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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2010/0171075).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a scintillator having the general formula MxMgAl2-xO4 where x ranges from 0.001-0.2 and may be selected from Ce, La, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Tb, Lu and Tl. (par. [0004]). Chen et al. further discloses that the material has a crystal grain diameter wherein 70% or more of the grains (i.e. the average size being at least) have a diameter of 1-100 microns. (par. [0023]). The M metal would therefore be a luminescent center ion and the scintillator includes aluminum as claimed.
Regarding claims 2-3, the general formula MxMgAl2-xO4 where x ranges from 0.001-0.2 meets the formulas of claims 2-3.
Regarding claim 5, M maybe selected from Ce, La, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Tb, Lu and Tl. (par. [0004]).
Regarding claims 6-7, the claims are rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 9, polycrystalline magnesium aluminate is a spinel-type crystal structure. (par. [0014]).
Regarding claims 11-15, a sintered body with the material is formed which has light emitting properties (par. [0021]-[0024]) which meets the limitations of a film, light emitting element and display.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2019/0062631).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-5, Kobayashi et al. discloses a β-SiAlON phosphor having a the general formula Si6-zAlzO2N8-z:Euz where z lies in the range of more than 0 and less than or equal to 4.2 (par. [0013]) and therefore includes luminescent center ion in the form of Eu and aluminum. The phosphor includes phosphors which may include small aggregated crystallites or non-aggregated large crystallites which have dimensions which approximate the D50 particle size diameter of the phosphor. (par. [0014] and [0017]). Kobayashi et al. teaches that the D50 particle size is in the range of 12.9, 15.7, 20.6, 26.0 and 19.5 microns. (Examples 1-5, Tables 1-3) which would therefore have crystallites having substantially the same ranges when the crystallites are non-aggregated, lying within the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Si6-zAlzO2N8-z:Euz meets the limitations of the formula of claim 2, wherein Eu = M and the value of z lies in the range of more than 0 and less than or equal to 4.2, overlapping with the presently claimed range. Mg is not included (a = 0), the atomic ratio of Si is 3.8-6, overlapping with the value of “b” as claimed, Al and O are included in amount of more than 0 and less than or equal to 4.2, overlapping with the claimed values of “y” and “z” as presently claimed and the atomic ratio of N is 3.8-8, overlapping with “w” as claimed.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 8, the atomic ratios for each of the elements in the SiAlON phosphor disclosed in Kobayashi et al. overlaps with the values of x, a, b, y, z, w, u and v as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi et al. teaches forming a film of the phosphor and silicone resin. (par. [0083]).
Regarding claims 12-14, Kobayashi et al. teaches forming a light emitting device with the phosphor. (Abstract).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2019/0062631) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2023/0280583).
Kobayashi et al. is relied upon as described in the prior art rejection above.
Kobayashi et al. does not disclose a sintered body or phosphor wheel using the phosphor material disclosed therein.
Regarding claims 16-17, Kim et al. teaches phosphor wheel comprising a substrate and phosphor layer disposed on the substrate. (Abstract). Kim et al. teaches that the phosphor material may include β-SiAlON phosphor and that the wheel is used in a projector. (par. [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the phosphor material disclosed in Kim et al. to form a phosphor wheel.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the phosphor material disclosed in Kobayashi et al. in a phosphor wheel to make a device useful for a projector, thereby increasing the likelihood of commercial success of the phosphor disclosed in Kim et al. by making a device which has known utility.
Regarding claim 15, Kim et al. teaches that the phosphor wheel may be a sintered material. (par. [0050]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2019/0062631) in view of Tsutsui (JP 6685635).
Kobayashi et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Kobayashi et al. does not disclose a structure including a core formed of the crystal phase and a shell part containing at least one of boron or silicon on the surface of the core part.
Tsutsui teaches a phosphorescent aluminate-based material including Eu as the activator for use in a light emitting composition wherein after formation of the aluminate material into particle form, the particles are mixed with Dy2O3 and B2O3, which would form a shell part on the surface of the “core” phosphorescent particles. (Abstract). Tsutsui teaches that the inclusion of B2O- is a known fluxing agent for including onto the surface of the materials during the sintering process which improves the crystal grain size and promotes crystal growth. (pages 1, 17, Example 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a surface shell layer including B2O3 for the phosphor materials taught in Kobayashi et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a B2O3 shell layer in order to improve the sintering conditions of the luminescent phosphors of Kobayashi et al., given that boric acid is a known flux serving to improve the crystal grain grown for aluminate-based phosphors, as taught in Tsutui. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 02/23/2025