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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
Independent claim 1 recites a phosphor having a specific formula where variables a and b are such that the expression shown therein is satisfied. However, claim 1 does not actually recite that a > 0 or b > 0. It simply states that they are “values within a range that satisfies” the equation. If both a and b are equal to zero, the formula simplifies to pure YAG (Y3Al5O12) and the equation becomes 12.0113 ≤ S ≤ 12.0153. For this reason, any prior art reference which teaches pure YAG’s lattice constant within the above range qualifies as prior art. The same can be said if only one of a or b is equal to zero.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to. The limitation “is expressed by a general formula” should be amended to “is expressed by the general formula” for better clarity. Additionally, the limitation “a lattice size” should be amended to “the lattice size” for better clarity.
Claim 4 is objected to. The limitation “a mean volume diameter” should be amended to “the mean volume diameter” for better clarity.
Claim 5 is objected to. The limitation “phosphor powder, the phosphor powder being powder of” should simply be removed from claim 5, as it is wordy and does not clarify the claim. Additionally, “thermal conduction powder” should be amended to “a thermal conduction powder” for better clarity. As such, the beginning of claim 5 should be amended to “A fluorescent member comprising the phosphor according to claim 1 and a thermal conduction powder”
Claim 6 is objected to. The limitation “a volume ratio” should be amended to “the volume ratio” for better clarity.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claim 1 recites that S denotes a lattice size. However, claim 1 does not include any units for this size, rendering the claim indefinite. For purposes of further examination, the lattice size S will be interpreted as having the units Å. Correction is required.
Claim 10 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 10 recites that “an emission color resulting from mixing the blue light and the yellow light has a chromaticity with a range defined by chromaticity coordinates”. However, this limitation renders claim 10 indefinite as it is unclear how the six discrete pairs of chromaticity coordinates define a range. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (J. Luminescence 2007, 126, 371-377).
Jang et al. teaches a cerium doped YAG (Yttrium Aluminum Garnet) which has the formula Y2.94Al5O12:Ce3+0.06. Jang et al. teaches that the lattice parameter of this garnet is 12.012 Å (page 374, bottom right). Applying this teaching to the formula of claim 1 affords the expression:
12.0113 ≤ 12.012 + 0.036(0.06) – 0.003(0) ≤ 12.0153, which simplifies to:
12.0113 ≤ 12.0142 ≤ 12.0153, which satisfies claim 1.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2021, 104, 524-534). Huang et al. was first published on 8/30/20 and issue 104 of this journal was in January of 2021 which is earlier than Applicants unperfected foreign priority date of 2/3/21.
Huang et al. teaches a phosphor having a garnet structure of the formula Ba2YAl3Si2O12:Ce3+. This phosphor satisfies formula 1 of claim 1 with a equal to 2. In one embodiment the amount of cerium is 0.06 moles and b is equal to 0.06. Figure S6B, which is shown below, teaches the lattice parameters for Ba2YAl3Si2O12:Ce3+0.06 at different temperatures.
PNG
media_image1.png
3457
4090
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. The sample which was treated at 475 °C has a lattice parameter of 12.018 Å. Applying this information to Ba2YAl3Si2O12:Ce3+0.06 to the formula in claim 1 affords the expression:
12.0113 ≤ 12.018 + 0.036(0.06) – 0.003(2) ≤ 12.0153, which simplifies to:
12.0113 ≤ 12.018 + 0.036(0.06) – 0.006 ≤ 12.0153, which simplifies to:
12.0113 ≤ 12.0142 ≤ 12.0153, which satisfies claim 1.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2021, 104, 524-534) in view of Nei et al. (KR-20200113868) as applied to claim 1 above. Copies of the original and a machine translation of Nei et al. are included with this Office action.
Huang et al. teaches a phosphor which anticipates claim 1 as described above. Huang et al. further teaches preparing a white-light-emitting LED wherein 8 wt% of the phosphor powder BYAS:0.06Ce3+ is mixed into a PiG color converter (Phosphor-in-Glass) having a thickness of 1 mm. This teaching satisfies all of the limitations of claim 9 with the exception that the phosphor is present in a glass matrix and not in a transparent resin matrix as required by claim 9. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have prepared a W-LED as taught by Huang et al. where the phosphor is present in PiR (Phosphor-in-Resin) given the teachings of Nei et al. Huang et al. and Nei et al. are combinable teachings as they are both in the same field or organic electroluminescent devices. Nei et al. teaches color conversion layers which are employed with light-emitting devices. Nei et al. further teaches that the phosphors employed in the color conversion layers are mixed in a matrix material which may be glass or silicone (page 8 of the machine translation). This teaching shows that transparent resins such as silicone are art-recognized equivalents to glass for housing color-converting phosphors. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to prepare a phosphor in resin type color conversion layer using the phosphors taught by Huang et al. as it represents nothing more than a substitution of a known element. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art understands that phosphors may be more readily incorporated into a silicone resin as the incorporation can be done at lower temperatures in a more streamlined process.
Comment on Patentability
While all claims stand rejected, claims 2-8 and 10 are not subject to any prior art rejections. While the prior art teaches phosphors which satisfy Applicants formula as recited in claim 1, no prior art reference teaches or fairly suggests the limitations of claims 2-8 and 10.
Relevant Art Cited
Additional prior art documents which are relevant to Applicants invention can be found on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S LOEWE whose telephone number is (571)270-3298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1302. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Robert S Loewe/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights