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 5/14/2026 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
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) 1-2, 5-7, 9, 13, 16-18, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (US Pub No. 2020/0395526) in view of Nakatsuji (US Pub No. 2022/0246820) and Cardarelli (https://commons.princeton.edu/josephhenry/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/2019/08/Table-of-Seebeck-Coefficients-JH.pdf)
Regarding Claim 1, Ishida et al. teaches a thermoelectric conversion element [Fig. 3, 0082] comprising:
a thermoelectric conversion body including a conductive magnetic body [42, Fig. 3, 0067] containing a ferromagnetic body or an antiferromagnetic body capable of exhibiting an anomalous Nernst effect, and the thermoelectric conversion body extending linearly [Fig. 3, 0067, 0076]; and
a connection portion including a conductive body [44, Fig. 3, 0067] and electrically connected to the thermoelectric conversion body [42, Fig. 3, 0067], wherein
the connection portion has a layered structure composed of a plurality of conductive
layers [Co/Cu, 0068], and
Ishida et al. is silent on the layered structure includes a first conductive layer having a Seebeck coefficient lower than a Seebeck coefficient of the conductive magnetic body, and a second conductive layer having a Seebeck coefficient higher than the Seebeck coefficient of the conductive magnetic body.
Nakatsuji et al. teaches a thermoelectric material comprising Fe3Al, which has a seebeck coefficient of 3.5 uVK^(-1) [Fig. 14A, 0063]. The goal of Nakatsuji et al. is to provide a thermoelectric conversion element made of an inexpensive and non-toxic material, for a thermoelectric conversion device [0006].
Since Ishida et al. is open to a variety of thermoelectric materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace the thermoelectric conductive body 42 of Ishida et al. with the Fe3Al of Nakatsuji et al. in order to provide a thermoelectric conversion element made of an inexpensive and non-toxic material [0006].
Cardarelli et al. teaches cobalt and copper with the following Seebeck coefficients respectively; -13.3 uV/K and 7.5 uV/K [See page 2]
Since Ishida et al. teaches the use of Co and Cu as the conductive layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to recognize the Seebeck coefficients of cobalt and copper as taught by Cardarelli et al. with the following values respectively -13.3 uV/K and 7.5 uV/K [See page 2].
Within the combination above, modified Ishida et al. teaches Fe3Al ( 3.5 uV/K), Cobalt (-13.3 uV/k), and Copper (7.5 uV/k). This results in a conductive layer with a Seebeck coefficient lower than the magnetic body and a conductive layer with a Seebeck coefficient higher than the magnetic body.
Regarding Claim 2, Ishida et al. teaches a thermoelectric conversion element [Fig. 3, 0082] comprising:
a thermoelectric conversion body including a conductive magnetic body [42, Fig. 3, 0067] containing a ferromagnetic body or an antiferromagnetic body capable of exhibiting an anomalous Nernst effect, and the thermoelectric conversion body extending linearly [Fig. 3, 0067, 0076]; and
a connection portion including a conductive body [44, Fig. 3, 0067] and electrically connected to the thermoelectric conversion body [42, Fig. 3, 0067], wherein
the connection portion has a layered structure composed of a plurality of conductive layers [Co/Cu, 0068], and silent on an absolute value of a difference between a Seebeck coefficient of the connection portion and a Seebeck coefficient of the conductive magnetic body is 5 µV/K or less.
Nakatsuji et al. teaches a thermoelectric material comprising Fe3Al, which has a seebeck coefficient of 3.5 uVK^(-1) [Fig. 14A, 0063]. The goal of Nakatsuji et al. is to provide a thermoelectric conversion element made of an inexpensive and non-toxic material, for a thermoelectric conversion device [0006].
Since Ishida et al. is open to a variety of thermoelectric materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace the thermoelectric conductive body 42 of Ishida et al. with the Fe3Al of Nakatsuji et al. in order to provide a thermoelectric conversion element made of an inexpensive and non-toxic material [0006].
Cardarelli et al. teaches cobalt and copper with the following Seebeck coefficients respectively; -13.3 uV/K and 7.5 uV/K [See page 2]
Since Ishida et al. teaches the use of Co and Cu as the conductive layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to recognize the Seebeck coefficients of cobalt and copper as taught by Cardarelli et al. with the following values respectively -13.3 uV/K and 7.5 uV/K [See page 2].
Within the combination above, modified Ishida et al. teaches Fe3Al ( 3.5 uV/K), Cobalt (-13.3 uV/k), and Copper (7.5 uV/k). This results in a conductive layer with a Seebeck coefficient lower than the magnetic body and a conductive layer with a Seebeck coefficient higher than the magnetic body. The Seebeck difference between Fe3Al and copper is about 4 uV/K, which is less than 5 uV/K.
Regarding Claim 5, within the combination above, modified Ishida et al. teaches wherein an absolute value of a difference between an arithmetic mean value of Seebeck
coefficients of the conductive layers and the Seebeck coefficient of the conductive magnetic body is 10 µV/K or less [see rejection above]
Regarding Claim 6, within the combination above, modified Ishida et al. teaches wherein a content of at least one selected from the group consisting of Ti, Cr, Ni, Al, Zn, Nb, Pd, Ag, Ta, W, Pt, and Au in the conductive layer forming a surface layer of the layered structure is 10% or more based on the number of atoms [0067].
Regarding Claim 7, within the combination above, modified Ishida et al. teaches wherein a content of at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Al, Ag, and Au in at least one of the conductive layers is 50% or more based on the number of atoms [0067].
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Ishida et al. teaches wherein at least one of the conductive layers includes a single-component metal [0067].
Regarding Claim 13, within the combination above, modified Ishida et al. teaches a sensor comprising the thermoelectric conversion element according to claim 1 [0140].
Regarding Claim 16, within the combination above, modified Ishida et al. teaches an absolute value of a difference between an arithmetic mean value of Seebeck coefficients of the conductive layers and the Seebeck coefficient of the conductive magnetic body is 10 µV/K or less [0067].
Regarding Claim 17, within the combination above, modified Ishida et al. teaches a content of at least one selected from the group consisting of Ti, Cr, Ni, Al, Zn, Nb, Pd, Ag, Ta, W, Pt, and Au in the conductive layer forming a surface layer of the layered structure is 10% or more based on the number of atoms [0067].
Regarding Claim 18, within the combination above, modified Ishida et al. teaches wherein a content of at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Al, Ag, and Au in at least one of the conductive layers is 50% or more based on the number of atoms [0067].
Regarding Claim 20, within the combination above, modified Ishida et al. teaches wherein at least one of the conductive layers includes a single-component metal [0067].
Regarding Claim 22, within the combination above, modified Ishida et al. teaches a sensor comprising the thermoelectric conversion element according to claim 2 [0140].
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (US Pub No. 2020/0395526) in view of Nakatsuji (US Pub No. 2022/0246820) and Cardarelli (https://commons.princeton.edu/josephhenry/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/2019/08/Table-of-Seebeck-Coefficients-JH.pdf) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Kirihara (US Pub No. 2022/0326094)
Regarding Claim 10, within the combination above, modified Ishida et al. teaches wherein the thermoelectric conversion body has a plurality of first thin wires [83-2, Fig. 7B, 0122]., the connection portion has a plurality of second thin wires [Fig. 6, 0111], and silent on the first thin wires and the second thin wires are electrically connected to each other in series.
Kirihara et al. teaches wires corrected in series [0042] located in a device comprising a magnetic layer [0037, 0042].
Since modified Ishida et al. teaches the use of a device comprising a magnetic layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the thin wires of modified Ishida et al. in series as taught by Kirihara 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.).
Regarding Claim 11, within the combination above, modified Ishida et al. is silent on wherein the first thin wires and the second thin wires form fifty or more thin wire pairs, and
each of the fifty or more thin wire pairs consists of the first thin wire and the second thin wire.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of wires , with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the amount of wires are changed, the precise parameters of the amount of wires 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 the first thin wires and the second thin wires form fifty or more thin wire pairs, and each of the fifty or more thin wire pairs consists of the first thin wire and the second thin wire.” 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 of the amount of wires 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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (US Pub No. 2020/0395526) in view of Nakatsuji (US Pub No. 2022/0246820) and Cardarelli (https://commons.princeton.edu/josephhenry/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/2019/08/Table-of-Seebeck-Coefficients-JH.pdf) and Kirihara (US Pub No. 2022/0326094) as applied above in addressing claim 10, in further view of Defranks (US Pub No. 2020/0187670)
Regarding Claim 12, within the combination above, modified Ishida et al. is silent on wherein the first thin wires and the second thin wires form a meander pattern.
Defranks et al. teaches a wire that can be in a meander pattern [0049].
Since modified Ishida et al. teaches wires for a thermoelectric device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the first and second thin wires in a meander pattern as taught by Defranks et al. as it 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.).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (US Pub No. 2020/0395526) in view of Nakatsuji (US Pub No. 2022/0246820) and Cardarelli (https://commons.princeton.edu/josephhenry/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/2019/08/Table-of-Seebeck-Coefficients-JH.pdf) as applied above in addressing claim 2, in further view of Kirihara (US Pub No. 2022/0326094)
Regarding Claim 21, within the combination above, modified Ishida et al. teaches wherein the thermoelectric conversion body has a plurality of first thin wires [83-2, Fig. 7B, 0122]., the connection portion has a plurality of second thin wires [Fig. 6, 0111], and the first thin wires and the second thin wires are electrically connected to each other in series.
Kirihara et al. teaches wires corrected in series [0042] located in a device comprising a magnetic layer [0037, 0042].
Since modified Ishida et al. teaches the use of a device comprising a magnetic layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the thin wires of modified Ishida et al. in series as taught by Kirihara 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 filed 5/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the arguments about “Ishida describes that the metal layer (electromotive body) may comprise "a metal two-layer film, such as Pt/Cu, Pt/Au, Pt/FeCu, Pt/Ti, CoFeB/Ti or Co/Cu" (see Ishida, para. [0068]). However, Ishida provides no description or suggestion that these layers should be selected based on their Seebeck coefficients relative to the magnetic body's Seebeck coefficient.” Examiner note notes the claims do not require the layer to be selected based on the Seebeck coefficient. The teaching of Ishida et al. teaches that any of the metal layers can be selected, where Co/Cu is one of the options.
Regarding the arguments about “the most desirable configuration…” Examiner notes, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding the arguments about “the layered structure includes a first conductive layer having a Seebeck coefficient lower than a Seebeck coefficient of the conductive magnetic body, and a second conductive layer having a Seebeck coefficient higher than the Seebeck coefficient of the conductive magnetic body.”, modified Ishida et al. teaches Fe3Al ( 3.5 uV/K), Cobalt (-13.3 uV/k), and Copper (7.5 uV/k). This results in a conductive layer with a Seebeck coefficient lower than the magnetic body and a conductive layer with a Seebeck coefficient higher than the magnetic body.
Regarding the arguments about the combination, Ishida et al. teaches a magnetic body which can be made of a variety of material such as a iron containing compounds [0067], Nakatsuji et al. teaches a thermoelectric material comprising Fe3Al, which has a seebeck coefficient of 3.5 uVK^(-1) [Fig. 14A, 0063]. The goal of Nakatsuji et al. is to provide a thermoelectric conversion element made of an inexpensive and non-toxic material, for a thermoelectric conversion device [0006].
Since Ishida et al. is open to a variety of thermoelectric materials such as iron containing compounds, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace the thermoelectric conductive body 42 of Ishida et al. with the Fe3Al of Nakatsuji et al. in order to provide a thermoelectric conversion element made of an inexpensive and non-toxic material [0006].
Regarding the arguments about the power generation different as a result of the combination, the arguments are relevant; however, since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 8, 14-15, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Ishida (US Pub No. 2020/0395526) and Nakatsuji (US Pub No. 2022/0246820) are the closest prior art.
Modified Ishida et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim but does not disclose the limitations corresponding with expressions 1, 2, and 3, in claim 3, expressions 4 and 5 in claim 4, expressions 6-8 in claim 8, expressions 1-3 in claim 14, expressions 4-5 in claim 15, and expressions 6-8 in claim 19.
These references, nor any other reference or combination of references in the prior art suggest or render obvious the limitations corresponding with expressions 1, 2, and 3, in claim 3, expressions 4 and 5 in claim 4, expressions 6-8 in claim 8, expressions 1-3 in claim 14, expressions 4-5 in claim 15, and expressions 6-8 in claim 19.
Therefore; claims 1 and 2 are allowed once the limitations corresponding with claims 3-4, 8, 14-15, and 19 are incorporated into claims 1 and 2 respectively.
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