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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Justel in US20080258601.
Regarding Claim 1: Justel teaches a method of manufacturing a light emitter that generates ultraviolet light. The light emitter has a host lattice (Y,Lu,Sc,B)PO4, wherein each of Lu and element A are optional and Sc may be provided in an amount from 0.1 mol (See Abstract). The light emitter is based on YPO4 crystals (See Paragraph 30) and contains Sc. The crystal may receive excitation light of shorter wavelength than the ultraviolet light to generate ultraviolet light (See Figure 15-16).
Justel teaches that the phosphor is created by producing a first mixture containing a compound of yttrium, a compound of Scandium, phosphoric acid and a liquid (water) (See Paragraph 87). The first mixture is stirred for 24 hours at room temperature and then the solvent (liquid) is removed using a rotary evaporator to create a second mixture in powder form. LiF is then added to the second mixture provided as a powder to form a third mixture. The third mixture is then calcined at 1000C to provide the phosphor. The calcination provides a material that needs to be ground and milled. The calcination of Justel thus provides a sintered product and the heat treatment of Justel may be classified as a sintering (See Example 1).
Regarding Claim 2: Justel teaches that the alkali metal halide is LiF (See Example 1).
Regarding Claim 3: The instant claim further limits one of the two alternative components set forth in Claim 1. Claim 3 does not necessitate that alkali metal carbonates are used and only limits the carbonates from which these may be selected. Justel makes use of the alternative to alkali metal carbonates, which are alkali metal halides and thus meets the scope of the claim as set forth.
Regarding Claim 4: Justel teaches that 0.4g of LiF are added to the second composition, which constitutes 0.91 wt% (0.4/(20+.64463+.2184+22.692+0.4)) (See Example 1).
Regarding Claim 9 and 11: Justel teaches a light emitter that generates ultraviolet light. The light emitter has a host lattice (Y,Lu,Sc,B)PO4, wherein each of Lu and element A are optional and Sc may be provided in an amount from 0.1 mol (See Abstract). The light emitter is based on YPO4 crystals (See Paragraph 30) and contains Sc. The crystal may receive excitation light of shorter wavelength than the ultraviolet light to generate ultraviolet light (See Figure 15-16). Justel teaches that Sc and Li, an alkali metal, are added to the YPO4 crystal (See Example 1).
Regarding Claim 10: Justel does not show the XRD pattern of the as-created phosphor and is silent in terms of the half-value width of the diffraction peak corresponding to the <200> plane in the XRD pattern being 0.140 or less; however, the material of Justel is a crystalline phosphor of the same composition and structure as that which is claimed. Materials of the same composition and structure must inherently have the same properties. Thus the material of Justel would inherently have the claimed half-value width of 0.140 or less at the corresponding <200> plane in an XRD pattern.
Regarding Claim 12: Justel shows an ultraviolet light source comprising the light emitter of example 1 (corresponding to the phosphor of claim 9) and a light source that irradiates the light emitter with the excitation light (See Example 1 and Figure 15-16).
Claim(s) 9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nobutsugu in US20210139774.
Regarding claim 9 and 11: Nobutsugu teaches the creation of a light emitter that generates UV light (See Figures). The light emitter contains YPO4 crystals (See Figure 1a, 1b) to which at least scandium and an alkali metal, Li, are added (See Table 1). The material receives an electron beam or vacuum ultraviolet rays to generate ultraviolet light ((See Paragraph 57).
Regarding Claim 12-13: Nobutsugu teaches the creation of ultraviolet light sources comprising the light emitter as set forth above in combination with a light source that irradiates the light emitter with excitation light or an electron beam (See Paragraph 57).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobutsugu in US20210139774.
Nobutsugu teaches a composition according to claim 9, which is a YPO4 crystal to which Li and Sc are added (See Table 1 and Example 1). Nobutsugu shows an XRD pattern of such a material (See Figure 1A and 1B), but the figure is unable to clearly show the fwhm of the peaks. Nobutsugu is thus silent in terms of the half-value width of the <200> plane being less than 0.140 when measured by XRD using copper-k-alpha radiation.
However, those of ordinary skill in the art would expect the material of Nobutsugu to have an overlapping range of fwhm of various crystalline peaks as the composition, structure and method of making such a phosphor are the same or overlapping. Example 1 clearly shows the creation of the same composition in terms of a yttrium phosphate crystal being doped with scandium and the use of a LiF flux. Nobutsugu teaches that sintering may occur at a temperature from 800-1600 C for a period of 1 to 10 hours in order to provide the phosphor material as taught. Those of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to provide the phosphor of Nobutsugu being sintered at any temperature and time amongst the range taught by Nobutsugu. Heat treatment at an overlapping time and temperature would necessarily provide the same level of crystallinity in such a phosphor and provide for the same fwhm of XRD peaks as claimed. Thus the material of Nobutsugu would necessarily have a half-value width of the <200> plane being less than 0.140 as the material is of the same composition and structure as claimed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justel in US20080258601.
Justel teaches a method of manufacturing a light emitter that generates ultraviolet light. The light emitter has a host lattice (Y,Lu,Sc,B)PO4, wherein each of Lu and element A are optional and Sc may be provided in an amount from 0.1 mol (See Abstract). The light emitter is based on YPO4 crystals (See Paragraph 30) and contains Sc. The crystal may receive excitation light of shorter wavelength than the ultraviolet light to generate ultraviolet light (See Figure 15-16).
Justel teaches that the phosphor is created by producing a first mixture containing a compound of yttrium, a compound of Scandium, phosphoric acid and a liquid (water) (See Paragraph 87). The first mixture is stirred for 24 hours at room temperature and then the solvent (liquid) is removed using a rotary evaporator to create a second mixture in powder form. LiF is then added to the second mixture provided as a powder to form a third mixture. The third mixture is then calcined at 1000C to provide the phosphor. The calcination provides a material that needs to be ground and milled. The calcination of Justel thus provides a sintered product and the heat treatment of Justel may be classified as a sintering (See Example 1).
Justel teaches that LiF is added at 0.91 wt% and does not teach amounts of LiF less than 0.75 wt% as claimed.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed range or amount do not overlap with the prior art but is merely close (See MPEP 2144.05). Those of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same result from the incorporation of such a flux in varying amounts and would have expected the incorporation of flux in lesser amounts, such as that which is claimed, to have the same effect. Alternatively, it is noted that generally differences in concentration or temperature do not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.05(II)A). In the instant scenario, those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to determine the optimum or workable range of flux content in order to make the claimed phosphor. Upon such routine experimentation those of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily arrive at a workable range of contents that represent an overlapping range with the claimed content.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatta in JP2017165877.
Justel teaches a method of manufacturing a light emitter that generates ultraviolet light. The light emitter has a host lattice (Y,Lu,Sc,B)PO4, wherein each of Lu and element A are optional and Sc may be provided in an amount from 0.1 mol (See Abstract). The light emitter is based on YPO4 crystals (See Paragraph 30) and contains Sc. The crystal may receive excitation light of shorter wavelength than the ultraviolet light to generate ultraviolet light (See Figure 15-16).
Justel teaches that the phosphor is created by producing a first mixture containing a compound of yttrium, a compound of Scandium, phosphoric acid and a liquid (water) (See Paragraph 87). The first mixture is stirred for 24 hours at room temperature and then the solvent (liquid) is removed using a rotary evaporator to create a second mixture in powder form. LiF is then added to the second mixture provided as a powder to form a third mixture. The third mixture is then calcined at 1000C to provide the phosphor. The calcination provides a material that needs to be ground and milled. The calcination of Justel thus provides a sintered product and the heat treatment of Justel may be classified as a sintering (See Example 1).
Justel teaches that the sintering of the material may be performed at 1000C, but is silent as to sintering the phosphor at other temperatures such as those greater than 1600C.
However, Hatta is analogous art that also teaches UV light emitters based on YPO4 crystals. Hatta clearly shows in Experiment 2 and in Figure 2A-B that the intensity of the phosphor can be increased by increasing the firing temperature from 1000C to 1700C. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to sinter the material of Justel at higher temperatures such as at 1700C based on the teachings of Hatta. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to sinter the material of Justel at 1700C based on the fact that Hatta teaches that sintering at such a temperature enhances the emission intensity of the phosphor. Thus, sintering at a temperature of 1200 or higher, 1400 or higher, or 1600 or higher would have been obvious over Justel in view of Hatta, obviating the claimed ranges.
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