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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/25/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2, 4 and 5 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.
With regard to claims 2, 4 and 5, the term “about” is a relative term that renders each of the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close to “10 vol %”, “1100 C”, “1400 C” and “not more than about 1 hour” one may be and still read on these claim limitations.
For purposes of examination, from 5-15 vol. % will read on “about 10 vol. %”, up to 2 hours will read on “not more than about 1 hour” and amounts slightly above and below the temperature range of claim 4, e.g. within 5%, will read on the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lian et al. (CN 102899033), machine translation included.
With regard to claims 1-4, Lian et al. teach reacting carbonates of calcium and strontium with zinc sulfide in a 5% hydrogen and 95% nitrogen gas mixture in a furnace at 1150 C [0045]. As per the 112(b) interpretation above, this reads on “about 10 vol. %” hydrogen gas.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (ACS Materials Lett. 2022, Vol. 4, pgs. 2447-2453).
With regard to claims 1-5, Wang et al. teach forming calcium selenide by reacting a calcium carbonate and zinc selenide in a 10 vol % hydrogen gas in nitrogen atmosphere at 1200 C for 1 hour (pg. 2448, left column).
With regard to claim 6-9, Wang et al. also performed a further set of experiments forming alloyed Ca(S,Se) crystals using ZnSe and ZnS precursors with Eu2+ doping (pg. 2449, left to right column). The crystals are synthesized at 1200 C for 1 hr in the same nitrogen/hydrogen mixture (see Figure 3 description on pg. 2450).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lian et al. (CN 102899033).
Lian et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 above. They also teach that the gas mixture should be 95% nitrogen and 5% hydrogen and the can be performed for 2-10 hr [0018]; however, they do not specifically teach 10 vol. % hydrogen and not more than about 1 hour of reaction time.
Since the Examiner is considering 2 hr as “not more than about 1 hour” in the 112(b) rejection above, the Examiner notes that in one interpretation the prior art range overlaps with the range claimed, and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In a second interpretation, it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the concentration of the hydrogen reducing gas and the time of reaction through routine experimentation to be 10 vol. % hydrogen and also make the reaction time be not more than 1 hour. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the concentration of hydrogen reducing gas was increased then the reaction time needed to form the final product would decrease. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have wanted the reaction time to be as small as possible so that less time was spent in the furnace, which would lead to less costs in producing the luminescent material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARD T HIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6pm (variable one work-at-home day).
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Gerard Higgins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785