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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to applicants’ amendment of 2 January 2026. The substitute specification filed 2 January 2026 has been entered. The replacement drawings were received on 2 January 2026 and are acceptable. The amendments to the specification and the replacement drawings have overcome the objections to the drawings. The amendments to the specification have overcome the objections to the disclosure. The amendments to the claims have overcome the objection to the specification for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the subject matter of canceled claim 4. The amendments to the claims have overcome the objections to the claims; the 35 USC 112(a) rejection over claims 7, 14-16, 19 and 20; the 35 USC 112(b) rejections; the 35 USC 112(d) rejections; and the art rejections over canceled claims 4, 5 and 7. The amendment to the claim 14 has overcome the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claims 17 and 18 for being directed to a light emitting device comprising a substrate, a light emitting diode and a wavelength conversion unit disposed on or spaces apart from the diode, wherein the unit comprises any Mn(IV) activated oxidohalide based phosphor or any Mn(IV) activated phosphor having the lattice of any oxidohalide. Upon reconsideration of the “x+y<1” limitation in claim 2, the art rejections over claim 2 are withdrawn since the references teach phosphors where x+y>1. Applicant's arguments with respect to the remaining 35 USC 112(a) rejection over claims 17 and 18; the remaining objection to the specification for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the subject matter, and the remaining art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The paragraph numbers “[0092]”, “[0094]” and “[0097]” were deleted by strikethrough in the substitute specification. The paragraphs in the substitute specification were not renumbered which means that the paragraph numbering in the substitute specification is no longer consecutive.
Applicants’ amended the Markush groups in paragraphs [0042], [0043] and [0052] to the format “at least one selected from the group consisting of …and combinations thereof”. Both “at least one” and “combinations thereof” are unnecessary in this phase since they have the same effect. The Markush groups in paragraphs [0042], [0043] and [0052] should use the format “at least one selected from the group consisting of … and …” where the last member of the group is the last listed member of NH4, Hf, Re and I in each group; or the format “selected from the group consisting of … combinations thereof”. 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 claims 14-16, 19 and 20 are not disclosed in the specification.
The generic structure of claims 14-16, 19 and 20 are not found in the specification. The specific structures of the figures do not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed generic structure of these claims.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the specification and the claims did not overcome the objection to specification for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, applicants did not specifically address this objection. Therefore the objection to specification for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicants’ amended the Markush groups these claims to the format “at least one selected from the group consisting of …and combinations thereof”. Both “at least one” and “combinations thereof” are unnecessary in this phase since they have the same effect. The Markush groups in these claims should use the format “at least one selected from the group consisting of … and …” where the last member of the group is the last listed member of NH4, Hf, Re and I in each group; or the format “selected from the group consisting of … combinations thereof”.
In addition, in claim 2; x cannot be equal to 1 due to the proviso “x+y<1”. This proviso excludes the claimed embodiments where x=1. It is suggested to rewrite the inequality defining x as “0<x<1” to overcome this objection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There is no teaching in the specification of white light emitting devices having the general structure of claim 14 which have the properties of claims 17 and 18. The single CRI value of 93.9 in table 1 does not support the ranges of claim 17 and there is no teaching of any specific light efficiency values in the specification, only that the value is high. The subject matter of claims 17 and 18 are not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the specification and the claims did not overcome the remaining 35 USC 112(a) rejection. Furthermore, applicants did not specifically address this 35 USC 112(a) rejection. Therefore the 35 USC 112(a) rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by CN 107043624.
This reference teaches a Mn+4 doped red fluorescent compound, which reads upon the clamed luminophore or conversion luminophore, of A2MO2F4:Mn+4, where A is Na, K, Cs or Rb and M is Mo or W. This compound anticipates the compound of claim 1. The taught compound is produced by stirring a HF based solution comprising K2MnF and a precursor that contains A and M and separating the precipitate that results from the stirring step. This is the process of claim 6 since the taught K2MnF reads on the claimed AX. The reference teaches a white-light emitting device comprising a blue-light emitting LED chip and a radiation converting mixture of the taught Mn+4 doped red fluorescent compound and a YAG:Ce+3 yellow fluorescent compound. This device and mixture reads upon those of claims 8-10.
Claims 1, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 107779191.
This reference teaches a Mn+4 doped phosphor, which reads upon the clamed luminophore or conversion luminophore, of Cs2WO2F4:Mn+4. This compound anticipates the compound of claim 1. The taught compound is produced by stirring a HF based solution comprising Cs2MnF and a precursor that contains W and separating the precipitate that results from the stirring step. This is the process of claim 6 since the taught K2MnF reads on the claimed AX.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by CN 110240895.
This reference teaches a Mn+4 doped red fluorescent compound, which reads upon the clamed luminophore or conversion luminophore, of A2NOxF6-x:Mn+4, where A is at least one o Na. K, Li, Rb, Cs and NH4 and when x is 1, N is Ta or Nb and when x is 2, N is W or Mo. The taught x values correspond with the claimed 2x of 2(0.5) and 2(1). These formulas fall within that of claim 1 and thus teaches the compound of claim 1.
Claims 1, 6, 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110724529.
This reference teaches a Mn+4 doped red fluorescent compound, which reads upon the clamed luminophore or conversion luminophore, of Rb2Mo1-xO2F4:xMn+4, where x is 0<x<0.03 This compound anticipates the compound of claim 1. The taught compound is produced by stirring a HF based solution comprising K2MnF, a Cs precursor and a Mo precursor and separating the precipitate that results from the stirring step. This is the process of claim 6 since the taught K2MnF reads on the claimed AX. The reference teaches a white-light emitting lamp comprising a blue-light emitting LED chip and a radiation converting mixture of the taught Mn+4 doped red fluorescent compound and a YAG:Ce+3 yellow fluorescent compound. This device and mixture reads upon those of claims 8-10 and 13.
Claims 1, 6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by the Zhou et al article.
The article teaches a Mn+4 doped red fluorescent compound, which reads upon the clamed luminophore or conversion luminophore, of Rb2Mo1-xO2F4:xMn+4, where x is 0.01-0.15. This compound anticipates the compound of claim 1. The taught compound is produced by stirring a HF based solution comprising K2MnF, a Cs precursor and a Mo precursor and separating the precipitate that results from the stirring step. This is the process of claim 6 since the taught K2MnF reads on the claimed AX. The article teaches a white light emitting backlight comprising a InGaN blue light emitting LED chip and a wavelength or radiation converting mixture Rb2Mo1-xO2F4:xMn+4 and β-SiAlON green emitting phosphor. The taught InGaN blue light emitting LED chip meets the requirements of claim 11 and the taught InGaN is known in the art to have the formula IniGajN, where i+j=1 and both are non-zero. The this backlight reads upon the light source and lighting unit of claims 10-13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 14-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Zhou et al article in combination with U.S. patent application publications 2014/0327026 and 2019/0048258.
U.S. patent application publications 2014/0327026 and 2019/0048258 teach light emitting devices having the structure of claims 14-16 and 19 which must contain as a red phosphor, the Mn+4 doped phosphor having the general formula A2XF4:Mn+4 discussed in the Introduction section of the Zhou et al. The article teaches to replace the mandatory red phosphor of the application publications, which has a long decay time, with the taught Mn+4 doped red phosphor of the formula of Rb2Mo1-xO2F4:xMn+4, where x is 0.01-0.15, which has a much shorter decay time in the taught devices to overcome the issues when Mn+4 doped phosphor having the general formula A2XF4:Mn+4 are used in the taught devices. Given the improvements taught in the article, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Rb2Mo1-xO2F4:xMn+4 as the mandatory red phosphor in the devices of U.S. patent application publications 2014/0327026 and 2019/0048258. The resulting device suggest those claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the above art rejections have been considered but are not convincing. Applicants argue that none of the references used in the rejections teach Mn+4 doped oxidohalide phosphors of the formula A2N1-xMxO2xX6-2x, that contain the claimed N element. While applicants are correct that none of the references teach the claimed embodiments where 0<x<1 and thus require the presence of N; the claims also include embodiments where x=1, which has the formula A2MO2X4 and do not require the presence of N. The references all teach this claimed embodiment. The rejections are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon 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.
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections, 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 cited art of record of a Mn+4 doped compound having the formula A2N1-xMxO2xX6-2x, where A is at least one of Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Cu, Ag, Tl and NH4, N is at least one of Si, Ge, Sn, Ti, Pb, Ce, Zr, Ru, Ir, Pr and Hf, M is at least one of W, Cr, Mo, Re and Re, X is at least one of F, Cl, Br and I and x is 0<x<1, y is 0<y<0.5, and x+y<1.
There is no teaching or suggestion in the cited art of record of a Mn+4 doped compound having the formula A2N1-xMxO2xX6-2x, where A is at least one of Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Cu, Ag, Tl and NH4, N is at least one of Si. Ge, Sn, Ti, Pb, Ce, Zr, Ru, Ir, Pr and Hf, M is at least one of W, Cr, Mo, Re and Re, X is at least one of F, Cl, Br and I and x is 0.02-0.05.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
1/22/26