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 .
Specification
The disclosure is The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: in para [0004] “the mixture being prepared with the raw materials such that a fed composition is represented by the following Formula (1)”. Also see para [0011]-[0012], which recites
“The method of producing a nitride phosphor includes a first heat treatment step of obtaining a first heat-treated product having a crystallite diameter of not less than 150 nm by subjecting a compound containing at least one rare-earth element selected from the group consisting of yttrium (Y), lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), lutetium (Lu), and gadolinium (Gd) (hereinafter also simply referred to as "rare-earth compound") to heat treatment at a first heat treatment temperature…”. These are examples and not an exhaustive list.
A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: The final two lines of each claim are faint and barely legible.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, and 3-6 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, claim 1, ln 17-18, recites “the mixture being prepared such that a fed composition is represented by the following Formula (1)”. This mixture is interpreted as the mixture of ln 10 in claim 1, which contains a first heat-treated product and a raw material.
Claim 4 recites “wherein, in the obtaining of the first heat-treated product, product, the first heat-treated product has a specific surface area that is 0.5 m²/g to 2.1 m²/g as measured by a BET method”. This limitation is interpreted as the first-heat treated product having the claimed specific surface area.
These are examples and not an exhaustive list.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0148947 A1 to Koizumi et al.(hereinafter Koizumi).
Regarding claims 1-3, Koizumi discloses a method for producing a nitride phosphor, the method comprising:
obtaining a first heat-treated product by subjecting a compound containing at least one rare-earth element selected from the group consisting of Y, La, Ce, Lu, and Gd (para [0073])to a first heat treatment at a temperature of 500°C to 1100°C (para [0156]), which overlaps the instantly claimed ranges of 800°C to 1800°C and 900°C to 1700°C.; and
obtaining a second heat-treated product by subjecting a mixture containing: the first heat-treated product and a raw material (flux added during second heating, para [0144] and/or matrix (La,Y)3Si6N11, para [0071]) to a second heat treatment at a
temperature higher temperature that is 400 to 1000 C higher than the first heating step (para [0157]), which is 900 to 2100 C, that overlaps the instantly claimed range of 1200°C to 1800°C;
the raw material comprising an M source containing at least one rare-earth element M selected from the group consisting of Y, Lu, and Gd (para [0073]); and optionally an La source and an Si source (matrix (La,Y)3Si6N11, para [0071] and [0122]) or a Ce source (flux, para [0129]).
Koizumi further discloses the mixture being prepared such that a fed composition is represented by the following Formula M1xM2yM3z:M4 where M1 is at least one of La, Y, Gd, and Lu, M2 is Si, M3 is N and M4 is preferably Ce (para [0016]) where 2.0 ≤ x ≤ 4.0, 5.0 ≤ y ≤ 7, and 10 ≤ z ≤ 12 (para [0022]-[0024]). The amount of M4 is from 0.001 mol% or higher, which is a molar amount of 0.1 or higher (para [0077]). Therefore, the Koizumi formula overlaps and encompasses instantly claimed Formula (1)
LawMxSi6Ny:Cez (1),
wherein in the Formula (1) w, x, y, and z satisfy 0 ≤ w ≤ 4.5, 0 < x ≤ 1.5, 0 ≤ y ≤ 12, 0 < z ≤ 1.5, 0.15 < (x + z) < 3.0, and 3.0 ≤ (w + x + z) ≤ 7.5; and wherein M contains at least one selected from the group consisting of Y, Lu, and Gd. See MPEP 2144.05(I), which states ‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists’.
The reference is silent regarding the crystallite size of the first heat-treated product. However, the compositions overlap, have overlapping formulas and are made by overlapping methods. See MPEP 2112.01(1), which states that here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established…"When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not."…Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. The compositions, formulas and methods overlap, as discussed above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the first heat-treated product to have a crystallite size overlapping the instantly claimed range of not less than 150 nm and not more than 500 nm, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 4, Koizumi discloses the method for producing a nitride phosphor according to claim 1, but is silent regarding the limitation “wherein, in the
obtaining of the first heat-treated product, the first heat-treated product has a specific surface area that is 0.5 m²/g to 2.1 m²/g as measured by a BET method. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the surface area of the product to optimize reactivity and ultimate improve the optical properties of the phosphor.
Regarding claim 5, Koizumi discloses the method for producing a nitride
phosphor according to claim 1 wherein, in the compound containing a rare-earth element in the obtaining of the first heat-treated product, a molar content ratio of Y relative to the rare-earth element M is not less than 90% ((La,Y)3Si6N11, para [0071]).
Regarding claim 6, Koizumi discloses the method for producing a nitride
phosphor according to claim 1, wherein the nitride phosphor obtained as the second heat-treated product has a composition represented by the following Formula MpSiqNr:Z where M is at least one of La, Y, Gd, and Lu, Z is an activator (para [0025]), preferably Ce (para [0076]) in an amount of 0.10 mole or more (para [0077]), where 2.7 ≤ p ≤ 3.3, 5.4 ≤ q ≤ 6.6, and 10 ≤ r ≤ 12 (para [0022]-[0024]), which overlaps and encompasses instantly claimed Formula (2):
LapMqSi6Nr:Ces (2),
wherein in the Formula (2), p, q, r, and s satisfy 0.5 < p ≤ 3.05, 0 < q ≤ 1.2, 10 ≤ r ≤ 12, 0 < s ≤ 1.2, 0.05 < (q + s) ≤ 2.4, and 2.9 < p + q + s ≤ 3.1; M contains at least one selected from the group consisting of Y, Lu, and Gd. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 7, Koizumi discloses nitride phosphor represented by the following Formula MpSiqNr:Z where M is at least one of La, Y, Gd, and Lu, Z is an activator (para [0025]), preferably Ce (para [0076]) in an amount of 0.10 mole or more (para [0077]), where 2.7 ≤ p ≤ 3.3, 5.4 ≤ q ≤ 6.6, and 10 ≤ r ≤ 12 (para [0022]-[0024]), which overlaps and encompasses instantly claimed Formula (2):
LapMqSi6Nr:Ces (2),
wherein in the Formula (2), p, q, r, and s satisfy 0.5 < p ≤ 3.05, 0 < q ≤ 1.2, 10 ≤ r ≤ 12, 0 < s ≤ 1.2, 0.05 < (q + s) ≤ 2.4, and 2.9 < p + q + s ≤ 3.1; M contains at least one selected from the group consisting of Y, Lu, and Gd. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Koizumi is silent regarding the phosphor having a crystallite diameter that is not more than 48 nm. However, as discussed above, the phosphors have overlapping formulas and are made by overlapping methods. Therefore, per MPEP 2112.01(I) cited above, one of ordinary skill would expect the Koizumi phosphor to have an overlapping crystallite diameter, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 8, Koizumi discloses the nitride phosphor according to claim 7, wherein a 50% particle size Dm corresponding to an accumulation of 50%
from a small-diameter side in a particle size distribution on a volume basis is 0.5 to 25 µm (para [0108]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 10 µm to 50 µm. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Conclusion
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