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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 2/25/2026 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Examiner withdraws all rejections in the prior office action due to the amendments.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 14, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Mitrovic (US Pub No. 2013/0255738)
Regarding Claim 1, Mitrovic et al. teaches a thermoelectric conversion element comprising:
a first layer including a first thermoelectric column and a second thermoelectric column;
and a second layer including a metal wiring connecting the first thermoelectric column and the second thermoelectric column electrically [see annotated figure below, fig. 8A, 0075],
The solid rectangle shows the first layer, and the dashed rectangle is the second layer.
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
584
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The circles from left to right are the third and first bases, and the rectangles from left to right are the fourth and second bases.
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image2.png
631
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein
the first thermoelectric column includes a first base, a second base, and first cylinder-like spaces, the first base and the second base being end surfaces in a longitudinal direction of the
first thermoelectric column [the first and second bases are the top and bottom edge of the 810, and the longitudinal direction is in the direction in and out of the page],
each of the first cylinder-like spaces is provided along the longitudinal direction of the
first thermoelectric column [see figure 8A, 0075],
the first thermoelectric column is filled with a first phononic crystal except for the first
cylinder-like spaces [0075, 0084],
the second thermoelectric column includes a third base, a fourth base, and second
cylinder-like spaces, the third base and the fourth base being end surfaces in a longitudinal
direction of the second thermoelectric column [third and fourth bases are the top and bottom edge of the 805, and the longitudinal direction is in the direction in and out of the page],
each of the second cylinder-like spaces is provided along the longitudinal direction of the second thermoelectric column parallel to the longitudinal direction of the first thermoelectric column [first and second bases are the top and bottom edge of the 805, and the longitudinal direction is in the direction in and out of the page],
the second thermoelectric column is filled with a second phononic crystal except for the
second cylinder-like spaces [0075, 0084],
the first thermoelectric column is a p-type thermoelectric member and the second
thermoelectric column is an n-type thermoelectric member [0077],
the first base includes a first flat surface [Fig. 8A, 0075],
the third base includes a second flat surface [Fig. 8A, 0075],
the metal wiring includes a flat surface directly touching the first flat surface and the
second flat surface [Fig. 8A, 0075], and
the first cylinder-like spaces include one or more cylinder-like spaces each connected to neither the first base nor the second base [the cylinder like spaces are not directly contacting the first and second base, meeting the limitations of the claim].
Regarding Claim 11, Mitrovic et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Mitrovic et al. teaches further comprising a substrate [830, Fig. 8A, 0075], wherein
the second base is provided between the substrate and the first base,
the first layer is provided between the substrate and the second layer, and
the first cylinder-like spaces include one or more cylinder-like spaces each not connected
to the second base [Fig. 8A, 0075].
Regarding Claim 14, Mitrovic et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Mitrovic et al. teaches further comprising a
substrate [830, Fig. 8A, 0075], wherein
the second base is provided between the substrate and the first base,
the first layer is provided between the substrate and the second layer, and
the first cylinder-like spaces include one or more cylinder-like spaces each not connected
to the first base [Fig. 8A, 0075, see annotated figure in claim 11]
Regarding Claim 17, Mitrovic et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Mitrovic et al. teaches wherein the first cylinder-like spaces include the one or more cylinder-like spaces each connected to neither the first base nor the second base [Fig. 8A, 0075, see rejection of claim 1].
Regarding Claim 20, Mitrovic et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Mitrovic et al. teaches further comprising a
Substrate [830, Fig. 8A, 0075], wherein
the second base is provided between the substrate and the first base,
the fourth base is provided between the substrate and the third base, and
the first thermoelectric column is a p-type thermoelectric member and the second
thermoelectric column is an n-type thermoelectric member [0077, Fig. 8A, 0075, see annotated figure]
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) 12-13, 15-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitrovic (US Pub No. 2013/0255738)
Regarding Claim 12, Mitrovic et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Mitrovic et al. is silent on wherein a ratio of a total number of the one or more cylinder-like spaces each not connected to the second base to a total number of the first cylinder-like spaces is 0.25 or more.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters thermoelectric conversion element, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters thermoelectric conversion element are changed, the precise parameters thermoelectric conversion element would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a ratio of a total number of the one or more cylinder-like spaces each not connected to the second base to a total number of the first cylinder-like spaces is 0.25 or more.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters thermoelectric conversion element to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 13, Mitrovic et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Mitrovic et al. is silent on wherein a ratio of a length between the second base and one of the one or more cylinder-like spaces each not connected to the second base to a length between the first base and the second base is 0.20 or less and more than zero.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters thermoelectric conversion element, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters thermoelectric conversion element are changed, the precise parameters thermoelectric conversion element would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a ratio of a length between the second base and one of the one or more cylinder-like spaces each not connected to the second base to a length between the first base and the second base is 0.20 or less and more than zero.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters thermoelectric conversion element to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 15, Mitrovic et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Mitrovic et al. is silent on wherein a ratio of a total number of the one or more cylinder-like spaces each not connected to the first base to a total number of the first cylinder-like spaces is 0.25 or more.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters thermoelectric conversion element, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters thermoelectric conversion element are changed, the precise parameters thermoelectric conversion element would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a ratio of a total number of the one or more cylinder-like spaces each not connected to the first base to a total number of the first cylinder-like spaces is 0.25 or more.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters thermoelectric conversion element to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 16, Mitrovic et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Mitrovic et al. is silent on wherein a ratio of a length between the first base and one of the one or more cylinder-like spaces each not connected to the first base to a length between the first base and the second base is 0.20 or less and more than zero.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters thermoelectric conversion element, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters thermoelectric conversion element are changed, the precise parameters thermoelectric conversion element would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a ratio of a length between the first base and one of the one or more cylinder-like spaces each not connected to the first base to a length between the first base and the second base is 0.20 or less and more than zero.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters thermoelectric conversion element to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 18, Mitrovic et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Mitrovic et al. is silent on wherein a ratio of a total number of the one or more cylinder-like spaces each connected to neither the first base nor the second base to a total number of the first cylinder-like spaces is 0.25 or more.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters thermoelectric conversion element, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters thermoelectric conversion element are changed, the precise parameters thermoelectric conversion element would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a ratio of a total number of the one or more cylinder-like spaces each connected to neither the first base nor the second base to a total number of the first cylinder-like spaces is 0.25 or more.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters thermoelectric conversion element to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 19, Mitrovic et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Mitrovic et al. is silent on wherein an area of the hole provided on the first base is smaller than an average value of cross- sectional areas of the cylinder-like spaces corresponding to the hole provided on the first base, and an area of the hole provided on the second base is smaller than an average value of cross-sectional areas of the cylinder-like spaces corresponding to the hole provided on the second base.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters thermoelectric conversion element, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters thermoelectric conversion element are changed, the precise parameters thermoelectric conversion element would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein an area of the hole provided on the first base is smaller than an average value of cross-sectional areas of the cylinder-like spaces corresponding to the hole provided on the first base, and an area of the hole provided on the second base is smaller than an average value of cross-sectional areas of the cylinder-like spaces corresponding to the hole provided on the second base.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters thermoelectric conversion element to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitrovic (US Pub No. 2013/0255738) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Himmer (US Pub No. 2015/0034138)
Regarding Claim 21, Mitrovic et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Mitrovic et al. is silent on wherein an insulation portion provided along the longitudinal direction of the first thermoelectric column insulates the first thermoelectric column and the second thermoelectric column, and the insulation portion directly touches the first thermoelectric column and the second thermoelectric column.
Himmer et al. teaches the use of a insulating material between thermoelectric legs [7, Fig. 1, 0070].
Since Mitrovic et al. teaches the use of thermoelectric legs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the insulating materials of Himmer et al. between the thermoelectric legs of Mitrovic et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights