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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Office Action from the Chinese Patent Office cited in the information disclosure statement filed 29 May 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The Office Action from the Taiwanese Patent Office cited in the information disclosure statement of 15 November 2024 has only been considered with the search report therein.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the applicants in a proper information disclosure statement or by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification teaches M can be a silicon simple substance or germanium simple substance (para 11, 17, 25) and that A can be a potassium simple substance (para 24). It is unclear what is meant by and what is a “simple substance”. The plain meaning for this term is a compound containing silicon, germanium or potassium and one other element, such as an oxide. In the art, as shown by the references of record; potassium, silicon and germanium in the taught fluoride phosphors are elemental/ions of these metals; not compounds. It is noted that the specification teaches that when A and M are combinations of the listed metals are indicated as being elements and in the taught formula, such as in paragraph [0040], A and M are indicated as being elemental/ions. Given that the plain meaning of applicants term “simple substance” differs from the art accepted material for A and M; applicants need to clearly what they mean by this phrase. Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The subject matter of claim 6 is not taught in the specification.
Paragraph [0035] teaches the external quantum efficiency for the taught fluoride phosphors is 45% or more, but the excitation wavelength for these values are not taught. Therefore, this teaching does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
Table 1 teaches the external quantum efficiency for the exemplified fluoride phosphors, when excited by light having a wavelength of 455 nm, is in the range of 49.0%-60.8%. The range in the table does not support all the points in the claimed range of 45% or more. Thus, this teaching does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
Claim Interpretation
In view of the teachings in paragraph [0024], the claim phrase “A is one or more alkali metal elements including K” is being interpreted as meaning A is K and optionally at least one other alkali metal element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 teaches M can be a silicon simple substance or germanium simple substance. It is unclear what is meant by and what is a “simple substance”. The plain meaning for this term is a compound containing silicon and germanium and one other element, such as an oxide. In the art, as shown by the references of record; potassium, silicon and germanium in the taught fluoride phosphors are elemental/ions of these metals; not compounds. It is noted that the specification teaches that when A and M are combinations of the listed metals are indicated as being elements and in the taught formula, such as in paragraph [0040], A and M are indicated as being elemental/ions. Given that the plain meaning of the claim term “simple substance” differs from the art accepted materials for A and M; the claims are indefinite.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. patent application 2017/0107425.
Reference examples 2 and 3 teach, respectfully, a fluoride phosphor of the formula K2SiF6:Mn, where the amount of Mn/Si+Mn is 0.065 or 0.0351; D50 is 7.72 microns or 3.05 microns and D90 is 12.2 microns or 6.07 microns, where D50 and D90 are based on the volume-based particle size distribution curve by laser diffraction scattering method. The taught Mn/Si+Mn correspond with the claimed n value. These taught n values and particle sizes fall within the ranges of claim 1. Therefore, the reference anticipates the fluoride phosphors of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2018/0282620.
This reference teaches a fluoride phosphor and a white-light emitting device comprising the phosphor. The fluoride phosphor has the formula A2SiF6:Mn, where A is K and optionally at least one other alkali metal element. The amount of manganese in the phosphor is about 0.1-1.5 wt%, preferably about 0.5-1.2 wt% (para 21 and 57). These values correspond to molar amounts, which correspond with the claimed n value, of about 0.055 to less than 0.012. The taught weight percentage, when converted to molar amounts, fall within the claimed range of n, absent any showing to the contrary. Paragraphs [0022], [0066] and [0067] teach taught fluoride phosphor has a volume-based D50 size range of 5-35 microns and a volume-based D90 size range of 10-50 microns. These size ranges overlap those in claim 1. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. Tables 1 and 2 show that the taught fluoride phosphor has an external quantum efficiency, when excited by a wavelength of 455 nm, greater than 45% and thus meets the requirements of claim 6. The reference suggests the claimed phosphor.
Example 15 teaches a white-light emitting device comprising a blue-light emitting LED and the phosphor in a silicone resin. It is known in the art that the silicone resin seals the phosphor and that the phosphor in the silicone resin is excited by and converts the blue light emitted by the LED. This device and mixture of phosphor in silicone resin reads upon the claimed complex and light-emitting device. Thus the taught white-light emitting device suggests the claimed complex and light-emitting device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
There is no teaching or suggestion in the art of record of fluoride phosphors having the general formula (1) that have a particle size morphology that meets the requirements of claims 2-5.
Conclusion
U.S. patent application publication 2018/0107425 is cited as of interest since it teaches, in paragraph [0022], the amount of manganese dopant in K2SiF6:Mn fluoride phosphors in terms of both molar percentages and mass, or weight, percentages. In addition, both U.S. patent application publication 2016/0111610 and U.S. patent application publication 2018/0107425 both teach that the standard structure for white-light emitting LED devices comprises a wavelength converting composition that comprises a mixture of red and green phosphors in a resin that seals the phosphors. This wavelength converting composition reads upon the claims complex.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
9/30/25