Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/093,371

THERMOELECTRIC CONVERSION MODULE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Mar 28, 2025
Examiner
DAM, DUSTIN Q
Art Unit
1721
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Lintec Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
22%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
5y 3m
To Grant
47%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 22% of cases
22%
Career Allow Rate
148 granted / 689 resolved
-43.5% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 3m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
735
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
50.7%
+10.7% vs TC avg
§102
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 689 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Summary This is the initial Office Action base on the Thermoelectric Conversion Module filed March 28, 2025. Claims 1-8 are currently pending. 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 1-8 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the thermoelectric element layer side" on line 8, and again on line 3 of claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As there is no previously recited “thermoelectric element layer side”, it is unclear as to what “the thermoelectric element layer side” recited on line 8 of claim 1 is referring to. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency. Amending “the thermoelectric element layer side” to “a thermoelectric element layer side” or “the thermoelectric element layer” or “a side of the thermoelectric element layer” would overcome the rejections. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first conductive layer side" on line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As there is no previously recited “first conductive layer side”, it is unclear as to what “the first conductive layer side” recited on line 11 of claim 1 is referring to. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency. Amending “the first conductive layer side” to “a first conductive layer side” or “the first conductive layer” or “a side of the first conductive layer” would overcome the rejections. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second conductive layer side" on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As there is no previously recited “second conductive layer side”, it is unclear as to what “the second conductive layer side” recited on line 3 of claim 4 is referring to. Dependent claim is rejected for dependency. Amending “the second conductive layer side” to “a second conductive layer side” or “the second conductive layer” or “a side of the second conductive layer” would overcome the rejections. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the same shape" on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the P-type thermoelectric element layer and the N-type thermoelectric element layer" on line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending "the P-type thermoelectric element layer and the N-type thermoelectric element layer" to "the P-type thermoelectric element and the N-type thermoelectric element " would overcome the rejection. 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. Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0380288 A1) in view of Takahashi (JP 2023087590 A). With regard to claim 1, Seki et al. discloses a thermoelectric conversion module comprising: a thermoelectric element layer in which a P-type thermoelectric element and an N-type thermoelectric element are arranged alternately and electrically connected in series (such as depicted in Fig. 2, a thermoelectric element layer 4 in which a P-type thermoelectric element 2p and an N-type thermoelectric element 2n are arranged alternately and electrically connected in series); a first conductive layer provided on a first surface of the thermoelectric element layer (such as depicted in Fig. 2, a first conductive layer 5a provided on a first top surface of the cited thermoelectric element layer 4); a first pressure sensitive adhesive layer provided on a surface of the first conductive layer on a side opposite to a surface on the thermoelectric element layer side (as depicted in Fig. 2, a first pressure sensitive adhesive layer 6 provided on a top surface of the cited first conductive layer 5a on a side opposite to a top surface on the cited thermoelectric element layer 4 side); and a first release sheet provided on a surface of the first pressure sensitive adhesive layer on a side opposite to a surface on the first conductive layer side (see Fig. 2 and see claim 3 and [0111] teaching the cited first pressure sensitive adhesive layer 6 is covered with a release film which is cited to provide for the claimed first release sheet provided on an outer/top surface of the cited first pressure sensitive adhesive layer 6 on a side opposite to a surface on the cited first conductive layer 5a side), Seki et al. does not disclose wherein a curvature of the first release sheet is R1000 or greater when the first release sheet is cut to a length of 250 mm and suspended at a center in a length direction. However, the curvature of the first release sheet is a result effective variable. Takahashi, like applicant, is concerned with release sheets (see Abstract), and teaches the curvature of a release sheet can be dependent on flexural modulus and directly affects its ability to curve in accordance with the curvature of the base film, and will peel off the base film, tear or break and remain (see [0036]). Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the curvature of the first release sheet in the module of Seki et al. and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the flexural modulus and ability to curve in accordance with the curvature of the base film, preventing peel off and tear or break and remain. With regard to claim 2, independent claim 1 is obvious over Seki et al. in view of Takahashi under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Seki et al. discloses further comprising a second conductive layer provided on a second surface opposite to the first surface of the thermoelectric element layer (as depicted in Fig. 2, a second conductive layer 5b provided on a second surface opposite to the cited first top surface of the cited thermoelectric element layer 4). With regard to claim 3, dependent claim 2 is obvious over Seki et al. in view of Takahashi under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Seki et al. discloses further comprising a second pressure sensitive adhesive layer provided on a surface of the second conductive layer on a side opposite to a surface on the thermoelectric element layer side (as depicted in Fig. 2, a second pressure sensitive adhesive layer 6 provided on a bottom surface of the cited second conductive layer 5b on a side opposite to a bottom surface on the cited thermoelectric element layer 4 side). With regard to claim 4, dependent claim 3 is obvious over Seki et al. in view of Takahashi under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Seki et al. discloses further comprising a second release sheet provided on a surface of the second pressure sensitive adhesive layer on a side opposite to a surface on the second conductive layer side (see Fig. 2 and see claim 3 and [0111] teaching the cited second pressure sensitive adhesive layer 6 is covered with a release film which is cited to provide for the claimed second release sheet provided on an outer/bottom surface of the cited second pressure sensitive adhesive layer 6 on a side opposite to a surface on the cited second conductive layer 5b side). With regard to claim 6, independent claim 1 is obvious over Seki et al. in view of Takahashi under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Seki et al. discloses wherein the first pressure sensitive adhesive layer is a pattern layer formed from a pressure sensitive adhesive composition (as depicted in Fig. 2, the cited first pressure sensitive adhesive layer 6 is a pattern layer, or layer including a surface pattern, formed from a pressure sensitive adhesive composition; see [0036] teaching “hardenable pressure sensitive adhesion agent layer”), and a surface of the pattern layer having the same shape as that of a surface of the first conductive layer is in surface contact with the surface of the first conductive layer (as depicted in Fig. 2, a bottom surface of the cited pattern layer having the same shape as that of a top surface of the cited first conductive layer 5a is in surface contact with the cited top surface of the cited first conductive layer 5a). With regard to claim 7, independent claim 1 is obvious over Seki et al. in view of Takahashi under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Seki et al. discloses wherein the first pressure sensitive adhesive layer is a solid layer formed from a pressure sensitive adhesive composition (as depicted in Fig. 2, the cited first pressure sensitive adhesive layer 6 is a solid layer formed from a pressure sensitive adhesive composition; see [0036] teaching “hardenable pressure sensitive adhesion agent layer”), and a surface of a partial region of the solid layer is in surface contact with a surface of the first conductive layer (as depicted in Fig. 2, a bottom surface of a partial region of the cited solid layer is in surface contact with a top surface of the cited first conductive layer 5a). With regard to claim 8, independent claim 1 is obvious over Seki et al. in view of Takahashi under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Seki et al. discloses further comprising a gap portion consisting of a region between the P-type thermoelectric element layer and the N-type thermoelectric element layer (as depicted in Fig. 2, a gap portion 3 consisting of a region between the cited P-type thermoelectric 2p element layer and the cited N-type thermoelectric element layer 2n). Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0380288 A1) in view of Takahashi (JP 2023087590 A), and in further view of Yamamoto (CN 114075413 A). With regard to claim 5, dependent claim 4 is obvious over Seki et al. in view of Takahashi under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Seki et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein a release force of the first release sheet is greater or smaller than a release force of the second release sheet. However, Yamamoto, like applicant, is concerned with release sheets (see [0019-0020]) and teaches a release force of a first release sheet F1 is greater than a release force of a second release sheet F2 so that when the second release sheet is removed, the first release sheet can easily remain and not be removed along with the second release sheet (see [0051]). Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the module of Seki et al., as modified above, to include the release force of the first release sheet to be greater than the release force of the second release sheet, as suggested by Yamamoto, because it would have provided so that when the second release sheet is removed, the first release sheet can easily remain and not be removed along with the second release sheet. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM. 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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. /DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 December 23, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 28, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Apr 03, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 03, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603604
SOLAR MODULE MOUNT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593516
PHOTOVOLTAIC DEVICES AND METHODS OF MAKING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12573851
ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING SYSTEM WITH DOWN-SUN WIND TURBINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568695
TANDEM SOLAR CELL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12563860
ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
22%
Grant Probability
47%
With Interview (+25.2%)
5y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 689 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month