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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (WO 2021073915 A1, published April 22, 2021; PG Pub. No. 2022/0403239 A1 cited as the U.S. equivalent) in view of Jiang (Materials Science and Engineering B, 178(2013), 123-126), and further in view of Jung (Materials Letters 59 (2005), 2451-2456). All references have been cited in a prior Office action.
Regarding claims 1-9 and 11-20, Fischer teaches a phosphor and method of making a phosphor, including providing at least one lanthanide salt, particularly Pr6O11 and/or Gd2O3, a silicate, at least one earth alkali salt and at least one alkali salt, then blending (p. 5, [0091]-[0095]. The earth alkali salt and alkali salt are preferably a lithium and/or sodium salt, and Fischer teaches embodiments using calcium salt (p. 5, [0095]; p. 7, [0119]). The composition may be blended by milling or in an organic solvent that is not protic (p. 5, [0097]). Calcination occurs first at 600-1000*C for at least one hour, under an air atmosphere, and then a further calcination step occurs at temperatures ranging from 800-900*C for at least 3 hours (p. 5, [0098]). These ranges overlap the claimed ranges. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. More specifically, Fischer's phosphor may be Ca0.96Pr0.01Gd0.01Na0.02Li2SiO4 (p. 1, [0010]). This phosphor reads on all claimed formulas where A is Ca, B is Li, B* is Na, Ln1 is Pr, x is 0.01, Ln2 is Gd, and z is 0.01. Fischer also teaches use of the phosphor Ca0.98Pr0.01Na0.01Li2SiO4 (p. 1, [0010]). Fischer's phosphors may have XRPD signals in the range of 23* 2theta to 27* 2theta and of 34* 2theta to 39.5* 2theta (p. 4, [0064]).
However, Fischer is silent as to use of a flux in the composition. In the same field of endeavor, Jiang teaches use of calcium fluoride flux (p. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the method of Fischer and the flux of Jiang to arrive at the claimed invention, and to improve the luminescence properties of the phosphor, as taught by Jiang (p. 1). Fischer further teaches use of the phosphor in an antimicrobial coating that further includes a polymer (p. 1, [007], [0011]; claim 19).
Fischer and Jiang are further silent as to the wt% amount of flux that may be used. In the same field of endeavor, Jung teaches use of 0 to 11 wt% of flux (p. 2452). This prior art range overlaps the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range overlaps the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Fischer and Jiang with the flux content of Jung to arrive at the claimed invention, and to control the surface area and the crystallite size of the phosphor particles, as taught by Jung (p. 2452).
Fischer and Jiang are also silent as to the specific surface area of the phosphor. Jung further teaches use of phosphor particles having surface area ranging from 0-95 m2/g (p. 2454, Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Fischer and Jiang with the phosphor surface area of Jung to arrive at the claimed invention, and to enhance the luminescent intensity of the phosphor, as taught by Jung (p. 2454).
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112 is withdrawn in light of the recent amendment to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 04 February 2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The certified translation of the priority document is sufficient to perfect the Applicant’s priority claim, and the statement of common ownership is sufficient to invoke the 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C), thereby disqualifying Fischer as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Fischer (WO 2021073915 A1), Jiang, and Jung (cited above).
Note that the WIPO publication of Fischer qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and the evidence of record does not yet establish that the exceptions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) or 102(b)(1)(B) are applicable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH K AMATO whose telephone number is (571)270-0341. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 4:30 pm M-F.
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, Rob Jones can be reached at (571) 270-7733. 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.
ELIZABETH K. AMATO
Examiner
Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights