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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura et al. (US PGPub 2009/0146549).
Regarding claim 1, Kimura teaches light emitting diode lamp device and apparatuses using the device, specifically an LED with a semiconductor light emitting element and fluorescent material that absorbs some or all of the light emitted from the light emitting element and emits a fluorescent light of a wavelength different from the absorbed light (abstract; [0001]). Kimura teaches the fluorescent material is a mixed fluorescent material comprising a first material that emits a blue-green or green light (instant blue phosphor), a second material that emits a green or yellow-green light (instant green phosphor), a third material that emits a yellow-green, yellow or yellow-red light (instant yellow phosphor), and a fourth material that emits a yellow-red or red light (instant red phosphor)(abstract; [00014]). Kimura teaches the semiconducting light emitting element emits a blue or blue-violet light at a wavelength from 380 to 475 nm ([0020]; [0024]; [0028]; [0032]; [0036]; [0086]).
Regarding claims 3, 6, 8 and 10, Kimura teaches the devices as set forth above and further teaches, as noted above, the semiconductor light emitting element emits a blue or blue-violet light at a wavelength from 380 to 475 nm; and further teaches the first fluorescent material emits at a wavelength from 475 to 520 nm (instant claim 3 blue phosphor), the second fluorescent material emits at a wavelength from 520 to 560 nm (instant claim 6 green phosphor), the third fluorescent material emits at a wavelength from 560 to 615 nm (instant claim 8 yellow phosphor), and the fourth fluorescent material emits at a wavelength from 615 to 780 nm (instant claim 10 red phosphor) ([0020]; [0024]; [0028]; [0032]; [0036]; [0086]).
Regarding the full width at half maxima recitations (where no specific compounds are claimed), it is noted that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claim 11, Kimura teaches the devices as set forth above and further teaches the fourth fluorescent material is preferably a material of formula (Ca,Eu)AlSiN3 ([0015]; [0067]).
Regarding claim 15, Kimura teaches the devices as set forth above and further teaches LED chip lamps [0078]-[0083]; FIG 5).
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.
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 2, 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (US PGPub 2009/0146549).
Regarding claim 2, Kimura teaches the devices as set forth above and further teaches the mixing ratio of the first to fourth fluorescent materials may be set to a mass ratio of (2.5xD/A):(1.9xD/B):(1.5xD/C):1 ([0087]), exemplified by first (A) to second (B) to third (C) to fourth (D) ratios of 6:8:7:3 ([0022]), 9:12:8:3 ([0026]), 4.5:5:3:1 ([0030]), 6:7:3.5:1 ([0034]) and 8:9:4:1 ([0038]). Kimura further teaches that the mixing ratios are improvable and result-effective, depending on the desired exhibited emission intensity, as well as chromaticity, such that desired improvements thereof may result in changes in proportion of the intensity and therefore changes in mixing ratios ([0087]).
While Kimura does not specifically teach the mass ratios claimed, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results (see: In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; and MPEP 2144.05). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the relative amounts of each phosphor and would have been motivated to do so as Kimura teaches such would be obvious/necessary to do in order to improve such properties as emission intensity and chromaticity (see above). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good (see In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215); see also MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claims 12-14, Kimura teaches the devices as set forth above and teaches the devices are able to provide white light emitting illumination with high levels of reliability, high efficiency and extremely high color rendering characteristics ([0001]; [0013]; [0041]; [0112]). Kimura teaches color temperatures, obtainable by varying mixing ratios and emission spectrum ratios, of 2870 K ([0085]), 3500 K ([0091]), 4130 K ([0097]), 5380 K ([0103]), and 6630 K ([0109]).
Regarding the color temperature of a maximum light emitting energy intensity recitations, it is firstly noted that the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results (see: In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; and MPEP 2144.05). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the color temperature and maximum light emitting energy intensities and would have been motivated to do so as Kimura it is desirable to improve properties of emission intensity, as well as chromaticity (correlating to color temperature), via optimized fluorescent material mixing ratios ([0087]). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good (see In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215); see also MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding the color temperature of a maximum light emitting energy intensity recitations, it is secondly noted that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claims 16-19, Kimura renders obvious the devices as set forth in claim 2 above, and teaches, as noted in claim 1 above, the semiconductor light emitting element emits a blue or blue-violet light at a wavelength from 380 to 475 nm. Kimura further teaches the first fluorescent material emits at a wavelength from 475 to 520 nm (instant claim 16 blue phosphor), the second fluorescent material emits at a wavelength from 520 to 560 nm (instant claim 17 green phosphor), the third fluorescent material emits at a wavelength from 560 to 615 nm (instant claim 18 yellow phosphor), and the fourth fluorescent material emits at a wavelength from 615 to 780 nm (instant claim 19 red phosphor) ([0020]; [0024]; [0028]; [0032]; [0036]; [0086]).
Regarding the full width at half maxima recitations (where no specific compounds are claimed), it is noted that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claim 20, Kimura renders obvious the devices as set forth in claim 2 above and teaches the devices are able to provide white light emitting illumination with high levels of reliability, high efficiency and extremely high color rendering characteristics ([0001]; [0013]; [0041]; [0112]). Kimura teaches color temperatures, obtainable by varying mixing ratios and emission spectrum ratios, of 2870 K ([0085]), 3500 K ([0091]), 4130 K ([0097]), 5380 K ([0103]), and 6630 K ([0109]).
Regarding the color temperature of a maximum light emitting energy intensity recitations, it is firstly noted that the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results (see: In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; and MPEP 2144.05). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the color temperature and maximum light emitting energy intensities and would have been motivated to do so as Kimura it is desirable to improve properties of emission intensity, as well as chromaticity (correlating to color temperature), via optimized fluorescent material mixing ratios ([0087]). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good (see In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215); see also MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding the color temperature of a maximum light emitting energy intensity recitations, it is secondly noted that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Claims 4-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (US PGPub 2009/0146549) in view of Inagaki et al. (US PGPub 2013/0200777).
Kimura teaches the white light emitting devices as set forth in claim 3 above and teaches the inclusion of the first fluorescent material that emits a blue-green or green light (see above). Kimura is silent as to the first fluorescent material having an emission peak wavelength range of 420 to 460 nm (claim 4) and a structure of MgSr3Si2O8:Eu2+ (claim 5). However, Inagaki teaches white light emitting LED devices comprising mixed light-emitting phosphors ([0014]), which includes a blue-light emitting phosphor material having peak wavelength emissions from 435 to 480nm and having the formula Sr3-xMgSi2O8:Eux (abstract; [0006]-[0008]). Inagaki teaches the blue light phosphor is an advantageous as it is highly resistant to heat treatment and the use in white light emitting LED lamps is favorable ([0015]). Inagaki and Kimura are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely white light emitting LED lamps utilizing a mix of light-emitting phosphors include blue light emitting phosphors having similar wavelength emitting ranges. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the blue light phosphor of Inagaki as the first fluorescent material of Kimura and would have been motivated to do so as Kimura invites blue light emitting materials and further as Inagaki teaches the blue light phosphor of Sr3-xMgSi2O8:Eux is highly resistant to heat treatment during LED lamp production and its use in LED lamps is therefore favorable.
Further regarding the full width at half maxima recitation, it is noted that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01))
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (US PGPub 2009/0146549) in view of Huber et al. (US 7,265,487).
Regarding claim 7, Kimura teaches the devices as set forth in claim 1 above and further teaches selection of a second material that emits a green or yellow-green light emitting at a wavelength from 520 to 560 nm (instant green phosphor, see above). Kimura is silent as to the green fluorescent material structure being Sr5(PO4)3Cl:Eu2+. However, Huber teaches generation of white light via multi-phosphor mixtures including green phosphors, blue or blue-green phosphors, red phosphors and/or yellow phosphors (col 2; col 4). Huber teaches known suitable blue or blue-green phosphor compounds include Sr5(PO4)3Cl:Eu compounds (col 4). Huber and Kimura are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same technical feature, namely generation of white-light via mixtures of light emitting phosphors, including green light emitting phosphors. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the Sr5(PO4)3Cl:Eu compounds of Huber as the green or yellow-green light emitting fluorescent materials of Kimura and would have been motivated to do so as Kimura invites green light emitting materials and further as Huber teaches Sr5(PO4)3Cl:Eu compounds are known and suitable phosphors for the generation of visible radiation and white light in a phosphor mixture.
Regarding claim 9, Kimura teaches the devices as set forth in claim 1 above and further teaches selection of a third material that emits a yellow-green, yellow or yellow-red light emitting at a wavelength from 560 to 615 nm (instant yellow phosphor, see above). Kimura is silent as to the yellow fluorescent material structure being a Ga-YAG, LuAG or YAG. However, Huber teaches generation of white light via multi-phosphor mixtures including green phosphors, blue or blue-green phosphors, red phosphors and/or yellow phosphors (col 2; col 4). Huber teaches known and suitable yellow phosphors include YAG and known variants thereof (col 4). Huber and Kimura are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same technical feature, namely generation of white-light via mixtures of light emitting phosphors, including yellow light emitting phosphors. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the YAG compounds of Huber as the yellow-green, yellow or yellow-red light emitting fluorescent materials of Kimura and would have been motivated to do so as Kimura invites yellow light emitting materials and further as Huber teaches YAG compounds are known and suitable phosphors for the generation of visible radiation and white light in a phosphor mixture.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767