DETAILED ACTION
(1)
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 . This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-4 are pending before the Office for review.
(2)
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno (EP 1 970 974 A1) in view of Yang et al. (KR 20220086192 A). The text citations to Yang refer to the included English-language machine translation.
With respect to claims 1 and 3, Ohno teaches a pi-type thermoelectric conversion module (Figures 1, 2 and 3) comprising a first electrode (9) and a second electrode (5) positioned opposing each other, a thermoelectric conversion member A (3; p-type) including thermoelectric conversion element M (Bi-Te system, for example), and member B (4; n-type) including a thermoelectric conversion element K (Bi-Te system, for example), wherein the p-type and n-type thermoelectric conversion members are arranged alternately and apart from each other between the first and second electrodes and electrically connected in series via the first electrode and the second electrode. Figures 1, 2 and 3 and Paragraphs 23, 24 and 44. The thermoelectric conversion elements are p-type and n-type, meaning carries of thermoelectric conversion element M are different than those of thermoelectric conversion element K, with one of the carriers being a hole and the other of the carriers being an electron. Paragraphs 23 and 24.
Ohno further teaches a sum of areas of surface sides of the thermoelectric conversion member A bonded to the first and second electrode is larger than a sum of areas of surface sides of member B bonded to the first electrode and the second electrode. Figures 1, 2 and 3 and Paragraphs 23, 24 and 26.
Although Ohno teaches a structure and arrangement of thermoelectric members A and B meeting the structural requirements of the claimed invention, Ohno is explicitly silent as to whether member B is a heat back-flow suppression member within the scope of the claimed invention.
However, Yang, which deals with thermoelectric devices comprising Bi-Te systems, teaches the thermoelectric conversion members of such a device are provided with a conductive member in the form of a metal-based diffusion barrier (130) that is plated thereon to prevent against deterioration of the Bi-Te based thermoelectric conversion element. Figure 1 and Page 3, Paragraphs 2 and 8-10. The diffusion barrier, as seen in Figure 1, is laminated on the thermoelectric conversion element in a direction in which the first and second substrate (110) face each other. Figure 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Yang’s diffusion barriers thereon because Yang teaches doing so prevents against deterioration of the thermoelectric element. Additionally, modified Ohno’s member B meets the structural and material requirements of the claimed invention, meaning it is a heat back-flow suppression member within the scope of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, Ohno teaches the module may have a substrate on the first or second surface (paragraph 47) but is silent as to the presence of first and second opposing substrates.
However, Yang, as seen in Figure 1, teaches a thermoelectric module comprises first and second (110) opposing substrates. Figure 1 and Page 3, Paragraph 3.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Ohno with Yang is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Ohno teaches a module comprising at least a substrate. Yang teaches it is known in the art to position the thermoelectric module between opposing substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly modify Ohno’s module to include two substrate because Yang teaches this to be a known structural arrangement in the thermoelectric module art, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 2, although modified Ohno is explicitly silent as to the ratio of the sum of the areas of the surface sides of the thermoelectric conversion member A bonded to the first electrode and the second electrode to a sum of the area of the surface sides of the thermoelectric conversion member bonded to the first electrode and the second electrode and the sum of the areas of the surface sides of the heat back-flow suppression member bonded to the first electrode and the second electrode, as per the MPEP, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims [is] a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device [is[ not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (internal citation omitted). In this case, the module performs its thermoelectric function independent of this specific ratio.
(3)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno (EP 1 970 974 A1) in view of Yang et al. (KR 20220086192 A), as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Jin et al. (CN 111083937 A). The citations to Jin refer to the included English-language machine translation.
With respect to claim 4, modified Ohno teaches thermoelectric conversion element M of thermoelectric conversion member K, but is silent as to whether its height in a thickness direction is greater than a height of thermoelectric conversion element K in a thickness direction of heat back-flow suppression member B including the conductive member.
However, Jin, which deals with thermoelectric conversion elements, teaches a first thermoelectric element is formed with a height in a thickness direction greater than that of a second thermoelectric element to improve electricity generation efficiency. Figure 1 and Page 4, Beneficial effects. Jin teaches the p-type element can be longer. Page 3, Mid-page.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form modified Ohno’s thermoelectric conversion element M, which is p-type, to be higher than that of thermoelectric conversion element K, which is n-type, because Jin teaches doing so improves electricity generation efficiency.
(4)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ELI S MEKHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights