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 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 1-14 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 9, 10, and 11 of claim 1 recite “the thermopiles,” however, it is unclear as to whether the limitation “the thermopiles” refers to all of the thermopiles of the previously recited “plurality of thermopiles” in line 7 of claim 1, or whether the limitation “the thermopiles” refers to thermopiles from among the previously recited plurality of thermopiles. For the purpose of this office action, the limitation “the thermopiles” will be treated as if it refers to the plurality of thermopiles previously recited in line 7 of the claim. Claims 2-14 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
Claims 3-13 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. Specifically, line 3 of claim 3 recites “a plurality of first junctions of the thermopiles,” however, the structure required to satisfy the limitation “junctions of the thermopiles” is unclear. Claims 4-13 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 3.
Claims 3-13 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. Specifically, line 3 of claim 3 recites “a plurality of first junctions of the thermopiles,” however, it is unclear as to whether the limitation “the thermopiles” refers to the previously recited “plurality of thermopiles,” or refers to thermopiles of the plurality of thermopiles. Claims 4-13 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 3.
Claims 4-9 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, line 3 of claim 4 recites “a plurality of second junctions of the thermopiles,” however, it is unclear as to whether the limitation “the thermopiles” refers to the previously recited “plurality of thermopiles,” or refers to thermopiles of the plurality of thermopiles. Claims 5-9 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 4.
Claims 4-9 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, line 3 of claim 4 recites “a plurality of second junctions of the thermopiles,” however, the structure required to satisfy the limitation “junctions of the thermopiles” is unclear. Claims 5-9 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 4.
Claims 8 and 9 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 4 and 5 of claim 8 recite “wherein the first semiconductor strips and the second semiconductor strips extend alternate in series,” however, the manner in which the phrase “extend alternate” limits the claim is unclear. Claim 9 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 8.
Claim 9 is 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, line 1 of claim 9 recites “a plurality of thermopiles,” however, the relationship between the recitation of “a plurality of thermopiles” in claim 9 and the recitation of “a plurality of thermopiles” in line 7 of claim 1 is unclear. The claim does not specify if a plurality of the previously recited plurality of thermopiles is associated with each column, or if each thermopile of the plurality of thermopiles is associated with each column, respectively.
Claim 11 is 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, claim 11 recites the limitation "the columns" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is 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, claim 12 recites the limitation "the columns" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is 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 3 and 4 of claim 12 recite “the second height being greater than the first height and such as to reach the first body,” however, the meaning of the phrase “and such as to reach” is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Webb et al. (US 2016/0268967).
Regarding claim 15, Webb discloses a device comprising: a thermoelectric converter having a first side and a second side along a first direction (1 in Fig. 10); a photovoltaic cell on the first side of the thermoelectric converter (38 in Fig. 10); a heat sink on the second side of the thermoelectric converter (37 in Fig. 10); a thermal coupling structure (35, 29, and 42 in Fig. 10) coupled between the photovoltaic cell (39 in Fig. 10) and the heat sink (37 in Fig. 10), the thermal coupling structure including: a thermally conductive grid on the thermoelectric converter extending a first height along the first direction (23 in Fig. 10); and a plurality of thermally conductive columns extending a second height greater than the first height along the first direction (35 in Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 17, Webb discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Webb further discloses the thermally conductive grid (23 in Fig. 10) has a plurality of openings (openings between adjacent components labeled 23 in Fig. 10), each column of the plurality of thermally conductive columns extending through a respective opening (35 in openings between adjacent components labeled 23 in Fig. 10).
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, 3-6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb et al. (US 2016/0268967) in view of Ward et al. (US 2012/0312345) and further in view of Stark (US 7,629,531).
Regarding claim 1, Webb discloses a thermoelectric generator (123 in Fig. 10; [0052]) comprising: a thermoelectric converter (1 in Fig. 10); and a thermal coupling structure (23, 29, 35 in Fig. 10) thermally coupling the thermoelectric converter to a first body (39 in Fig. 10) and to a second body (27 in Fig. 10).
Webb does not explicitly disclose the thermoelectric converter including: a support body, including a structural layer and a thermal insulation layer; and a plurality of thermopiles arranged on the thermal insulation layer and thermally coupled to the thermal coupling structure, wherein the thermal insulation layer thermally insulates the thermopiles from the structural layer.
Ward discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) and further discloses a thermoelectric converter ([0017]; 22, 44, and 46 in Fig. 3) including: a support body including a structural layer (44 in Fig. 3) and a thermal insulation layer ([0024] L18-19; annular gap 46 in Fig. 3); and a plurality of thermopiles arranged on the thermal insulation layer ([0023]; 24 in relation to 46 in Fig. 3; it is noted that the limitation “on” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components, additionally, the limitation “on” is satisfied by any directional relationship between components), wherein the thermal insulation layer thermally insulates the thermopiles from the structural layer ([0024] L18-19; the disclosed annular gap necessarily thermally insulates 24 from 44 at least to an extent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the thermoelectric converter of Webb with a support body and a plurality of thermopiles, as disclosed by Ward, because as evidenced by Ward, the configuration in which a thermoelectric converter includes a support body and a plurality of thermopiles amounts to the use of a known configuration in the art for the formation of a thermoelectric converter, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the thermoelectric converter of Webb with a support body and a plurality of thermopiles based on the teaching of Ward.
Modified Webb discloses the plurality of thermopiles (Ward – 24 in Fig. 3) are thermally coupled to the thermal coupling structure (Webb – 1 in relation to 29, 35, and 42 in Fig. 10).
While modified Webb does disclose an annular gap between the thermopiles and a face of the structural layer opposite to the thermopiles (Ward - 46 in relation to 24 and the face of 44 facing 24 in Fig. 3), and further discloses the entire contents of Stark (US 7,629,531) is incorporated by reference (Ward - [0023]); modified Webb does not explicitly disclose the support body is continuous and without cavities between the thermopiles and a face of the structural layer opposite to the thermopiles.
Stark discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) and further discloses a hollow core is preferably filled with an electrically non-conductive filler of low thermal conductance, and that such filler may act to prevent the creation of mechanical forces due to a pressure differential created between the inside of the hollow core and outside of the top and bottom plates (C17/L55-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to fill the annular gap of modified Webb with an electrically non-conductive filler of low thermal conductance, as disclosed by Stark, because as taught by Stark, such filler may act to prevent the creation of mechanical forces due to a pressure differential created between the inside of the hollow core and the outside of the top and bottom plates (C17/L55-61).
Modified Webb discloses the support body is continuous and without cavities between the thermopiles and a face of the structural layer opposite to the thermopiles (Stark - C17/L55-61; Webb and Ward, as modified by Stark as set forth above, satisfies the limitation requiring the support body is continuous and without cavities between the thermopiles and a face of the structural layer opposite to the thermopiles).
With regard to the limitations “at a first temperature” and “at a second temperature lower than the first temperature,” the limitations are directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and 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 3, modified Webb discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Webb further discloses the thermal coupling structure (Webb – 23, 29, 35 in Fig. 10) comprises a thermally conductive grid (Webb – 23 in Fig. 10) in contact with (note: the limitation “in contact with” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components) the thermoelectric converter (Webb – 1 in Fig. 10) and thermally coupled to a plurality of first junctions of the thermopiles (Webb – 23 in Fig. 10 is thermally coupled, at least to an extent, to the junctions of the thermopiles of modified Webb).
Regarding claim 4, modified Webb discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Webb further discloses the thermal coupling structure comprises a plurality of thermally conductive columns (Webb – 35 in Fig. 10) each having a first end, thermally coupled to a plurality of second junctions of the thermopiles (Webb - shown in annotated Fig. 10 below; it is noted that ends of 35 in Fig. 10 of Webb are thermally coupled to the junctions of the thermopiles of modified Webb) and a second end defining a first interface for thermal coupling to the first body (Webb – shown in annotated Fig. 10 below; it is noted that the second end depicted is at an interface which is thermally coupled to 39 in Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, modified Webb discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Webb further discloses the grid is thermally coupled to a second interface for thermal coupling to the second body (Webb – 23 in relation to 28 and 27 in Fig. 10; 28 in Fig. 10 satisfies the limitation “second interface”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Webb discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Webb further discloses the grid has a plurality of through openings arranged in a matrix (Webb – openings between adjacent components 23 in Fig. 10) and each thermally conductive column extends through a respective opening without contact with the grid (Webb – 35 in openings between adjacent components 23 in Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 12, modified Webb discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Webb further discloses the grid extends up to a first height from the thermoelectric converter, at a distance from the first body (Webb – 23 in Fig. 10 extends to a height which is a height from the thermoelectric converter 1, and at a distance from 39 in Fig. 10), and the columns extend up to a second height from the thermoelectric converter (Webb – 35 in Fig. 10 extend up to a second height which is a height from the thermoelectric converter 1), the second height being greater than the first height (height of 35 in relation to height of 23) to reach the first body (Webb - the height dimension of 35 reaches 39 in Fig. 10).
[AltContent: textbox (first plurality of plugs)]
[AltContent: textbox (second plurality of plugs)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (lead frame)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second end)][AltContent: textbox (first end)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
483
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb et al. (US 2016/0268967) in view of Ward et al. (US 2012/0312345) further in view of Stark (US 7,629,531) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumar et al. (US 2005/0016575) and Fiorini et al. (US 2006/0000502).
Regarding claim 2, modified Webb discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
While modified Webb does disclose the filler may be comprised of any suitable material and is preferably material having low thermal conductivity such as elastic or non-elastic material including adhesives and/or foams, hollow glass spheres (e.g., microballoons) or any mixture of combination thereof (Stark – C18/L2-7); modified Webb does not explicitly disclose the thermal insulation layer is a silicon oxide layer with a thickness greater than 15 microns.
Kumar discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) and further discloses a silicon oxide thermal insulation layer ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the inventio was filed to form the thermal insulation layer in modified Webb with silicon oxide, as disclosed by Kumar, because as evidenced by Kumar, the use of silicon oxide as the material for a thermal insulation layer in a thermoelectric device amounts to the use of a known 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 using silicon oxide as the material for the thermal insulation layer of modified Webb based on the teaching of Kumar.
Modified Webb does not explicitly disclose the thermal insulation layer has a thickness greater than 15 microns.
Fiorini discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) and further discloses the distance between the hot and cold plates of the thermoelectric device is 1.5 mm ([0179]; Table III).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the hot and cold plate of modified Webb (Ward – [0022] discloses upper and lower plates) such that the distance between the plates is 1.5 mm, as disclosed by Fiorini, because as evidenced by Fiorini, a thermoelectric device configuration with plates separated by a distance of 1.5 mm is a known configuration in the art, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectations of success when forming the thermoelectric device of modified Webb such that the plates have a distance of 1.5 mm between them, based on the teaching of Fiorini.
Modified Webb discloses the thermal insulation layer has a thickness greater than 15 microns (Fiorini – [0179], Table III discloses distance between plates is 1.5 mm; it is noted the thickness of 46 in Fig. 3 of Ward corresponds to the distance between the plates of 24).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Webb et al. (US 2016/0268967) in view of Ward et al. (US 2012/0312345) further in view of Stark (US 7,629,531) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Rolfe et al. (US 5,209,786).
Regarding claim 10, modified Webb discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Webb does disclose the thermopiles are arranged on one face of the thermal insulation layer opposite to the structural layer (Ward – 24 in relation to 44 and 46 in Fig. 3), modified Webb does not explicitly disclose the support body comprises a dielectric layer, and wherein the thermopiles are embedded in the dielectric layer.
Rolfe discloses a thermoelectric device and further discloses a support body comprising a dielectric layer, and wherein the thermoelectric elements are embedded in the dielectric layer (Fig. 3; C10/L51-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a dielectric layer, as disclosed by Rolfe, in the thermoelectric generator of modified Webb, because as taught by Rolfe, the integrity of the thermoelectric device is enhanced (abstract).
Regarding claim 11, modified Webb discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Webb further discloses the grid and columns of the thermal coupling structure (Webb - 35 and 42 in Fig. 10) are in contact with (note: the limitation “in contact with” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components) a face of the dielectric layer opposite to the thermal insulation layer (35 and 42 of Webb are in contact, through intervening components, with the faces of the dielectric layer of Rolfe in modified Webb).
With regard to the limitation “wherein a thickness of the dielectric layer is selected so as to have thermal coupling between the thermopiles and the thermal coupling structure,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and 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).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb et al. (US 2016/0268967) as applied to claim 15 above, in view of Rolfe et al. (US 5,209,786).
Regarding claim 16, Webb discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Webb does not explicitly disclose the thermoelectric converter includes a support
body; a dielectric layer on the support body; and a plurality of thermopiles embedded in the dielectric layer.
Rolfe discloses a thermoelectric device and further discloses a support body (306 in Fig. 3); a dielectric layer on the support body (319, 320, and 322 in relation to 306 in Fig. 3; C10/L51-52), and a plurality of thermopiles are embedded in the dielectric layer (302 and 304 in relation to 319, 320, and 322 in Fig. 3; C10/L51-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a dielectric layer, as disclosed by Rolfe, in the thermoelectric converter of Webb, because as taught by Rolfe, the integrity of the thermoelectric device is enhanced (abstract).
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2012/0312345) in view of Stark (US 7,629,531).
Regarding claim 1, Ward discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) comprising: a thermoelectric converter ([0017]; 22, 44, and 46 in Fig. 3); and a thermal coupling structure ([0025]; 36, 58, and sidewall 54 in Fig. 3) thermally coupling the thermoelectric converter to a first body (36 in Fig. 3 in relation to 24) and to a second body (58 in Fig. 3 in relation to 24), the thermoelectric converter including: a support body including a structural layer (44 in Fig. 3) and a thermal insulation layer ([0024] L18-19; annular gap 46 in Fig. 3); and a plurality of thermopiles arranged on the thermal insulation layer ([0023]; 24 in relation to 46 in Fig. 3; it is noted that the limitation “on” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components, additionally, the limitation “on” is satisfied by any directional relationship between components) and thermally coupled to the thermal coupling structure (24 is thermally coupled to 36, 58 and sidewall 54 in Fig. 3), wherein the thermal insulation layer thermally insulates the thermopiles from the structural layer ([0024] L18-19; the disclosed annular gap necessarily thermally insulates 24 from 44 at least to an extent).
While Ward does disclose an annular gap between the thermopiles and a face of the structural layer opposite to the thermopiles (46 in relation to 24 and the face of 44 facing 24 in Fig. 3), and further discloses the entire contents of Stark (US 7,629,531) is incorporated by reference ([0023]); Ward does not explicitly disclose the support body is continuous and without cavities between the thermopiles and a face of the structural layer opposite to the thermopiles.
Stark discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) and further discloses a hollow core is preferably filled with an electrically non-conductive filler of low thermal conductance, and that such filler may act to prevent the creation of mechanical forces due to a pressure differential created between the inside of the hollow core and outside of the top and bottom plates (C17/L55-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to fill the annular gap of Ward with an electrically non-conductive filler of low thermal conductance, as disclosed by Stark, because as taught by Stark, such filler may act to prevent the creation of mechanical forces due to a pressure differential created between the inside of the hollow core and the outside of the top and bottom plates (C17/L55-61).
Modified Ward discloses the support body is continuous and without cavities between the thermopiles and a face of the structural layer opposite to the thermopiles (Stark - C17/L55-61; Ward, as modified by Stark as set forth above, satisfies the limitation requiring the support body is continuous and without cavities between the thermopiles and a face of the structural layer opposite to the thermopiles).
With regard to the limitations “at a first temperature” and “at a second temperature lower than the first temperature,” the limitations are directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and 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 3, modified Ward discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ward further discloses the thermal coupling structure comprises a thermally conductive grid (Ward – 74, 76; [0031] discloses a corrugated core/configuration which satisfies the limitation “thermally conductive grid”) in contact (it is noted that the limitation “in contact” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components) with the thermoelectric converter (Ward – 24 in relation to 74, 76 in Fig. 3) and thermally coupled to a plurality of first junctions of the thermopiles (Ward – 74, 76 is necessarily thermally coupled, at least to an extent, with junctions of the thermopiles of 24 with respective top and bottom plates of 24 (Ward – [0022])).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ward discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ward further discloses the thermal coupling structure comprises a plurality of thermally conductive columns (Ward - shown in annotated Fig. 3 below) each having a first end (Ward – shown in annotated Fig. 3 below), thermally coupled to a plurality of second junctions of the thermopiles (the first ends depicted in annotated Fig. 3 below are necessarily thermally coupled, to at least an extent, with junctions of the thermopiles of 24 with respective top and bottom plates of 24 (Ward – [0022])) and a second end defining a first interface (Ward – shown in annotated Fig. 3 below) for thermal coupling to the first body (the second end depicted in annotated Fig. 3 below are thermally coupled through sidewall 54 to the first body, therefore, the limitation “for thermal coupling to the first body” is satisfied).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ward discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ward further discloses the grid is thermally coupled to a second interface (Ward – shown in annotated Fig. 3 below) for thermal coupling to the second body (Ward - interface between 74/76 and 58 in annotated Fig. 3 below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second interface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second end)][AltContent: textbox (second end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first end)][AltContent: textbox (first end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (thermally conductive column)][AltContent: textbox (thermally conductive column)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
655
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2012/0312345) in view of Stark (US 7,629,531) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumar et al. (US 2005/0016575) and Fiorini et al. (US 2006/0000502).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ward discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
While modified Ward does disclose the filler may be comprised of any suitable material and is preferably material having low thermal conductivity such as elastic or non-elastic material including adhesives and/or foams, hollow glass spheres (e.g., microballoons) or any mixture of combination thereof (Stark – C18/L2-7); modified Ward does not explicitly disclose the thermal insulation layer is a silicon oxide layer with a thickness greater than 15 microns.
Kumar discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) and further discloses a silicon oxide thermal insulation layer ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the inventio was filed to form the thermal insulation layer in modified Ward with silicon oxide, as disclosed by Kumar, because as evidenced by Kumar, the use of silicon oxide as the material for a thermal insulation layer in a thermoelectric device amounts to the use of a known 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 using silicon oxide as the material for the thermal insulation layer of modified Ward based on the teaching of Kumar.
Modified Ward does not explicitly disclose the thermal insulation layer has a thickness greater than 15 microns.
Fiorini discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) and further discloses the distance between the hot and cold plates of the thermoelectric device is 1.5 mm ([0179]; Table III).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the hot and cold plate of modified Ward (Ward – [0022] discloses upper and lower plates) such that the distance between the plates is 1.5 mm, as disclosed by Fiorini, because as evidenced by Fiorini, a thermoelectric device configuration with plates separated by a distance of 1.5 mm is a known configuration in the art, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectations of success when forming the thermoelectric device of modified Ward such that the plates have a distance of 1.5 mm between them, based on the teaching of Fiorini.
Modified Ward discloses the thermal insulation layer has a thickness greater than 15 microns (Fiorini – [0179], Table III discloses distance between plates is 1.5 mm; it is noted the thickness of 46 in Fig. 3 of Ward corresponds to the distance between the plates of 24).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2012/0312345) in view of Stark (US 7,629,531) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tateyama et al. (US 2005/0016183).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, modified Ward discloses all the claim limitations as
set forth above.
Modified Ward does not explicitly disclose the thermal coupling structure comprises a thermally conductive grid in contact with the thermoelectric converter and thermally coupled to a plurality of first junctions of the thermopiles, wherein the grid is electrically conductive and provided with an electrical connection to the outside and wherein at least one of the thermopiles is electrically coupled to the grid.
Tateyama discloses a thermoelectric device (abstract) and further discloses a thermal coupling structure comprising a wiring board in contact with a thermoelectric converter and thermally coupled to a plurality of first junctions of thermopiles ([0010]), wherein the wiring board is electrically conductive ([0032] – wiring board 14 in Fig. 10) and provided with an electrical connection to the outside ([0037]) and wherein at least one of the thermopiles is electrically coupled to the wiring board ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a wiring board, as disclosed by Tateyama, in thermal and electrical communication with the thermopiles of modified Ward, because as evidenced by Tateyama, the use of a wiring board in a thermoelectric device amounts to the use of a known component 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 wiring board in the thermoelectric generator of modified Ward based on the teaching of Tateyama.
It is noted that the wiring board disclosed includes electrodes 13 (Tateyama - [0038]; Fig. 10) which satisfies the limitation requiring a grid.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2012/0312345) in view of Stark (US 7,629,531) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kumar et al. (US 2005/0016575).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ward discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
While modified Ward does disclose the filler may be comprised of any suitable material and is preferably material having low thermal conductivity such as elastic or non-elastic material including adhesives and/or foams, hollow glass spheres (e.g., microballoons) or any mixture of combination thereof (Stark – C18/L2-7); modified Ward does not explicitly disclose the support body comprises a dielectric layer.
Kumar discloses a thermoelectric generator (abstract) and further discloses a silicon oxide thermal insulation layer ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the inventio was filed to form the thermal insulation layer in modified Ward with silicon oxide, as disclosed by Kumar, because as evidenced by Kumar, the use of silicon oxide as the material for a thermal insulation layer in a thermoelectric device amounts to the use of a known 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 using silicon oxide as the material for the thermal insulation layer of modified Ward based on the teaching of Kumar.
Modified Ward discloses the thermopiles are arranged on one face of the thermal insulation layer opposite to the structural layer (Ward – 24 in relation to 44 and 46 in Fig. 3) and are embedded in the dielectric layer (Ward - 24 is embedded in 46 which surrounds 24 in Fig. 3; Ward, as modified by Stark and Kumar, discloses 24 in Fig. 3 of Ward embedded in the dielectric layer in gap 46).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2012/0312345) in view of Stark (US 7,629,531) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Rolfe et al. (US 5,209,786).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ward discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Ward does disclose the thermopiles are arranged on one face of the thermal insulation layer opposite to the structural layer (Ward – 24 in relation to 44 and 46 in Fig. 3), modified Ward does not explicitly disclose the support body comprises a dielectric layer, and wherein the thermopiles are embedded in the dielectric layer.
Rolfe discloses a thermoelectric device and further discloses a support body comprising a dielectric layer, and wherein the thermoelectric elements are embedded in the dielectric layer (Fig. 3; C10/L51-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a dielectric layer, as disclosed by Rolfe, in the thermoelectric generator of modified Ward, because as taught by Rolfe, the integrity of the thermoelectric device is enhanced (abstract).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ward discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ward further discloses the grid (Ward - 74, 76; [0031] discloses a corrugated core/configuration which satisfies the limitation “grid”) and columns of the thermal coupling structure (Ward – shown in annotated Fig. 3 above) are in contact with (note: the limitation “in contact with” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components) a face of the dielectric layer opposite to the thermal insulation layer (74,76 and the columns depicted in annotated Fig. 3 of Ward are in contact, through intervening components, with the faces of the dielectric layer of Rolfe in modified Ward).
With regard to the limitation “wherein a thickness of the dielectric layer is selected so as to have thermal coupling between the thermopiles and the thermal coupling structure,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and 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).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2012/0312345) in view of Stark (US 7,629,531) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tateyama et al. (US 2005/0016183) and Valavala et al. (US 2020/0098664).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ward discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Ward does not explicitly disclose the thermoelectric generator comprising a polymeric material body, wherein the thermal coupling structure and the thermoelectric converter are at least partly incorporated into the polymeric material body.
Tateyama discloses a thermoelectric device (abstract) and further discloses a thermal coupling structure (2, 8, 9, and 14 in Fig. 11) and a thermoelectric converter (10 and 11 in Fig. 11) at least partly incorporated into an insulating material body ([0061]; 52 in Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include insulating material, as disclosed by Tateyama, in the thermoelectric generator of modified Ward, because as taught by Tateyama, it is preferable that insulating members which regulate positions of the thermoelectric elements be arranged between the thermoelectric elements ([0014]).
While modified Ward does disclose the insulating material is glass (Tateyama - [0061]), modified Ward does not explicitly disclose the insulating material is polymeric.
Valavala discloses a thermoelectric device (abstract) and further discloses TEC elements electrically insulated by an insulating polymer like mold or spin-on glass (SOG) ([0035],[0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the insulating members of modified Ward with an insulating polymer, as disclosed by Valavala, because as evidenced by Valavala, the use of a polymer for an insulating material in a thermoelectric device amounts to the use of a known 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 insulating members of modified Ward with a polymer material based on the teaching of Valavala.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb et al. (US 2016/0268967) in view of Ward et al. (US 2012/0312345).
Regarding claim 18, Webb discloses a device (123 in Fig. 10) comprising a
thermoelectric converter having a first side opposite a second side along a first direction (1 in Fig. 10); a heat source on the first side of the thermoelectric converter (39 in Fig. 10); a heat sink on the second side of the thermoelectric converter (37 in Fig. 10); a thermal coupling structure (35, 29, and 23 in Fig. 10) coupled between the heat source (39 in Fig. 10) and the heat sink (37 in Fig. 10), the thermal coupling structure including: a thermally conductive grid on the thermoelectric converter extending a first height along the first direction (23 in Fig. 10); a first plurality of plugs coupled between the thermoelectric converter and the heat sink (42 in Fig. 10); and a plurality of thermally conductive columns extending a second height greater than the first height along the first direction (35 in Fig. 10), the plurality of thermally conductive columns being directly coupled to the heat source (35 in relation to 39 in Fig. 10).
Webb does not explicitly disclose the thermoelectric converter includes a structural layer; a plurality of thermopiles on the structural layer; and an insulation layer thermally insulating the plurality of thermopiles from the structural layer.
Ward discloses a thermoelectric converter ([0017]; 22, 44, and 46 in Fig. 3) including: a structural layer (44 in Fig. 3) and an insulation layer ([0024] L18-19; annular gap 46 in Fig. 3); and a plurality of thermopiles arranged on the structural layer ([0023]; 46 in relation to 44 in Fig. 3; it is noted that the limitation “on” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components, additionally, the limitation “on” is satisfied by any directional relationship between components), wherein the insulation layer thermally insulates the plurality of thermopiles from the structural layer ([0024] L18-19; the disclosed annular gap necessarily thermally insulates 24 from 44 at least to an extent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the thermoelectric converter of Webb with a structural layer, an insulation layer, and a plurality of thermopiles, as disclosed by Ward, because as evidenced by Ward, the configuration in which a thermoelectric converter includes a structural layer, an insulation layer, and a plurality of thermopiles amounts to the use of a known configuration in the art for the formation of a thermoelectric converter, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the thermoelectric converter of Webb with a structural layer, an insulation layer, and a plurality of thermopiles based on the teaching of Ward.
Regarding claim 19, modified Webb discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Webb further discloses a lead frame coupled between the first plurality of plugs and the heat sink (Webb – shown in annotated Fig. 10 above); and a second plurality of plugs coupled between the lead frame and the heat source (Webb – shown in annotated Fig. 10 above; it is noted that the limitation “coupled between” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intervening components).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb et al. (US 2016/0268967) in view of Ward et al. (US 2012/0312345) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Rolfe et al. (US 5,209,786).
Regarding claim 20, modified Webb discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Webb does not explicitly disclose a dielectric layer on the insulation layer, the plurality of thermopiles being in the dielectric layer.
Rolfe discloses a thermoelectric device and further discloses a dielectric layer, and thermoelectric elements embedded in the dielectric layer (Fig. 3; C10/L51-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a dielectric layer, as disclosed by Rolfe, in the thermoelectric generator of modified Webb, because as taught by Rolfe, the integrity of the thermoelectric device is enhanced (abstract).
Modified Webb further discloses the dielectric layer (Rolfe – 319, 320, and 322 in Fig. 3) on the insulation layer (Ward - [0024] L18-19; annular gap 46 in Fig. 3; it is noted that the limitation “on” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components, additionally, the limitation “on” is satisfied by any directional relationship between components).
Conclusion
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, Jeff 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