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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 11-20 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 04/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method (claims 11-20), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. It is noted that applicant’s previously identified Species are directed to the method of manufacturing the thermoelectric device. Accordingly, any claim directed to the previously identified species is withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0148615 A1, BAEK et al. (hereinafter “Baek”) in view of US 9082930 B1, Wacker et al. (hereinafter “Wacker”) and US 2023/0309406 A1, Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”).
Baek teaches a thermoelectric device comprising a nanowire array (120) [Fig. 1, para. 0046], the thermoelectric device comprising:
a substrate (100) [Fig. 1 and para. 0046];
a doping region (110) in the substrate (100) [Fig. 1 and para. 0046], the doping region (110) comprising a first n-type doping region (111), a second n-type doping region (115), a first p-type doping region (113), and a second p-type doping region (117), which are arranged to be spaced apart from one another [Fig. 1 and para. 0046];
a nanowire array (120) comprising a first n-type nanowire array (121), a second n-type nanowire array (125), a first p-type nanowire array (123), and a second p-type nanowire array (127) [Fig. 1 and para. 0046], each of which is arranged on a corresponding one of the first n-type doping region (111), the second n-type doping region (115), the first p- type doping region (113), and the second p-type doping region (117) [Fig. 1],
a first upper electrode (301) electrically connecting an upper portion of the first n-type nanotube array (121) and an upper portion of the first p-type nanotube array (!23) [Fig. 1 and para. 0046];
a second upper electrode (303) electrically connecting an upper portion of the second n-type nanotube array (125) and an upper portion of the second p-type nanotube array (127) [Fig. 1 and para. 0046]; and
a heat dissipation part (corresponding to heat emitting portion 500) arranged on a lower portion of the substrate (100) [Fig. 1, paras. 0046 and 0101].
PNG
media_image1.png
232
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Baek, Fig. 1
Baek teaches does not teach the following limitations:
(i) a nanotube array (Baek discloses nanowires), wherein:
(ii) each of the first n-type nanotube array, the second n-type nanotube array, the first p-type nanotube array, and the second p-type nanotube array comprises a hole therein; and
(iii) each of the nanotube arrays has a wall thickness of greater than or equal to 30 nm and less than or equal to 999 nm.
Wacker discloses a thermoelectric device comprising nanostructure arrays [Col. 1, lines 20-25], wherein the nanostructures can be selected from nanowires, nanotubes or hollow nanowire [Col. 1, lines 65-67 to Col. 2, lines 1-15], thereby satisfying the limitations (i) and (ii), set forth above.
Wacker further discloses that these nanostructures have a wall thickness that is measured on the nanometer scale (between 0.1 nm and 1000 nm) [Col. 1, lines 65-67 to Col. 2, line 1], thereby satisfying the limitation (iii), set forth above.
Baek and Wacker are analogous inventions in the field of thermoelectric devices comprising nanostructure arrays. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose from the finite number of identified, predictable nanostructures disclosed in Wacker with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Wacker teaches that nanotubes or hollow nanowires leads to the anticipated success (i.e., p- and n-type thermoelectric structures), said configuration is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found obvious for the wall thickness of each of the nanotube arrays in Baek to be in a range of 0.1 nm to 1000nm, as disclosed in Wacker, because such is a known workable range known in the art for said thermoelectric nanostructures. Examiner notes that, as in Wacker, the nanostructures of Baek are in the nanometer scale.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Examiner further notes that the above combination necessarily results in each of the first n-type nanotube array, the second n-type nanotube array, the first p-type nanotube array, and the second p-type nanotube array comprising a hole therein [Wacker, Col. 2, lines 1-15].
Modified Baek does not teach the heat dissipation part also arranged on an upper portion of the substrate.
Lee teaches a thermoelectric device wherein a heat dissipation part is formed on at least one of the upper and lower surfaces of a substrate in order to improve the heat dissipation performance [para. 0064].
Modified Baek and Lee are analogous inventions in the field of thermoelectric devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thermoelectric device of modified Baek to comprise a heat dissipation part on both the upper and lower portions of the substrate in order to improve the heat dissipation performance [Lee, para. 0064].
Regarding claim 3
Modified Baek teaches the thermoelectric device comprising a nanotube array as set forth above, wherein the first p-type doping region (113) is arranged between the first n-type doping region (111) and the second n-type doping region (115) [Baek, Fig. 1 and para. 0046], and the second n-type doping region (115) is arranged between the first p-type doping region (113) and the second p-type doping region (117) [Baek, Fig. 1 and para. 0046].
Regarding claim 4
Modified Baek teaches the thermoelectric device comprising a nanotube array as set forth above, further comprising:
an upper silicide layer (140) arranged on each of the nanotube arrays (121, 123, 125 and 127) [Baek, Fig. 1 and para. 0058; Wacker, Col. 2, lines 1-15]; and
a lower silicide layer (130) arranged under each of the nanotube arrays (121, 123, 125 and 127) [Baek, Fig. 1 and para. 0058; Wacker, Col. 2, lines 1-15], wherein the lower silicide layer (130) comprises:
a first lower silicide layer (131) arranged on the first n-type doping region (111) and arranged on a portion of the substrate (100) exposed by the hole of the first n-type nanotube array (the vertical nanowire arrays 120 are formed on the lower silicide layers 130) [Baek, Fig. 1 and para. 0053; Wacker, Col. 2, lines 1-15];
a second lower silicide layer (133) arranged on the first p-type doping region (113) [Baek, Fig. 1 and paras. 0052-0053], on the second n-type doping region (115) [Baek, Fig. 1 and paras. 0052-0053], on a portion of the substrate (100) exposed by the hole of the first p-type nanotube array (123) [Baek, Fig. 1 and para. 0053; Wacker, Col. 2, lines 1-15], on a portion of the substrate (100) exposed by the hole of the second n-type nanotube array (125) [Baek, Fig. 1 and paras. 0052-0053; Wacker, Col. 2, lines 1-15], and on another portion of the substrate (100) between the first p-type doping region (113) and the second n-type doping region (115) [Baek, Fig. 1]; and
a third lower silicide layer (135) arranged on the second p-type doping region (117) and arranged on a portion of the substrate (100) exposed by the hole of the second p-type nanotube array (the vertical nanowire arrays 120 are formed on the lower silicide layers 130) [Baek, Fig. 1 and para. 0053; Wacker, Col. 2, lines 1-15].
Regarding claim 5
Modified Baek teaches the thermoelectric device comprising a nanotube array as set forth above, wherein each of the nanotube arrays (121, 123, 125 and 127) comprises the same material as the substrate (the substrate 100 is patterned to form the nanowire array 120) [Baek, Figs. 2 and 6(a), para. 0065].
Regarding claim 6
Modified Baek teaches the thermoelectric device comprising a nanotube array as set forth above, wherein the nanotube arrays (121, 123, 125 and 127) are arranged to be spaced apart from one another [Baek, Fig. 1; Wacker, Col. 2, lines 1-15], and further comprising a filling layer (corresponding to thermal protective film 200) that fills spaces between the respective nanotube arrays (“[t]he spaces between the nanowires of the nanowire arrays 120 are filled with the thermal protective film 200 so that no empty space is formed between the nanowires”) [Baek, Fig. 1, paras. 0046 and 0059].
Regarding claim 7
Modified Baek teaches the thermoelectric device comprising a nanotube array as set forth above, wherein each of the nanotubes of the nanotube array (120) is in any one of the following forms:
a form in which the repetition of diameter increase and decrease from top to bottom gradually increases in magnitude of the diameter (“a cross-sectional area of a nanowire may gradually increase, decrease, increase and then decrease, or decrease and then increase, from the top to the bottom”) [Baek, paras. 0056 and 0065], or
a form in which the repetition of diameter increase and decrease from top to bottom gradually decreases in magnitude of the diameter (“a cross-sectional area of a nanowire may gradually increase, decrease, increase and then decrease, or decrease and then increase, from the top to the bottom”) [Baek, paras. 0056 and 0065].
Regarding claim 8
Modified Baek teaches the thermoelectric device comprising a nanotube array as set forth above, wherein a horizontal cross-section of each of nanotubes of the nanotube array (120) is any one of a circle and a polygon (the cross section of the nanowire may have various shapes such as a circular shape, a triangular shape, a rectangular shape, and a hexagonal shape) [Baek, para. 0056], the circle and the polygon including the hole (the array comprises hollow nanotubes) [Wacker, Col. 2, lines 1-15].
Regarding claim 9
Modified Baek teaches the thermoelectric device comprising a nanotube array as set forth above, wherein a doping material for n-type doping of the n-type of the doping region and the n-type of the nanotube array (120) includes an atom having five valence electrons (P, As, or Sb) [Baek, para. 0051], and a doping material for p-type doping of the p-type of the doping region and the p-type of the nanotube array (120) includes an atom having three valence electrons (B, BF2, Al or Ga) [Baek, para. 0051].
It is noted that the materials disclosed in Baek are the same as those disclosed in paragraph [0074] of the instant published application for meeting with the limitations “an atom having five valence electrons” and “an atom having three valence electrons”.
Regarding claim 10
Modified Baek teaches the thermoelectric device comprising a nanotube array as set forth above, wherein each of the first upper electrode (301), the second upper electrode (303), and the heat dissipation part (500) includes at least one material selected from the group consisting of Pt, Al, Au, Cu, W, Ti, and Cr [Baek, paras. 0048 and 0061].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Wacker and Lee, as applied to claims 1 and 3-10 above, and further in view of US 20130081679 A1, Qu et al. (hereinafter “Qu”).
Regarding claim 2
Modified Baek does not teach a doping concentration of each of the nanotube arrays being greater than or equal to 1019 cm-3 and less than or equal to 1021cm-3.
Qu teaches a nanostructure for use in thermoelectric devices [para. 0086], wherein a doping concentration in a range of between 1016 cm-3 and 1020 cm-3 is suitable for providing p- or n-doped conductivities to the doped nanostructures [para. 0048].
Modified Baek and Qu are analogous inventions in the field of nanostructures for use in thermoelectric devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify each of the nanotube arrays in modified Baek to comprise a doping concentration between 1016 cm-3 and 1020 cm-3 as disclosed in Qu, for the purpose of providing suitable conductivity to the nanostructures.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 20170029972 A, Kim et al teaches a thermoelectric device using an asymmetric vertical nanowire array, wherein the thermoelectric device comprises:
a bulk substrate including a doped substrate regions spaced apart from each other;
n-type and p-type asymmetric vertical nanowire arrays;
a thermal barrier filled between nanowires of the asymmetric vertical nanowire arrays;
a thermal dissipation unit separately making contact with each upper end of the asymmetric vertical nanowire arrays; and
a thermal absorption unit simultaneously making contact with all doped substrate regions connected to a lower end of the asymmetric vertical nanowire array,
wherein a diameter at an upper end of the nanowire in the asymmetric vertical nanowire arrays is different from a diameter at a lower end of the nanowire in the asymmetric vertical nanowire arrays [Fig. 1 and Abstract].
PNG
media_image2.png
288
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim, Fig. 1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights