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.
The instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0315462 A1 to Murphy et al. (hereinafter Murphy).
Regarding claim 14, Murphy discloses a composition comprising a luminophore of formula Ax[MFy]:Mn4+, which is instantly claimed formula, Ax[BFy]:C, A being a chemical element from Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs or a combination of at least two of these chemical elements, B being a chemical element from Si, Ge, Sn, Ti, Zr, Al, Ga, In, Sc, Hf, Y, La, Nb, Ta, Bi, Gd or a combination of at least two of these chemical elements, F being fluorine, C being a doping chemical element, x being the number of atoms of the element A and being equal to 2 or 3, y being the number of atoms of the element fluorine and being equal to 5, 6 or 7 (para [0004]-[0010]), the composition being devoid of hydrogen fluoride (HF-free process, para [0004]). It is noted that some examples recite washing in aqueous HF (para [0070]). However, para [0071] recites a luminophore that emits red light via irradiation by UV light after annealing, without an HF washing step.
Claim 14 is a product by process claim. It is noted that Murphy does not anticipate the claimed process as written for obtaining the composition, however, MPEP 2113 states “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
MPEP 2113 also states “The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979)”. In the instant case, both Murphy and the instant claims recite a fluorination process at high temperature. The instantly claimed process is not found to significantly alter the final phosphor product.
The limitations directed to the method for producing the claimed composition are not considered to add patentable weight to the examination of the product claims. It is well settled that if the examiner can find a product in the prior art that is the same or so similar as to have been obvious, the burden can be shifted to the applicant to demonstrate that the process for producing the composition somehow imparts a patentable distinction to the composition under examination.
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 instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. See MPEP 2111.03, cited above. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0315462 A1 to Murphy et al. (hereinafter Murphy) in view of US 2015/0361335 A1 to Murphy et al. (hereinafter Murphy335).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy discloses a process for the dry synthesis (para [0031]) of a luminophore of formula Ax[MFy]:Mn4+ (para [0004]), which is instantly claimed formula, Ax[BFy]:C, A being a chemical element from Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs or a combination of at least two of these chemical elements, B being a chemical element from Si, Ge, Sn, Ti, Zr, Al, Ga, In, Sc, Hf, Y, La, Nb, Ta, Bi, Gd or a combination of at least two of these chemical elements, F being fluorine, C being a doping chemical element, x being the number of atoms of the element A and being equal to 2 or 3, y being the number of atoms of the element fluorine and being equal to 5, 6 or 7 (para [0004]-[0010]), the process comprising the following stages:
a) a stage of providing an initial composition, the initial composition comprising at least one first synthesis precursor A', at least one second synthesis precursor B' and at least one chemical doping source C’ (para [0033]-[0036]),
b) a stage of heating the initial composition up to a fluorination temperature of about 200 to about 700°C (para [0037]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of between 200 and 550°C, the heating stage being carried out under an inert atmosphere (para [0038]),
c) a stage of treatment under a fluorine atmosphere of the composition obtained on conclusion of the heating stage, comprising the following successive substages:
c1) a substage of maintaining at the fluorination temperature(para [0037]), and
c2) a substage of cooling from the fluorination temperature down to a temperature of less than or equal to 150°C (conventionally cooled to room temperature, prior to use).
Although returning the composition obtained on conclusion of the stage of treatment under a fluorine atmosphere to ambient (room) temperature is known and conventional, the reference is silent regarding a stage d) of returning to ambient temperature under an inert atmosphere.
However, Murphy335 does teach a method of producing a phosphor having an overlapping formula, comprising similar elements in similar amounts (para [0003]-[0008]) via a process that exposes precursor materials (para [0019]) to a fluorine containing gas at high temperature (para [0025]) wherein the produced phosphor is cooled to ambient temperatures in the presence of nitrogen (para [0064], after fluorine is evacuated).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to purge the reaction chamber with nitrogen during cooling for safety as well as to protect the reaction chamber from corrosion.
Regarding claim 2, Murphy in view of Murphy335 discloses the process as claimed in claim 1. Murphy further discloses the maintenance substage c1) being carried out for a period of time of at least 8 hours (para [0037]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 30 minutes to 8 hours. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited in the Office Action mailed 6/3/25.
Regarding claim 3, Murphy in view of Murphy335 discloses the process as claimed in claim 1. Murphy further discloses the first synthesis precursor A' comprising at least one chemical element chosen from Li, Na, K, Rb and Cs (para [0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Murphy in view of Murphy335 discloses the process as claimed in claim 3. Murphy further discloses the first synthesis precursor A' being chosen from AX where A is selected from the previously listed A metals, which include K and Na, and X is a halide as previously listed, which includes Br and Cl (para [0011]) and therefore encompasses a first synthesis precursor chosen from KBr, NaBr, KCI, and NaCl.
Regarding claim 5, Murphy in view of Murphy335 discloses the process as claimed in claim 1. Murphy further discloses the second synthesis precursor B' comprising at least one chemical element chosen from Ge, Si and Ti (para [0006]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Murphy in view of Murphy335 discloses the process as claimed in claim 5. Murphy further discloses the second synthesis precursor B' comprising at least one chemical element chosen from Si and Ti (para [0006] and [0036]).
Regarding claim 8, Murphy in view of Murphy335 discloses the process as claimed in claim 1. Murphy further discloses the doping source C' being chosen from a group that includes Mn, MnF2, and MnF3 (para [0034])
Regarding claim 9, Murphy in view of Murphy335 discloses the process as claimed in claim 1. Murphy is silent regarding the limitation “the first synthesis precursor A' and/or the second synthesis precursor B' and/or the doping source C' being in the form of powders consisting of grains having a particle size of between 100 nm and 50 µm”.
However, Murphy335 recites a precursor powder milled to a size of about 10 to about 20 microns (para [0021]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of between 100 nm and 50 µm. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the size of precursors A’, B’ and/or C’ to increase the efficiency of the process and ultimately control the final size of the final phosphor product.
Regarding claim 10, Murphy in view of Murphy335 discloses the process as claimed in claim 1. Murphy further discloses wherein A’ (KF) is 2x and B’ (K2SiF6) is 1-x (para [0035]). The value “x” is treated as 0>x<1, as is conventional in the art.
This provides a molar ratio A'/B’ of the first synthesis precursor A’ to the second synthesis precursor B’ (M) which overlaps the instantly claimed range of between 5 and 0.5. For example, when x is just below 1, the ratio is about 2/1 or 2. When x is just above 0, such as 0.001, the ratio is 1/0.001 or 1000. Therefore, the Murphy range overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 11, Murphy in view of Murphy335 discloses the process as claimed in claim 1. Murphy further discloses wherein B’ (K2SiF6) is 1-x and C (MnF3) is 1x (para [0035]). The value “x” is treated as 0>x<1, as is conventional in the art. This provides a ratio B'/C’ of the second synthesis precursor B' (M) to the chemical doping source C' that overlaps the instantly claimed range of between 50 and 5. For example, when x is just below 1, the ratio is about 2/1 or 2. When x is just above 0, such as 0.001, the ratio is 1/0.001 or 1000. Therefore, the Murphy range overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 12, Murphy in view of Murphy335 discloses the process as claimed in claim 1. Murphy335 teaches the inert atmosphere being a nitrogen atmosphere (para [0064]).
Regarding claim 13, Murphy in view of Murphy335 discloses the process as claimed in claim 1. Murphy further discloses the fluorine atmosphere being obtained by flushing fluorine (para [0036]) but is silent regarding flow rate, particularly a flow rate of between 10 and 100 ml per minute.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the to arrive at the optimal flow rate via routine experimentation, absent evidence to the contrary. Controlling flow rate in addition to controlling treatment time and temperature (para [0037]) facilitates formation of a phosphor with the desired properties (para [0039]) in a safe and efficient manner.
Regarding claim 15, Murphy in view of Murphy335 discloses the process as claimed in claim 1. Murphy is silent regarding the limitation “between 0.5% and 2% by weight of doping chemical element C”.
However, Murphy335 does teach about 0.3 to about 2.5 wt% Mn (para [0043]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of between 0.5% and 2% by weight of doping chemical element C. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of dopant to optimize the optical properties of the phosphor (Murphy, para [0048]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 9/8/25, with respect to the 112 rejections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The most recent amendment to the claims resolves the issues.
Therefore, the 112(b) rejection of claims 1-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/25, regarding Murphy (462), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Murphy phosphor is not devoid of HF as required by claim 14. Applicant points to the examples and states that every example recites an aqueous HF washing step. Applicant further argues that the subsequent steps of vacuum filtering, rinsing with acetic acid, and drying under vacuum cannot be considered as allowing the removal of all residues, particularly HF residues. However, the reference is not limited to the examples. The broad teaching of the reference expressly recites an HF-free process for making Ax[BFy]:C (para [0004]) as defined above (para [0005]-[0010]). Also see para [0071] which teaches that pressed, annealed plaques of Ax[BFy]:C, particularly K2SiF6:Mn, that have been annealed under F2, but not washed, emit red light characteristic of the K2SiF6:Mn phosphor (presumed washed). The K2SiF6:Mn pressed plaque is a luminophore that emits red light when irradiated with ultraviolet light. This emission occurs before washing. The unwashed luminophore, made by an HF-free process, is devoid of HF.
Applicant further argues that Murphy does not teach the particularly claimed cooling step in the process and that this step maintains the desired stoichiometry in the final phosphor. However, the Murphy phosphor has the same composition and has been annealed under F2 gas in an HF-free process. The unwashed luminophore has the same emission characteristics as the washed phosphor (para [0071]). The unwashed luminophore is not exposed to aqueous HF. As discussed above, claim 14 is a product by process claim. See MPEP 2113 cited above. The particularly claimed process is not found to significantly alter the final phosphor product. Applicant has recited motivation for the cooling step but has not provided sufficient evidence that the unwashed Murphy luminophore is substantially different from the phosphor of claim 14.
Should applicant deem the unwashed luminophore an intermediate material, note that an intermediate luminophore with identical characteristics to the final phosphor is a luminophore capable of emitting red light under UV light, even without a washing step. See para [0071] of Murphy.
Therefore, the 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 14 as anticipated by Murphy stands.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 9/8/25, with respect to Beers have been fully considered and are persuasive. Every recitation of the process of making the luminophore requires HF, and in most embodiments aqueous HF.
Therefore, the 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 14 as anticipated by Beers has been withdrawn.
The 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, and 15 as obvious over Beers has also been withdrawn.
The 103 rejection of claim 13 as obvious over Beers in view of Sanjuro has also been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/25, regarding the 103 rejection over Murphy in view of Murphy335 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that any motivation to combine the disclosures of Murphy and Murphy335 is based on impermissible hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, both Murphy and Murphy335 recite the same luminophore, with the same formula, wherein the luminophores are subjected to a fluorination process at high temperature. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to purge the reaction chamber with nitrogen during cooling for safety as well as to protect the reaction chamber from corrosion.
It is also noted that both Murphy and Murphy335 recite doped luminous compositions. It would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the Murphy dopant concentration as set forth in Murphy335 to optimize the optical properties of the luminous compositions.
Therefore, the 103 rejection of claims 1-12 and 15 as obvious over Murphy in view of Murphy335 stands.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/25, regarding Murphy in view of Murphy335 and further in view of Sanjuro, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Sanjuro teaches flow conditions for F2 in a fluid bed reactor (col 6, ln 13-23 ). However, fluid bed processing is different from the instantly claimed process.
Therefore, the 103 rejection of claim 13 as obvious over Murphy in view of Murphy335 and further in view of Sanjuro is withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection are made over Murphy in view of Murphy335.
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 LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2678. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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.
/L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734