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 § 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.
Claim 10 is 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.
The wording of claim 10 indicates that the claimed process wherein all of the claimed raw materials can be a compound having any size and/or specific surface area and be composed of any composition that will react with the other raw material compounds so as to produce a M doped strontium magnesium aluminate phosphor having the size requirements set forth in claim 1. The comparative example of the specification shows that if the raw material for Al is alumina having a specific surface area of 0.5 m2/g and a D50 of 3.5 microns, the resulting phosphor has a d10 value outside the claimed ranges and a D90-D10 value outside the claimed range. This example raises the question as to whether the claimed process, where the composition, size and/or specific surface are of the raw material compounds are not controlled, will actually produce phosphors having a D90-D10 value of less than 67.4 microns and a D10 value within the range of greater than 1.3 microns up to 100 microns. In view of this issue, claim 10 is 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.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Zhu et al article.
This article teaches phosphor having the formula Sr2Mg1-xAl22O36:xMn where x is 0.05-0.35. This formula fall within that of claims 1-3. The article teaches light emitting elements, such as WLEDs, comprising the phosphor; backlights, which are light-emitting devices, comprising the phosphor containing LEDs; and displays comprising these backlights. The articles teaches the WLED has a layer, or film, comprising the phosphor on the LED chip, which reads upon the claimed film. The Experiment Section of the articles teaches the phosphor is produced by firing a mixture of SrCO3, Al2O3, MnCO3 and Mg(OH)2∙4MgCO3∙5H2O. These Sr, Mg, Al and Mn compounds are the raw materials for the Sr, Mg, Mn and Al elements in the phosphor. This taught process is identical to that claimed in claim 10. Thus, while the article does not teach the D10 size value nor the D90-D10 size difference for the taught phosphors; one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the taught phosphors to have a D10 size value and a D90-D10 size difference to fall within the claimed ranges, absent any showing to the contrary. This is because when the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established that the products are identical. See MPEP 2112.01 and In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The article anticipates the claimed phosphor, film, articles and process.
Claims 1, 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108949168.
This reference teaches aluminate phosphors. Example 4 teaches producing an aluminate phosphor having the formula Sr(Mg0.9Mn0.1)Al10O17, which falls within the formula of claim 1, by firing a mixture of SrCO3, Al2O3, MnCO3 and Mg(OH)2∙4MgCO3∙5H2O. These Sr, Mg, Al and Mn compounds are the raw materials for the Sr, Mg, Mn and Al elements in the phosphor. This taught process is identical to that claimed in claim 10. Thus, while the articles does not teach the D10 size value nor the D90-D10 size difference for the taught phosphors; one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the taught phosphors to have a D10 size value and a D90-D10 size difference to fall within the claimed ranges, absent any showing to the contrary. This is because when the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established that the products are identical. See MPEP 2112.01 and In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The article anticipates the claimed phosphor and process.
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108949168.
As stated above, this reference teaches an aluminate phosphor having the formula Sr(Mg0.9Mn0.1)Al10O17 produced by the process of claim 10, which means it has a D10 size value and a D90-D10 size difference which falls within the claimed ranges. The reference teaches the taught aluminate phosphors are used with an LED chip to form a light-emitting element which is used in backlights, which are light-emitting devices, and that the resulting backlights are used in displays. Thus the reference suggests using the aluminate phosphor of example 4 with an LED chip to form a light-emitting element, to use this suggested element to produce a backlight, which is a light-emitting device, and to use the resulting backlight in displays. Thus the reference suggests the claimed light-emitting element, light-emitting device and the display.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108949168, in view of the Zhu et al article.
As stated above, this reference teaches an aluminate phosphor having the formula Sr(Mg0.9Mn0.1)Al10O17 produced by the process of claim 10, which means it has a D10 size value and a D90-D10 size difference which falls within the claimed ranges. Also, as discussed above, the reference teaches the taught aluminate phosphors are used with an LED chip to form a light-emitting element and suggests using the aluminate phosphor of example 4 with an LED chip to form a light-emitting element. It is known in the art, as shown by the Zhu et al article, that LED chip and phosphor containing light-emitting elements used in backlights can have a structure where the phosphor is applied as a film atop the LED chip. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use this well-known light-emitting element structure as the structure of the suggested light-emitting element of the aluminate phosphor of example 4 and an LED chip. The resulting light-emitting element would comprise a film comprising the aluminate of example 4 and thus suggest the film of claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as referring to a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
There is no teaching or suggestion in the cited art of record of a phosphor wheel comprising the taught phosphors nor comprising a phosphor satisfying conditions (I) and (II) as set forth in claim 1 and having the formula SryMg1-xMxAlzO1+y+1.5z, where x is 0.01-0.8, y is 1-2, z is 10-22 and M is at least one of Mn, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Tm or Yb.
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
1/8/2026