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 amendments filed 03/30/2026.
Claims 1-8, 10-18 are pending and being examined. Claim 9 is canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10 are amended and claims 11-18 are newly added with no new subject matter being introduced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 12-18 are 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 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, 10-11 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 claims 1-3 and 11, 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.
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).
Considering claim 10, Liu teaches an LED device (Liu, 1st page of English translation). It should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the instant case, the product made by the method of claim 5 is the green fluorescent ceramic material of claim 1 which is taught and/or made obvious by Liu/Zhang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding Zhang introduces graphene to improve thermal stability and chemical stability in contrast to the claimed invention the graphene is introduced to rapidly dissipate heat have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Zhang clearly teaches several improvements/advantages through the introduction of graphene one of which is to solve the problem of slow heat dissipation in addition to improving thermal stability and chemical stability (Zhang, middle to end of page 2 of English translation).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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