance is increased by the shaping of isothermal fields within the bulk of a thermoelectric pellet, resulting in an increase in power output of a thermoelectric generator module (abstract).
With regard to the limitation “predetermined,” it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 7, modified Venkatasubramanian discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Venkatasubramanian does not explicitly disclose the P type semiconductor pellets are configured with a non-metal layer that is thermally conductive and electrically insulative surrounding each of the P type semiconductor pellets; each non-metal layer comprises an aperture that exposes its respective P type semiconductor pellet about a perimeter of the P type semiconductor pellet at a sidewall height of the P type semiconductor pellet; and the non-metal layer remains at the sidewall of each P type semiconductor pellet.
Petkie discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) and further discloses P type semiconductor pellets ([0068]) are configured with a non-metal layer that is thermally conductive and electrically insulative surrounding each of the P type semiconductor pellets ([0093]); each non-metal layer comprises an aperture that exposes its respective P type semiconductor pellet around a perimeter of the P type semiconductor pellet at a sidewall height of the P type semiconductor pellet ([0093]); and the non-metal layer remains at the sidewall of each P type semiconductor pellet ([0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the thermoelectric generator of modified Venkatasubramanian with P type semiconductor pellets with a non-metal layer that is thermally conductive and electrically insulative surrounding each of the P type semiconductor pellets, as disclosed by Petkie, because as taught by Petkie, when using a small aperture on the sidewall metals, there can be two focusing effects depending on the location of the aperture ([0093]). Additionally, Petkie teaches the center of the aperture located near the top of bottom of the pellet results in higher power output than the other locations of the aperture ([0093]). Further, Petkie discloses thermoelectric generator performance is increased by the shaping of isothermal fields within the bulk of a thermoelectric pellet, resulting in an increase in power output of a thermoelectric generator module (abstract).
With regard to the limitation “predetermined,” it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 8, modified Venkatasubramanian discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Venkatasubramanian further discloses the metal layer comprises (Petkie - [0013]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Venkatasubramanian discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Venkatasubramanian further discloses the aperture electrically isolates a top portion of the metal layer from a bottom portion of the metal layer of each P type semiconductor pellet (Petkie – [0093]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Venkatasubramanian discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Venkatasubramanian further discloses a plurality of metal containers (Petkie - [0048]), each metal container being thermally and electrically bonded to the metal layer of a respective one of the P type semiconductor pellets, wherein each metal container is configured between the metal layer of the respective P-type semiconductor pellet and the substrate (Petkie - [0048]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Venkatasubramanian discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Venkatasubramanian further discloses the apertures provide a non-linear effect on a power output of the thermoelectric generator by modifying an isotherm surface curvature within the P type semiconductor pellets (Petkie – abstract).
Regarding claim 13, modified Venkatasubramanian discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Venkatasubramanian further discloses the isotherm surface curvature within the P-type semiconductor pellets is operable to increase an effective surface area of a thermoelectric effect within a volume of the P type semiconductor pellets via heat injection through the sidewall of the P type semiconductor pellets (Petkie – [0013]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Venkatasubramanian discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Venkatasubramanian does not explicitly disclose the P type semiconductor pellets are configured in a shape that is operable to increase a thermal lensing effect of the thermoelectric generator.
Petkie discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) and further discloses the P type semiconductor pellets are configured in a shape that is operable to increase a thermal lensing effect of the thermoelectric generator ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the shape of the P type semiconductor pellets of modified Venkatasubramanian such that the shape is operable to increase a thermal lensing effect, as disclosed by Petkie, because as taught by Petkie, thermoelectric power increases by an increased effective thermoelectric volume ([0054]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Venkatasubramanian discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Venkatasubramanian further discloses the shape is cuboid (Petkie – [0006],[0010],[0011]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Venkatasubramanian discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Venkatasubramanian further discloses the shape is cylindrical (Petkie – [0006],[0010],[0011]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatasubramanian et al. (US 7,235,735) in view of Petkie et al. (US 2020/0403135) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 6,329,217).
Regarding claim 9, modified Venkatasubramanian discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Venkatasubramanian does disclose the sidewalls have an aperture, or gap 284, that breaks the electrical continuity between the top and bottom electrodes of the pellet 281 to prevent electrical shorting (Petkie – [0093]), modified Venkatasubramanian does not explicitly disclose the non-metal layer comprises thermally conductive high temperature epoxies and adhesives.
Watanabe discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) and further discloses a thermally conductive adhesive in an insulating gap (C7/L56-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a thermally conductive adhesive, as disclosed by Watanabe, in the gap of modified Venkatasubramanian, because as evidenced by Watanabe, the use of a thermally conductive adhesive in an insulating gap of a thermoelectric generator amounts to the use of a known component/material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when including a thermally conductive adhesive in the gap of modified Venkatasubramanian based on the teaching of Watanabe.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 1 does not introduce new structure, does not alter the thermoelectric architecture of the claimed generator, and does not narrow the scope of the claim, and that it merely articulates in alternative terms what a person of ordinary skill in the art would already understand from the original language, namely the inherent electrical behavior of an N-type thermoelectric element relative to a P-type element. In response to Applicant’s argument, claim 1 does not recite wherein the N-type semiconductor pellet is electrically arranged to conduct electrical current in an opposite direction relative to a direction electrical current is conducted through at least one of the P type semiconductor pellets, but instead claim 1 recites “wherein the N type semiconductor pellet is electrically arranged to conduct electrical current in an opposite direction relative to at least one of the P type semiconductor pellets through the electrode” which renders claims 1-16 indefinite as set forth in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above.
It is noted that the claim amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections
of claims 4, 11, 15, and 16 set forth in the previous office action.
Applicant argues that transitioning from the thin-film, wafer-scale, header-routed architecture taught by Venkatasubramanian to the discrete pellet-and-interconnect configuration of claim 1 would not be a routine design choice, but would instead represent a departure from the reference’s core fabrication strategy and design objectives. In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth in the office action, Venkatasubramanian discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) comprising P type semiconductor pellets (Fig. 6) configured on a substrate (64 in Fig. 6) and interconnected by vertical (vertical portion of 66 in Fig. 6) and horizontal interconnects (horizontal portion of 66 in Fig. 6); an N type semiconductor pellet configured on the substrate (Fig. 6); and an electrode (shown in annotated Fig. 6 above).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the reference does not describe, suggest, or illustrate a generator in which a plurality of pairs of P-type pellets on a substrate are interconnected by vertical and horizontal interconnects. In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth in the office action, Venkatasubramanian discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) comprising P type semiconductor pellets (Fig. 6) configured on a substrate (64 in Fig. 6) and interconnected by vertical (vertical portion of 66 in Fig. 6) and horizontal interconnects (horizontal portion of 66 in Fig. 6); an N type semiconductor pellet configured on the substrate (Fig. 6); and an electrode (shown in annotated Fig. 6 above).
Applicant argues that the reference does not describe an N-type pellet configured on the same substrate and arranged relative to the P-type pellet pairs through an electrode in the manner required by claim 1. In response to Applicant’s argument, claim 1 does not recite an N-type pellet arranged relative to the P-type pellet pairs through an electrode. Instead, claim 1 recites “an electrode, wherein the N type semiconductor pellet is electrically arranged to conduct electrical current in an opposite direction relative to at least one of the P type semiconductor pellets through the electrode.” This limitation requires the N type semiconductor pellet to be electrically arranged to conduct electrical current through the electrode in an opposite direction relative to at least one of the P type semiconductor pellets. The limitation recited in claim 1 does not recite an N-type pellet arranged relative to the P-type pellet pairs through an electrode.
As set forth above, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With regard to claim 4, Applicant argues that claim 4 requires not merely that thermoelectric elements be electrically connected in series, but that the series connection be implemented through a defined pellet-to-pellet topology anchored to the physical geometry of discrete pellets. In response to Applicant’s argument, claim 4 recites “the vertical interconnects are operable to direct electrical current in a series circuit from a top surface of one P-type semiconductor pellet to a bottom surface of a neighboring P-type semiconductor pellet,” therefore, the claim requires the vertical interconnects to be capable of directing electrical current in a series circuit from a top surface of one P-type semiconductor pellet to a bottom surface of a neighboring P-type semiconductor pellet. While requiring the capability of directing electrical current in a series circuit, the claim does not require a defined pellet-to-pellet topology anchored to the physical geometry of discrete pellets. Vertical interconnects which direct electrical current in a series circuit to the respective surfaces satisfy the requirements of claim 4. The directed electrical current reaches all surfaces of the disclosed pellets of Fig. 6 of Venkatasubramanian, therefore, the disclosure satisfies the limitations as recited.
With regard to Applicant’s argument directed to a direct interconnection between neighboring thermoelectric elements, Venkatasubramanian discloses P type semiconductor pellets (Fig. 6) configured on a substrate (64 in Fig. 6) and interconnected by vertical (vertical portion of 66 in Fig. 6) and horizontal interconnects (horizontal portion of 66 in Fig. 6).
Applicant argues that attempting to incorporate Petkie’s sidewall-based thermal lensing structures into Venkatasubramanian’s thin-film, header-centric architecture would require a fundamental reorganization of how the thermoelectric elements are fabricated, packaged, and electrically interconnected, and in particular, it would require abandoning the thin-film, planar routing strategy that is central to Venkatasubramanian in favor of discrete, pellet-level structures whose geometry and sidewalls play an active role in device performance.
In response to Applicant's argument that attempting to incorporate Petkie’s sidewall-based thermal lensing structures into Venkatasubramanian’s thin-film, header-centric architecture would require a fundamental reorganization of how the thermoelectric elements are fabricated, packaged, and electrically interconnected, and in particular, it would require abandoning the thin-film, planar routing strategy that is central to Venkatasubramanian in favor of discrete, pellet-level structures whose geometry and sidewalls play an active role in device performance; the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
As set forth in the office action, Petkie discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) and further discloses P type semiconductor pellets ([0068]) are metallized with a metal layer surrounding each of the P type semiconductor pellets ([0080]); each metal layer comprises an aperture that exposes its respective P type semiconductor pellet about a perimeter of the P type semiconductor pellet at a sidewall height of the P type semiconductor pellet ([0030],[0080]); and the metal layer remains at the sidewall of each P type semiconductor pellet ([0030],[0080]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the thermoelectric generator of modified Venkatasubramanian with metallized P type semiconductor pellets comprising an aperture, as disclosed by Petkie, because as taught by Petkie, thermoelectric generator performance is increased by the shaping of isothermal fields within the bulk of a thermoelectric pellet, resulting in an increase in power output of a thermoelectric generator module (abstract).
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 TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights