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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 29 August 2025 and 26 September 2025 has been entered.
As stated in the Advisory Action dated 12 September 2025, the amendments to the claims filed on 29 August 2025 have overcome 35 USC 112(a) rejections over claims 7, 8 and 14, the 35 USC 112(b) rejections over claim 14 as to "sedimented" and the 35 USC 112(b) antecedent basis rejection over claims 7 and 8; and the substitute specification, filed on 29 August 2025 and which was entered, overcomes the objection with respect to the "sedimented". In addition, as stated in the Advisory Action dated 12 September 2025, applicants, in their response of 29 August 2025, have clarified that the taught platelet formed from the crystal reads on both a ceramic made of the phosphor crystals and a ceramic where the phosphor crystals are in a ceramic matrix. This statement overcomes the aspect of the 35 USC 112(b) rejection over claim 14 as to what is meant platelet formed from the crystal has been overcome. Applicant's arguments filed 29 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons given below and in the Advisory Action dated 12 September 2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is unclear what the mixing ratios are based upon, weight, moles or volume.
Page 11, line 5 teaches the conversion layer is configured as a platelet formed from crystals pressed in a ceramic matrix. This means the crystals or particles of the phosphor mixture are either pressed to from a ceramic matrix, i.e. a ceramic formed of phosphors crystals; or the phosphors are in a ceramic matrix. It is unclear what is the composition of the ceramic matrix for this embodiment.
The listed phosphors QL916 and Q906 are considered vague and indefinite since it is unclear as to what is the specific formula for these colorants. The Examiner could not obtain the exact formulas for these colorants. While both are Sr(Sr,Ca)Si2Al2N6:Eu phosphors, it is unclear what is the exact formulas for each of these phosphors, with respect to the amount of europium and the ratio of Sr and Ca. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 has been amended to now teach the claimed ratios are based on mass. This is nowhere disclosed in the originally filed disclosure and thus is new matter.
Claims 1-18 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 phosphor mixture of claims 1-8 and 10-12 are indefinite since the claims defined the first phosphor, the second phosphor and the mixture in terms of the optical properties of color coordinates, emission wavelength and absorption. Composition claims were held to be indefinite for being defined in terms of properties alone. Ex parte Spacht 165 USPQ 409 (PO BdPatApp 1969); Ex parte Slob 157 USPQ 172 (PO BdPatApp 1967); Ex parte Pulvari 157 USPQ 169 (PO BdPatApp 1966). Claims 9, 13, 14 and 16-18 are also indefinite for this reason since these claims implicitly define the composition in terms of its optical properties.
Claim 14 teaches the conversion layer is configured as a platelet formed from crystals pressed in a ceramic matrix. This means the crystals or particles of the phosphor mixture are either pressed to from a ceramic matrix, i.e. a ceramic formed of phosphors crystals; or the phosphors are in a ceramic matrix. In the second case, it is unclear what is the composition of the ceramic matrix. Claim 14 is indefinite for this reason.
Claim 15 is indefinite as to how the compositions of the first and second europium active strontium calcium aluminonitride silicates differ from each other so as to have the properties of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant did not address the objection as to the differences between QL916 and QL906 differ from each other. Accordingly, this objection is maintained.
Applicants did not address the rejection over claim 15 as to how the claimed first and second aluminonitride silicates differ from each other. Accordingly, this rejection is maintained.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the objection to the disclosure as to what the mixing ratios are based upon and the 35 USC 112(a) rejection over claim 13 have been considered but are not convincing. Applicant argues that in the phosphor art that mixing ratios are always understood as being in terms of mass but has not presented any evidence to support is assertion. The Examiner found thousands of patents where the mixing ratio was in terms of moles or volume. Thus applicants' argument does not overcome the objection to the specification and the 35 USC 112(a) rejection over claim 13. The fact that US 20160312118 uses mixing ratios based on mass does not overcome the rejection and objection since this single reference does not show that in the phosphor art that mixing ratios are always understood as being in terms of mass nor does it negate the fact that the thousands of patents teach mixing ratios in terms of moles or volume. The argument that the working examples provide support for claim 13, which is the only claim rejected for lack of support, is not convincing since the basis for ratio of 70:30 of the working example is not disclosed. Thus the wording examples does not support the claimed mass ratio. The objection and 35 USC 112(a) rejection are maintained.
The arguments with respect to the objection to the disclosure and the rejection of claim 14 as to the composition of the ceramic matrix for the disclosed embodiment of phosphor crystals in a ceramic matrix have been considered but are not convincing. Applicant argues that every possible ceramic material envisaged can be used as the matrix. There is no indication in the specification that applicants contemplated the phosphor crystals in any ceramic matrix, as argued; especially in view of the fact applicants only teaches silicone as an organic matrix. In the wavelength conversion art, it is well known that any transparent organic material can be used as a matrix. The fact applicant only teaches silicone as a matrix indicates that applicants do not consider any all matrix material can be used in the claimed wavelength conversion layer. This objection and rejection are maintained.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejection based on how the first phosphor, the second phosphor and the mixture are defined have been considered but are not convincing. The arguments with respect to the scope of the claims is given no weight since there is no enablement rejection. The argument that the claimed properties are definite and reproducible does not overcome the rejection; since while the claimed properties are clearly defined, they cannot be reproduced since the claims do not teach what is the composition of the phosphors in the mixture that gives the claimed color properties. The argument with respect to the "functional language" is given no weight since applicants are not claiming a function. They are claiming the color properties of a mixture of phosphors. Applicants argue there is no better way to define the constituents of the invention since the invention is the properties of the constituents, not the composition. This argument is not convincing since the claimed property does not provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim does not set forth well-defined boundaries of the invention any only states a result obtained; and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim what compositions are encompassed by the claim. In view of these issues, this 35 USC 112(b) rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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
11/20/25