DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed April 15, 2026.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed April 15, 2026, the rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously presented in the Office Action sent January 16, 2026 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed April 15, 2026, the rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent January 16, 2026 have been substantially maintained and modified only in response to the Amendments to the Claims.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
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 containing a P-type thermoelectric element and an N-type thermoelectric element arranged alternately and electrically connected in series (such as depicted in Fig. 2, a thermoelectric element layer 4 containing a P-type thermoelectric element 2p and an N-type thermoelectric element 2n 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 of the first conductive layer opposite to the thermoelectric element layer (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 of the first conductive layer opposite the cited thermoelectric element layer 4); and
a first release sheet provided on a surface of the first pressure sensitive adhesive layer on a side of the first pressure sensitive adhesive layer opposite to the first conductive layer (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 of the cited first pressure sensitive adhesive layer opposite to the cited first conductive layer 5a), the first release sheet contains
a release base material and a release agent layer (see [0111] teaching “the release film preferably includes a release base material and a release agent layer”),
the release base material includes a plastic film having a thickness of from 80 µm to 300 µm, and the release agent layer is formed on at least one surface of the release base material and has a thickness of from 0.01 µm to 2.0 µm (see [0111] teaching the cited release base material can include “polyethylene on the paper base material” which is cited to read on the claimed plastic film as it is a film including plastic material; see [0112-0113] teaching total thickness of the cited first release sheet can be 20 to 200 µm and thickness of release agent layer can be 0.01 to 2 µm; it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected a total thickness of the first release sheet as 100 µm and selected a thickness of the release agent layer as 1 µm because Seki et al. teaches the selections as appropriate thicknesses of the first release sheet and release agent layer, which would provide for the claimed release base material having a thickness of 99 µm which is a value within the claimed range of “from 80 µm to 300 µm”).
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 of the thermoelectric element layer 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 of the thermoelectric element layer 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 of the second conductive layer opposite to a the thermoelectric element layer (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 of the second conductive layer opposite to the cited thermoelectric element layer 4).
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 of the second pressure sensitive adhesive layer opposite to the second conductive layer (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 of the second pressure sensitive adhesive layer opposite to the cited second conductive layer 5b).
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 a same shape identical to 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 a same shape identical to 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 and the N-type thermoelectric element (as depicted in Fig. 2, a gap portion 3 consisting of a region between the cited P-type thermoelectric 2p element and the cited N-type thermoelectric element 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.
Claim(s) 9 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 Suzuki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0225838 A1).
With regard to claim 9, 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 release agent layer contains at least one resin selected from the group consisting of an olefin-based resin, a rubber-based elastomer, an alkyl-based resin, an alkyd-based resin, a fluorine-based resin, and a silicone-based resin (see [0111]) but does not teach the first release sheet has a release force of from 30 mN/25 mm to 300 mN/25 mm.
However, the release force is a result effective variable directly affecting the facilitation of the peeling and the protection (see Suzuki et al. at [0050]). Suzuki et al. is analogous art because, like Applicant, Suzuki et al. is concerned with release sheets (see Abstract).
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 release force of the first release sheet 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 facilitation of the peeling and the protection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes the newly added claimed limitations are not found within the previously cited prior art references. However, this argument is addressed in the rejections above.
Applicant argues that Takahashi is not analogous art because Takahashi is related to fuel cells and does not seek to provide a release sheet that does not suppress thermoelectric performance, functions as a support base material during manufacturing, and suppresses deformation and damage during transport and handling. However, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s specification depicts structures of release sheets in every figure, details release sheets throughout the entire text of the specification, and claims in every claim specific structures of a release sheet providing for the majority of the claimed limitations in independent claim 1 directed towards the release sheet.
Similarly Takahashi is concerned with release sheets and details release sheets throughout the specification; see for example the Abstract and the claims.
Takahashi also 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]) also during a manufacturing process (see Abstract and claims).
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 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 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights