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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on November 24, 2025.
Claims 1, 5-10, 12-15, 17-20 are pending.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-10, 16, 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al in view of Pousthomis et al for the same reasons provided in the previous office action.
Claims 5-6, 8, 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al in view of Pousthomic et al in view of Murphy et al for the same reasons provided in the previous office action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant failed to confirm the election of Group I in the reply filed on November 24, 2025. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-10, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (Convenient and large-scale synthesis of high quality, all-inorganic lead halide perovskite nanocrystals for white light emitting diodes (already of record)) in view of Pousthomis et al (US Patent Application 2018/0348577 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7, 9-10, 16, 18-20, Xu et al teaches green emitting CsPbX3 nanocrystals and K2SiF6:Mn4+ phosphors blended with silicone resin for forming light emitting diodes (silicon resin has a glass transition temp less than 120C/100C) (Abstract, Experimental). However, Xu et al fails to specifically disclose the average particle size of the phosphor particles, scattering particles and acrylate polymers.
In the same field of endeavor, Pousthomis et al teaches a light emitting material including particles in a surrounding medium (Abstract). Pousthomis et al further teaches the surrounding medium is a solid material including a polymer such as silicones and acrylic resins or acrylate resins including PMMA (Paragraphs 916-923). Pousthomis et al further teaches isobornyle methacrylate polymers (Paragraph 929). Pousthomis et al further teaches the nanoparticles in the surround medium are selected from perovskite nanoparticles, oxide nanoparticles and phosphor nanoparticles and mixtures thereof (Paragraphs 657-658). Pousthomis et al further teaches perovskite nanoparticles include CsPbBr3, CsPbI3, CsPbCl3 and FAPbBr3 (Paragraph 675). Pousthomis et al further teaches phosphor nanoparticles including K2SiF6:Mn4+ (Paragraphs 677-682). Pousthomis et al further teaches the nanoparticles having an average size of at least 0.5 nm (Paragraph 505). Pousthomis et al further taches light scattering particles in the surrounding medium including TiO2, ZrO2 and alumina in order to help increase light scattering of the light emitting material (Paragraph 847).
With regard to average particle size of the phosphor particles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the average particle size of the phosphor particles in Xu et al in view of in view of Pousthomis et al in order to provide red phosphor particles into the light emitting material.
With regard to scattering particles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided scattering particles in Xu et al in view of Pousthomis et al in order to help increase light scattering of the light emitting material as taught in in view of Pousthomis et al.
With regard to acrylate polymers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided acrylate polymers in Xu et al in view of Pousthomis et al as simple substitution of one known matrix/surrounding medium polymer for another would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan. Likewise, Pousthomis et al teaches silicones and acrylate polymers as a surrounding medium polymer materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 5-6, 8, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (Convenient and large-scale synthesis of high quality, all-inorganic lead halide perovskite nanocrystals for white light emitting diodes (already of record)) in view of Pousthomis et al (US Patent Application 2018/0348577 (already of record)) as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 9-10, 16, 18-20 above, and in further view of Murphy et al (US Patent Application 2015/0361337 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 5-6, 8, 17, Xu et al and Pousthomis et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Xu et al and Pousthomis et al teach the features above. However, . Xu et al and Pousthomis et al fail to specifically disclose the red phosphor particles has Mn homogeneously distributed greater than 9mol%.
In the same field of endeavor, Murphy et al teaches Mn doped phosphor particles comprising about 16.5mol% of Mn (Abstract, Paragraph 19). Murphy et al further teaches a process of producing Mn doped K2SiF6 by stirring aggressively (which forms a homogenous product) (Examples 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided red phosphor particles has Mn homogeneously distributed greater than 9mol% in Xu et al in view of in view of Pousthomis et al in view of Murphy et al in order to provide less of the red phosphor material because of increased Mn concentration as taught in Murphy et al (Paragraph 74).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Xu et al in view of Pousthomis et al, Applicant argues that Xu et al teaches commercial phosphors which is expected to be between 21-30 microns and Pousthomis et al teaches a long list of potential particle sizes ranging from 0.5nm-1mm. Applicant further argues unexpected results in the examples. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument because with regard to Xu et al encompasses commercial sized phosphors, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, the teachings in Pousthomis et al overlap the instantly claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05I. With regard to the unexpected results, the showing is not commensurate in scope with instant claims. The examples only show 3µm and 20µm, whereas the instant claims recite less than or equal to 10µm. It has been held that to overcome a reasonable case of prima facie obviousness a given claim must be commensurate in scope with any showing of unexpected results, In re Greenfield, 197 USPQ 227. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Applicant further argues that Pousthomis et al teaches encapsulation of its luminescent material, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument as Pousthomis et al teaches encapsulate refers to a material that coats, surrounds, embeds, contains, comprises, wraps, packs or encloses a plurality of nanoparticles (Paragraph 28). Furthermore, Pousthomis et al teaches encapsulation is optional (Paragraphs 265, 280-281, 587).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 January 24, 2026