DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-14 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/02/2023 and 05/31/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikesue et al (US 9952491 B2) in view of Mueller-Mach et al (US 7902564 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Ikesue et al teaches a phosphor comprised of a sintered body of ceramic material, wherein the sintered body contains Ce:Y3Al5O12 as a main phase and Ce:YAlO3 as a secondary phase. Said Ce:YAlO3 is a ceramic material having a refraction index different from that of the main phase, and the main phase surrounds the periphery of the secondary phase. Thus, in the Ikesue et al teachings, the Ce:Y3Al5O12 rare earth aluminate phase is arranged around the Ce:YAlO3 fluorescent material crystal phase, meeting these structural limitations of the instant claim. Ikesue et al teaches that the sub-phase preferably functions as a scattering source because the refractive indexes are different from those of the main phase, and that the Ce:Y3Al5O12 of the phosphor is 91.8% by volume and Ce: YAlO3 is 5.7% by volume.
Claim 1 differs from Ikesue et al because Ikesue et al does not teach that the crystalline fluorescent component Ce:YAlO3 is comprised of agglomerated particles. However, in sintered materials such as those taught by Ikesue et al, primary particles are first generated in the sintering step, and then secondary particles are generated by the aggregation of the primary particles. This would lead to agglomerated particles resulting from the sintering taught by Ikesue et al. That agglomerated fluorescent compound particles would be produced is further shown by obvious modification in view of Mueller-Mach et al. Mueller-Mach et al teaches a sintered luminescent ceramic, and teaches that during sintering, the partially connected particles form a rigid agglomerate that further decreases its porosity by further neck growth (see column 5, lines 40-45). This would indicate to one of ordinary skill that the Ikesue et al sintered fluorescent phosphor would also have phases made up of agglomerated particles. As such, each limitation of claim 1 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 2, the size of the cross-sectional view of the claim is not specified. There would therefore exist some cross-sectional view of the Ikesue et al sintered body wherein two or more of the agglomerated fluorescent phase portions would be visible. As discussed above, the aluminate phase of Ikesue et al surrounds and thus is present between the agglomerated phase particles. In said cross-sectional view showing the two agglomerated portions, there would thus be aluminate phase between said portions.
Regarding claim 3, the claim contains only further limitations to the manner by which the rare earth aluminate phase is formed. However, the path by which the formation of the phase occurred to does not hold patentable weight in distinguishing the claimed sintered body from a prior art sintered body having the same phase features, but potentially being formed by a differing method. Because what is claimed is the sintered body, and not the method of forming said body, or a precursor material therefor, the manner in which the rare earth aluminate is formed is immaterial in further limiting the claimed sintered body. As such, the body taught by Ikesue et al in view of Mueller-Mach et al, which as discussed above is equivalent to that of instant claim 1, also renders patentably indistinct the sintered body of instant claim 3 because it meets all of the patentably weighted limitations.
Regarding claim 5, the Ikesue et al sintered body comprises an aluminate phase comprising yttrium.
Regarding claim 8, the Ikesue et al sintered body comprises two rare earth aluminate phases, with one present in an amount of 5.7% by volume.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al (US 2020/0324342 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kondo et al teaches a method for producing a rare earth aluminate sintered body. The method comprises preparing a raw material mixture of component oxides and thereafter dry mixing said raw material mixture with a fluorescent material having a composition of rare earth aluminate (YAG fluorescent material). Kondo et al teaches that wet or dry mixing can be used (see paragraph 0034), and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at a process wherein wet mixing was used in preparation of the raw material mixture through routine optimization and experimentation with the Kondo et al teachings. The nature of mixing the raw material mixture is not fully specified, and thus this explicit teaching that wet mixing is in the purvey of the inventive teaching would lead one to use it when preparing said raw material mixture. Further, Kondo et al teaches an embodiment wherein a YAG fluorescent material mixture is prepared by wet mixing, and thereafter dry mixed with a second YAG fluorescent material mixture that is also prepared by wet mixing. This embodiment would also constitute a method wherein a mixture that can be considered a raw material mixture is produced by wet mixing and calcining (drying necessarily included), and thereafter dry mixed with a YAG fluorescent material (also produced by wet mixing, but not pertinent to the instant claims as written).
Kondo et al teaches that the inventive mixture is molded and calcined to form a body (see paragraphs 0037 and 0040). Each limitation of instant claim 11 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 12, Kondo et al teaches that the raw material mixture comprises oxides of Y, La, Lu, Gd, and/or Tb (see paragraph 0028), and further comprises an oxide containing Ce and an oxide containing Al (see paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 13, Kondo et al teaches an embodiment wherein at least one of the first raw material YAG fluorescent material and the second raw material YAG fluorescent material has a composition of rare earth aluminate wherein the rare earth element Ln can be Gd, Lu, and or Tb (see paragraphs 0047-0049). As discussed above, Kondo et al teaches that the fluorescent material is produced from an oxide mixture that is coprecipitated and calcined. Thus, in the aforementioned embodiments wherein a rare earth aluminate comprising Gd, Lu, or Tb is chosen from the Kondo et al embodiments, the method would involve producing the fluorescent material from a mixture comprising a Gd/Lu/Tb oxide and an aluminum-containing oxide particulate. The further limitations of claim 13 are thus met by the teachings of Kondo et al.
Regarding claim 14, Kondo et al teaches calcining at 1400-1790 °C (see paragraph 0041).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6-7 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. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a sintered body meeting each limitation of instant claim 1, and wherein the crystal agglomerated particles have the length features of instant claim 4. The prior art also does not teach or suggest a sintered body according to instant claim 1 wherein the rare earth aluminate crystal phase comprises at least one of Gd, Tb, and Lu.
Conclusion
11. No claim is allowed.
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW20 February 2026