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 .
This action is in response to the application filed 05/10/2023 and the IDS filed 05/10/2023.
Claims 1-10 are pending and being examined.
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 1-10 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.
Considering claims 1-2, 4, 6-7 and 9-10, the phrases “preferably” and "for example" render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of examination, the limitations following the phrases “preferably” and "for example" will be considered to be optional limitations.
Claims 5 and 8 recite “the above chemical composition of the green fluorescent ceramic material”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is unclear as to which composition “the above chemical composition” refers to.
Claim 6 recites “the degreasing is performed”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the degreasing”.
Considering claim 9, it appears that claim 9 is directed to a method of use; however, the claim does not have any active/positive process/method steps.
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 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 103952153 A) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110922966 A).
Considering claim 1, Liu teaches a green fluorescent ceramic powder suitable for LEDs (Liu, abstract). Liu teaches the composition has a general formula Y3-x-y-mLuySbmAl5O12:Ce3+x, wherein x is 0.01-0.2 and y is 0.5-4.5 and m is 0-.0006; it should be noted that when m=0, the composition of Liu relative to the values of x and y overlap the claimed general formula of the composition (Liu, abstract).
Liu does not explicitly teach the composition comprises graphene. However, Zhang teaches chemical/structural modification of a fluorescent powder suitable for LEDs with the addition of graphene for a more thermally and chemically stable fluorescent material and improved luminous efficiency (Zhang, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include graphene in the composition of Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain a more thermally and chemically stable fluorescent material and improved luminous efficiency with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claims 2-3, Liu teaches the composition has a general formula Y3-x-y-mLuySbmAl5O12:Ce3+x, wherein x is 0.01-0.2 and y is 0.5-4.5 and m is 0-.0006; it should be noted that when m=0, the composition of Liu relative to the values of x and y overlap the claimed general formula of the composition (Liu, abstract). Zhang teaches chemical/structural modification of a fluorescent powder suitable for LEDs with the addition of graphene for a more thermally and chemically stable fluorescent material and improved luminous efficiency (Zhang, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an amount of graphene (i.e., 0.01/0.03/0.05 wt.%) that would result in desired amount of modification. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve desired stability and luminous efficiency with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 4, Liu teaches the green fluorescent ceramic material is a transparent ceramic material (i.e., light-emitting) (Liu, abstract).
The claims are directed to a composition. Liu/Zhang obviate the claimed composition. Thus it would be expected that the composition of Liu/Zhang would also have the claimed visible light transmittance and thermal conductivity.
Considering claim 9, Liu teaches the green fluorescent ceramic material is used as an LED encapsulating material (Liu, 1st page of English translation).
Considering claim 10, Liu teaches an LED device (Liu, 1st page of English translation).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 103952153 A) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110922966 A) and Zhang (Le) et al. (CN 108610038 A).
Considering claims 5-6, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for embedding the ceramic green body with a powder, and performing vacuum sintering to obtain the green fluorescent ceramic material.
Liu teaches weighing out starting materials according to the stoichiometric ratio of the general formula, mixing with a flux, ball milling the mixture, and sintering (Liu, 2nd page of English translation).
Liu does not explicitly teach embedding the ceramic green body with a powder and performing vacuum sintering to obtain the green fluorescent ceramic material.
However, Zhang (Le) teaches a method for preparing a YAG (yttrium aluminum garnet) transparent ceramic comprising embedding the YAG body with a powder during vacuum sintering so that oxygen vacancy in the YAG ceramic can be effectively inhibited in the sintering stage, and the transmittance of the YAG transparent ceramic is prevented from reducing; moreover, the annealing step is avoided for a more energy efficient and environmentally friendly process (Zhang (Le), abstract). Zhang (Le) teaches adding a sintering aid such as tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) to the YAG powder, then adding absolute ethanol and mill balls, performing ball milling and mixing for 12-24 hours to obtain a slurry, drying the slurry and screening by a 100-200 mesh screen; shaping; forming a blank by dry pressing, followed by cold isostatic pressing; sintering (i.e., burning for 5-8 hours to remove residual organic matter), then embedding, followed by vacuum sintering for 8-20 hours (Zhang (Le), pages 1-2 of English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to embed the ceramic green body with a powder and perform vacuum sintering according to the claimed process to obtain the green fluorescent ceramic material. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to suppress the generation of oxygen vacancies during the vacuum sintering stage and avoid an annealing step with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 103952153 A) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110922966 A), Zhang (Le) et al. (CN 108610038 A), and Porob et al. (US 2018/0040782 A1).
Considering claim 7, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 5 limitations except for the powder for embedding is one of or a mixture of two of Al2O3 and Y2O3.
Zhang (Le) teaches embedding with a powder such as zirconium oxide (Zhang (Le), abstract), he does not explicitly teach embedding with Al2O3 and/or Y2O3.
However, Porob teaches a composite material comprising a phosphor and a thermally conductive material such as graphene (Porob, abstract). Porob teaches embedding scattering particles such as Al2O3 and ZrO2 in the encapsulant material to effectively scatter the coherent light emitted from the LED chip, the phosphor, the additional luminescent material, or combinations thereof, with a negligible amount of absorption (Porob, [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Al2O3 as the powder for embedding. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because Al2O3 is known to be a suitable alternative to zirconium oxide as a scattering particle in an LED application comprising phosphor.
Considering claim 8, Liu teaches weighing out starting materials according to the stoichiometric ratio of the general formula, mixing with a flux, ball milling the mixture, and sintering; Liu also teaches vacuum drying by teaching drying in a reducing atmosphere of nitrogen (Liu, 2nd page of English translation).
Liu does not explicitly teach embedding the ceramic green body with a powder and performing vacuum sintering to obtain the green fluorescent ceramic material.
However, Zhang (Le) teaches a method for preparing a YAG (yttrium aluminum garnet) transparent ceramic comprising embedding the YAG body with a powder during vacuum sintering so that oxygen vacancy in the YAG ceramic can be effectively inhibited in the sintering stage, and the transmittance of the YAG transparent ceramic is prevented from reducing; moreover, the annealing step is avoided for a more energy efficient and environmentally friendly process (Zhang (Le), abstract). Zhang (Le) teaches adding a sintering aid such as tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) to the YAG powder, then adding absolute ethanol and mill balls, performing ball milling and mixing to obtain a slurry, drying the slurry and screening by a 100-200 mesh screen; shaping; forming a blank by dry pressing, followed by cold isostatic pressing; sintering (i.e., burning for 5-8 hours to remove residual organic matter), then embedding, followed by vacuum sintering (Zhang (Le), pages 1-2 of English translation).
Zhang (Le) teaches embedding with a powder such as zirconium oxide (Zhang (Le), abstract), he does not explicitly teach embedding with Al2O3 and/or Y2O3.
However, Porob teaches a composite material comprising a phosphor and a thermally conductive material such as graphene (Porob, abstract). Porob teaches embedding scattering particles such as Al2O3 and ZrO2 in the encapsulant material to effectively scatter the coherent light emitted from the LED chip, the phosphor, the additional luminescent material, or combinations thereof, with a negligible amount of absorption (Porob, [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Al2O3 as the powder for embedding. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because Al2O3 is known to be a suitable alternative to zirconium oxide as a scattering particle in an LED application comprising phosphor.
Porob teaches the scattering particles need to have a particular average size to effectively scatter light (Porob, [0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to subject the Al2O3 to calcination and crushing treatment before using it as an embedding powder. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain particles of desired size with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to take Al2O3 that has been subjected to calcination and crushing treatment at least once as an embedding powder, embedding an upper surface and a lower surface of the ceramic green body, and then performing vacuum sintering according to the claimed process to obtain the green fluorescent ceramic material. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to suppress the generation of oxygen vacancies during the vacuum sintering stage and avoid an annealing step with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7588. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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.
/ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights