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 Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim references ‘the liquid’. There does not appear to be antecedent basis for this term in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 12-13, 23-26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bak in 5531974.
Regarding Claim 12: Bak teaches the preparation of crystallized materials for use as phosphors (luminescent material; See Field of Invention). The method of Bak comprises a first step of creating a precursor of a luminescent material (See Step 1 in Column 6). This precursor is then combined with a flux solvent in the form of NaCl/NaF to prepare a mixture comprising a precursor and a salt as claimed. The mixture of Bak is then heated at various temperatures, such as 750, 800, and 950 C (See Column 7, paragraph 2). Bak teaches that the ratio of salt to luminescent precursor is 2:1 on a weight basis (See Column 6, Line 52). The ratio of Bak does not fall within the claimed range of being greater than 2:1; however, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. The weight ratio taught by Bak is so close (greater than 2 versus equal to 2; virtually negligible) that prima facie one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the teachings of Bak to have the same effect as those that are instantly claimed and would have found it obvious to provide materials having ratios around 2:1, including greater than 2:1 to provide the desired effect of forming a flux crystallized phosphor, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.
Regarding Claim 13: The salt of Bak comprises a combination of Cl and F as an anion and Na as a cation (See Example 1).
Regarding Claim 23: Bak teaches that the mixture of salt and precursor/luminescent material may be broken apart to recover the product after incubation (See Column 6, Lines 51-56). Bak teaches that means for breaking apart material (comminution) are known in the art and may be performed by means such as ball milling or grinding (See Column 1, 48-54). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to mix and/or ‘break apart’ the material of Bak by conventional means such as those taught by Bak such as ball milling or grinding as these processes are taught expressly by Bak.
Regarding Claim 24: The process of Bak includes a step of preparing a mixture comprising a precursor of a luminescent material and not the luminescent material itself. The instant claim sets forth a limitation that is contingent upon the ‘luminescent material’ being selected (rather than a precursor thereof) and further limits processes wherein such a selection is made. As Bak makes use of a precursor, rather than a luminescent material itself, in their process, the claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 25: Bak teaches that the heating may be at 950C, falling within the claimed range (See Column 7, Lines 12-29).
Regarding 26: Bak teaches that the salt is removed by leaching (contacting) the heated mixture with a solvent (water) (See Column 6, Line 51-56; also see example 2 which teaches washing).
Regarding Claim 28: Bak teaches that the material is initially amorphous (not-crystalline) when added with the salt (See Column 6, Lines 29-39).
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10 and 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petluri in US20170219170 in view of Bak in 5531974 as evidenced by Hirosaki in 8409470.
Regarding Claim 1: Petluri teaches a method for preparing a luminescent composition in the form of a phosphor blend (See Paragraph 30 and Tables 1-2). Petluri teaches that the blend may be created by providing a phosphor C (first luminescent material), CaAlSiN3:Eu (CASN), and providing a phosphor B (second luminescent material), Y3Al5O12:Ce. A blend is necessarily a product of mixing the components as set forth.
Petluri does not show the emission and excitation spectra of the various phosphors; however, the emission spectra of the second luminescent material of Petluri necessarily overlaps, at least partly, with the excitation bands of the first luminescent material as is evidenced by Hirosaki. The first luminescent material, CASN, has an excitation band ranging from 350-600 nm and emission at 650 nm (emitting light in a first wavelength range; See Hirosaki Figure 5-6: Example 1 is CaSiAlN3:Eu). The CASN of Petluri would be expected to have the same emission and excitation properties as that of Hirosaki as they are of the same composition. The second luminescent material, YAG:Ce, has an emission spectrum shown in applicant’s Figure 10 (upper spectra). The phosphor absorbs light in a second wavelength range (from 300-525 nm; See Disclosure Figure 10). The emission spectrum of YAG:Ce ranges from about 480 nm to 750 nm and overlaps the excitation bands of the first luminescent material (CASN:Eu) at least from 480-600 nm. Thus the phosphor blend of Petluri necessarily has the properties as set forth in claim 1.
Petluri teaches a method of mixing a first and second luminescent material, but is silent in terms of a method of preparing a mixture of a second luminescent material (YAG:Ce) or its precursor and a salt and firing the mixture.
However, means for creating YAG based phosphors by methods that include salts are known in the art and taught by Bak (See Example 1 and discussion at column 4). Bak teaches the preparation of crystallized materials for use as phosphors (luminescent material; See Field of Invention). The method of Bak comprises a first step of creating a precursor of a luminescent material (See Step 1 in Column 6). This precursor is then combined with a flux solvent in the form of NaCl/NaF to prepare a mixture comprising a precursor and a salt as claimed. The mixture of Bak is then heated at various temperatures, such as 750, 800, and 950 C (See Column 7, paragraph 2). Bak teaches that the ratio of salt to luminescent precursor is 2:1 on a weight basis (See Column 6, Line 52). The ratio of Bak does not fall within the claimed range of being greater than 2:1; however, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. The weight ratio taught by Bak is so close (greater than 2 versus equal to 2; virtually negligible) that prima facie one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the teachings of Bak to have the same effect as those that are instantly claimed and would have found it obvious to provide materials having ratios around 2:1, including greater than 2:1 to provide the desired effect of forming a flux crystallized phosphor, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.
Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the YAG:Ce of Petluri using the method of Bak, as Bak teaches a known method for creating YAG based luminescent materials that are required by the phosphor mixture of Petluri. Those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to provide the phosphors of Petluri by any known method and would have been particularly motivated to use the method of Bak based on the fact that the method of Bak provides highly uniform particle size leading to more consistent properties in terms of resolution and luminescence (See Column 2, lines 1-5 and Coluimn 1, lines 25-67).
Regarding Claim 3: Petluri teaches mixing phosphor materials. As the heating step of Petluri in view of Bak occurs prior to the phosphor’s creation, the heating necessarily occurs prior to said mixing step.
Regarding Claim 4: Bak teaches that the phosphor may be provided within a size range of 0.1 microns (100 nm) to 4 microns (See Column 2, Lines 35-40). Bak thus obviates providing the second luminescent material or a precursor thereof in terms of nanoparticles.
Regarding Claim 5: The second luminescent material, YAG:Ce, is doped with Ce3+. All of the cations in YAG are trivalent by virtue of the formula Y3Al5O12.
Regarding Claim 7: The second luminescent material YAG:Ce is excitable in the range from 400-500 nm as is evidenced by the instant disclosure at Figure 10.
Regarding Claim 9: The second luminescent material of Petluri in view of Bak is yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) or Y3Al5O12 (See Table 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 10 and 34: Bak teaches that the second luminescent material or its precursor and said salt are obtained by a method comprising dry mixing said second luminescent material and said salt in (Limitation (A); See Column 6, Lines 51-56).
Regarding Claim 35-36: These two claims are dependent on claim 34 and only set forth further limitations of options (B) and (C) as set forth in instant claim 34. As Bak, teaches a process including the method of option (A), the teachings of Bak meet the limitations of the claim as set forth, since said claims do not necessitate selection of options (B) or (C) and only further limit the scopes of these options.
Regarding Claim 37: Petluri in view of Bak teaches the creation of phosphor blends for light emitting devices as is set forth above in terms of claim 1. Petluri teaches that the phosphor blends may be provided in light emitting devices such as the one shown in Figure 1B. The light emitting device of Petluri includes an excitation source for exciting the luminescent composition in the form of a light emitting diode (30, 32 34, 36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11, filed 6/4/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12-13, 23-26, 28, and 34-36 under USC 102 over Song and claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10 and 37 under USC 103 over Petluri or Rashmi in view of Song have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment to the claims renders the teachings of Song insufficient in terms of meeting the amended claim scope. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under USC 103 view of Bak in 5531974 and Petluri in view of Bak. Bak teaches the creation of phosphor materials by providing salts with phosphor precursors. Bak obviates the amended claims as they teach a weight ratio of salts:phosphor of 2:1, which obviates the claimed range as is discussed above. The reference to Petluri is relied upon for the same teachings as previously set forth. Applicant does not set forth any argument against the teachings of Petluri in particular. The amendments to the claims resolving the objections made in the previous communication are noted. The objections to claims 34-36 are withdrawn.
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 MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights