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 1-7 and 11 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 2 of claim 1 recites “at least one or more n-type and p-type thermal legs,” and lines 2 and 3 of claim 1 recite (collectively, “the thermoelectric legs”), however, the manner in which “at least one” thermal leg can be “the thermoelectric legs” is unclear. For the purpose of this office action, the limitation “the thermoelectric legs” in lines 4 and 5 of claim 1 will be treated as if “the at least one or more thermal legs” is recited. Claims 2-7 and 11 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
Claims 6 and 7 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, claim 6 recites “a partial gap formed in the metastructure,” however, it is unclear as to whether the recited partial gap is in addition to the previously recited partial gap of claim 1 (from which claim 6 depends), or whether the recited partial gap is referring to the previously recited partial gap of claim 1. Claim 7 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 6.
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 partial air gaps" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2018/0110266, hereinafter referred to as Lee ‘266) in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0217588, hereinafter referred to as Lee ‘588), further in view of Wang et al. (CN 214587756 – see attached machine translation), and further in view of Satoh et al. (US 2020/0161525).
Regarding claim 1, Lee ‘266 discloses a thermoelectric device module (abstract)
comprising an insulation element ([0069] discloses a dimensionally stable frame formed from a dimensionally stable absorbent material) surrounding a thermoelectric device ([0069] discloses TEMs), wherein the insulation element is formed with a dimensionally stable absorbent material ([0052]).
While Lee ‘266 does disclose the frame may be formed from a dimensionally stable absorbent material without a TPU film layer, and further discloses examples of a dimensionally stable absorbent material may comprise, for instance, a non-woven material such as a spacer mesh or a felt material although other dimensionally stable absorbent materials are contemplated herein ([0052]); Lee ‘266 does not explicitly disclose the dimensionally stable absorbent material is formed with an insulating material configured as a metastructure defining a partial air gap as a vacant space confined within the insulating material.
Lee ‘588 discloses stretchable electronic elements applied to wearable devices ([0003]), and further discloses an insulating material configured as a metastructure ([0002]) defining a partial air gap as a vacant space confined within the insulating material ([0026] discloses an air gap).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the dimensionally stable absorbent material of Lee ‘266 with an insulating material configured as a metastructure defining a partial air gap as a vacant space confined within the insulating material, as disclosed by Lee ‘588, because as taught by Lee ‘588, it is possible to provide a stretchable substrate having a negative Poisson’s ratio provided to control a strain in an in-plane direction perpendicular to a stretching direction and concurrently to minimize a distortion and a warpage by uniformizing a tensile elongation distribution in the substrate ([0114]).
Additionally, Lee ‘588 discloses stretchable electronic elements may be most widely used in fields such as stretchable displays, stretchable solar cells, and stretchable energy storage/power generation devices ([0004]). Lee ‘588 further discloses stretchable electronic elements not only increase a degree of freedom in design due to excellent mechanical variability thereof but also secure mechanical stability against an external force, thereby expanding to markets such as wearable devices, electronic skin, smartphones, medical devices, healthcare monitoring systems, defense industries, and aerospace industries ([0004]).
As evidenced by Lee ‘588 ([0004]), the use of a stretchable substrate in a power generation device, such as the thermoelectric device module of Lee ‘266, amounts to the use of a known material/component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using a stretchable substrate in the thermoelectric device module of Lee ‘266 based on the teaching of Lee ‘588.
While modified Lee ‘266 does disclose a mechanical metamaterial with a negative Poisson’s ratio forming a stretchable substrate (Lee ‘588 - [0059],[0069]), modified Lee ‘266 does not explicitly disclose the mechanical metamaterial with a negative Poisson’s ratio is formed of a resin-based material.
Wang discloses a resin-based material with a negative Poisson’s ratio ([n0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the metamaterial with a negative Poisson’s ratio of modified Lee ‘266 with a resin-based material, as disclosed in Wang, because as evidenced by Wang, the use of a resin-based material as the material of a negative Poisson’s ratio material amounts to the use of a known composition in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using a resin-based material for forming the stretchable substrate of modified Lee ‘266 based on the teaching of Wang.
Modified Lee ‘266 does not explicitly disclose the thermoelectric device module comprises at least one or more n-type and p-type thermal legs, and a conductor for electrically connecting the thermoelectric legs.
Satoh discloses a thermoelectric device module and further discloses the thermoelectric device module comprises n-type and p-type thermal legs ([0037]), and a conductor for electrically connecting the thermoelectric legs ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the thermoelectric device of modified Lee ‘266 with n-type and p-type thermal legs and a conductor for electrically connecting the thermoelectric legs, as disclosed by Satoh, because as evidenced by Satoh, the use of electrically connected n-type and p-type legs to form a thermoelectric device amounts to the use of known components in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the thermoelectric devices of Lee ‘266 with electrically connected n-type and p-type legs based on the teaching of Satoh.
Modified Lee ’266 discloses the thermoelectric device module comprises an insulation element surrounding the thermoelectric legs (Lee ‘266 – [0069]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee ‘266 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee ‘266 further discloses the insulation element has a negative Poisson’s ratio (Lee ‘588 - [0059],[0069]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee ‘266 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee ‘266 further discloses the insulation element has an auxetic pattern (Lee ‘588 – abstract; [0059], [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee ‘266 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee ‘266 further discloses a support structure (Lee ‘266 – 1614 in Fig. 16B; [0067], [0068]), wherein the insulation element includes a pod within the support structure (Lee ‘266 – 1614 in Fig. 16B; [0067], [0068]).
Modified Lee ‘266 does not explicitly disclose the pod is formed with a gradient cross-sectional area that increases in size from a hot side to a cold side of the thermoelectric device module.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the mating structures disclosed in modified Lee ‘266 with a gradient cross-sectional area that increases in size from a hot side to a cold side of the thermoelectric device module because such a modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee ‘266 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Lee ‘266 does not explicitly disclose the pod is an inverted triangle shape with an apex facing the hot side, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the pod of modified Lee ‘266 as an inverted triangle shape with an apex facing the hot side because such a modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee ‘266 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Lee ‘266 does disclose a partial air gap formed in the metastructure (Lee ‘588 – [0026]), modified Lee ‘266 does not explicitly disclose the pod protrudes from an edge of a partial air gap formed in the metastructure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the pods of modified Lee ‘266 such that the pods protrude from an edge of the partial air gap formed in the metastructure (Lee ‘588 – [0026]), because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee ‘266 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Lee ‘266 depicts a plurality of pods are provided (Lee ‘266 – 1614 in Fig. 16B; [0067], [0068]), modified Lee ‘266 does not explicitly disclose two or more but not more than four pods are provided.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide between two and four pods in the apparatus of modified Lee ‘266 because as taught by Lee ‘266, the number and pattern of mating structures 1614 are exemplary only, and it is contemplated herein that other patterns and numbers of mating structures 1614 may be used ([0067]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee ‘266 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee ‘266 further discloses the insulation element is configured as a metastructure pattern (Lee ‘588 - [0059], [0069]) formed by first direction rods and second direction rods intersecting each other to form multiple nodes (Lee ‘588 – 10 in Fig. 10 is comprised of rods which extend in differing directions and intersect to form gaps 50 in Fig. 10), wherein the multiple nodes are formed as the partial air gaps (Lee ‘588 – [0101] discloses air gap 50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 1 which includes the recitation “collectively, the thermoelectric legs” provides clear antecedent basis for all subsequent references. In response to Applicant’s argument, the amendment results in the issue identified in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine Lee with Satoh to arrive
at the claimed invention. In response to Applicant’s argument, Satoh is relied upon to teach n-type and p-type thermal legs ([0037]), and a conductor for electrically connecting the thermoelectric legs ([0038]). Satoh is not relied upon to teach a hollowed-out metastructure with confined air gaps to house the thermal legs. As set forth in the office action, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the thermoelectric device of modified Lee ‘266 with n-type and p-type thermal legs and a conductor for electrically connecting the thermoelectric legs, as disclosed by Satoh, because as evidenced by Satoh, the use of electrically connected n-type and p-type legs to form a thermoelectric device amounts to the use of known components in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the thermoelectric devices of Lee ‘266 with electrically connected n-type and p-type legs based on the teaching of Satoh.
It is noted that Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 11 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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, Jeffrey 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
Prosecution Insights