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 .
The Non-Final rejection dated 3/25/26 is withdrawn based on applicants remarks. Applicant's amendment/arguments filed on 9/25/26 as being acknowledged and entered. By this amendment claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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. Applicant’s specification and parent applications do not teach the claim limitation “where in the ratio of the first maximum intensity to the second maximum intensity is at least about 15%” and instead refer to a range of 20%-30%, optionally 25% or at least 20% (or 25%).
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuta et al. (US PGPub 2013/0264937).
Claim 1: Sakuta teaches a light emitting device comprising: a solid-state light emitter for generating excitation light with a dominant wavelength from 440 nm to 470 nm [0062]; a yellow to green photoluminescence material for generating light with a peak emission wavelength from 500 nm to 575 nm [0064]; a broadband orange to red photoluminescence material for generating light with a peak emission wavelength from 580 nm to 620 nm [0069- 0091]; and a narrowband red manganese-activated fluoride phosphor for generating light with a peak emission wavelength from 625 nm to 635 nm [0069- 0094, 0099]; wherein the device is for generating light with a spectrum comprising a first maximum intensity at a first maximum intensity wavelength in the range from about 530nm to about 600nm and a second maximum intensity at a second maximum intensity wavelength in a range from about 625nm to about 635nm, where in the ratio of the first maximum intensity to the second maximum intensity is at least about 15% (Fig. 4). It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior arts teach the identical chemical structure the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, Yang teaches the claimed combination of colored LED, photoluminescence material, and phosphor based materials, and therefore his device would produce the same intensity ratio claimed. It is also noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior arts teach the identical chemical structure the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The device taught by Sakuta is identical to that which is claimed in the present application and which applicant describes as capable of performing the functions as outlined in the claim, specifically generating light in the right peak values and ratios of intensity. Therefore, since Sakuta’s device is physically comparable, it is reasonable to predict that the device will perform as claimed.
Claim 2: Sakuta teaches [0129-0138] the first maximum intensity is from the combined emissions of the yellow to green and the broadband orange to red photoluminescence materials.
Claim 3: Sakuta teaches [0129-0138] the first maximum intensity wavelength depends on the peak emission wavelengths of the yellow to green and broadband orange to red photoluminescence materials and the relative amount of the broadband orange to red photoluminescence material to the yellow to green photoluminescence material.
Claim 4: Sakuta teaches [0129-0138] the device comprises a greater amount of broadband orange to red photoluminescence material and the first maximum intensity wavelength is at longer wavelengths closer to the peak emission wavelength of the broadband orange to red photoluminescence material.
Claim 5: Sakuta teaches [0129-0138] the device comprises a lesser amount of broadband orange to red photoluminescence material and the first maximum intensity wavelength occurs at a shorter wavelength closer to the peak emission wavelength of the yellow to green photoluminescence material. It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior arts teach the identical chemical structure the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, Yang teaches the claimed combination of colored LED, photoluminescence material, and phosphor based materials, and therefore his device would produce the same intensity and color combinations.
Claim 7: Sakuta teaches [0129-0138] the device is for generating light with a color temperature from about 2200K to 6500K and where: when the color temperature is about 3000K, the ratio of the first maximum intensity to the second maximum intensity is at least about 20%. It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior arts teach the identical chemical structure the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The device taught by Sakuta is identical to that which is claimed in the present application and which applicant describes as capable of performing the functions as outlined in the claim, specifically generating light in the right peak values and ratios of intensity. Therefore, since Sakuta’s device is physically comparable, it is reasonable to predict that the device will perform as claimed.
Claim 8: Sakuta teaches [0024-0025, 0129-0138] the device is for generating light with a color temperature from about 2200K to 6500K and where: when the color temperature is about 4000K, the ratio of the first maximum intensity to the second maximum intensity is at least about 30%. It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior arts teach the identical chemical structure the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The device taught by Sakuta is identical to that which is claimed in the present application and which applicant describes as capable of performing the functions as outlined in the claim, specifically generating light in the right peak values and ratios of intensity. Therefore, since Sakuta’s device is physically comparable, it is reasonable to predict that the device will perform as claimed.
Claim 9: Sakuta teaches [0024-0025, 0129-0138] the device is for generating light with a color temperature from about 2200K to 6500K and where: when the color temperature is about 5000K, the ratio of the first maximum intensity to the second maximum intensity is at least about 40%. It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior arts teach the identical chemical structure the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The device taught by Sakuta is identical to that which is claimed in the present application and which applicant describes as capable of performing the functions as outlined in the claim, specifically generating light in the right peak values and ratios of intensity. Therefore, since Sakuta’s device is physically comparable, it is reasonable to predict that the device will perform as claimed.
Claim 10: Sakuta teaches [0024-0025, 0129-0138] the device is for generating light with a color temperature from about 2200K to 6500K and where: when the color temperature is about 6500K, the ratio of the first maximum intensity to the second maximum intensity is at least about 50%. It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior arts teach the identical chemical structure the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990 The device taught by Sakuta is identical to that which is claimed in the present application and which applicant describes as capable of performing the functions as outlined in the claim, specifically generating light in the right peak values and ratios of intensity. Therefore, since Sakuta’s device is physically comparable, it is reasonable to predict that the device will perform as claimed.
Claim 11: Sakuta teaches [0024-0025, 0129-0138] the device is for generating light with a general CRI Ra of at least 90. It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior arts teach the identical chemical structure the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990 The device taught by Sakuta is identical to that which is claimed in the present application and which applicant describes as capable of performing the functions as outlined in the claim, specifically generating light in the right peak values and ratios of intensity. Therefore, since Sakuta’s device is physically comparable, it is reasonable to predict that the device will perform as claimed.
Claim 12: Sakuta teaches [0024-0025, 0129-0138] the device is for generating light with a CRI R9 of at least 50. It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior arts teach the identical chemical structure the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990 The device taught by Sakuta is identical to that which is claimed in the present application and which applicant describes as capable of performing the functions as outlined in the claim, specifically generating light in the right peak values and ratios of intensity. Therefore, since Sakuta’s device is physically comparable, it is reasonable to predict that the device will perform as claimed.
Claim 13: Sakuta teaches [0024-0025, 0129-0138] the device is for generating light with a CRI R8 of at least 72. It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior arts teach the identical chemical structure the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990 The device taught by Sakuta is identical to that which is claimed in the present application and which applicant describes as capable of performing the functions as outlined in the claim, specifically generating light in the right peak values and ratios of intensity. Therefore, since Sakuta’s device is physically comparable, it is reasonable to predict that the device will perform as claimed.
Claim 14: Sakuta teaches [0024-0025, 0129-0138] the device has a luminous efficacy (LE) of at least 330 lm/Wopt, an LE of at least 340 lm/Wopt, or an LE of at least 350 lm/Wopt. Since it has been held when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on ranges by showing unexpected results or the criticality of the claimed range. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claim. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 716.02-716.02(g) for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results. It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior arts teach the identical chemical structure the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990 The device taught by Sakuta is identical to that which is claimed in the present application and which applicant describes as capable of performing the functions as outlined in the claim, specifically generating light in the right peak values and ratios of intensity. Therefore, since Sakuta’s device is physically comparable, it is reasonable to predict that the device will perform as claimed.
Claim 15: Sakuta teaches [0069- 0094, 0099] the broadband orange to red photoluminescence material is for generating light with a peak emission wavelength from 610 nm to 620 nm, optionally with a peak emission wavelength of about 615 nm. since it has been held when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on ranges by showing unexpected results or the criticality of the claimed range. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claim. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 716.02-716.02(g) for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.
Claim 16: Sakuta teaches [0069- 0094, 0099] the broadband orange to red photoluminescence material comprises at least one of a calcium aluminum silicon nitride- based phosphor of general composition (Sr,Ca)AlSiN3:Eu, a nitride-based phosphor of general composition Ba2-xSrxSi5N8:Eu, or a silicate-based phosphor of general composition (Sr,Ba,Y)3(Si,Al)O5:Eu.
Claim 17: Sakuta teaches [0064] the yellow to green photoluminescence is for generating light with a peak emission wavelength selected from the group consisting of: from about 530 nm to 540 nm, about 535 nm, from 540 nm to 545 nm, and about 543 nm. Since it has been held when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on ranges by showing unexpected results or the criticality of the claimed range. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claim. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 716.02-716.02(g) for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.
Claim 18: Sakuta teaches [0064] the yellow to green photoluminescence material comprises at least one of a cerium-activated garnet phosphor of general composition (Y,Lu)3(Al,Ga)5012:Ce; of general composition Y3(Al,Ga)5012:Ce; or of general composition Lu3A15O12:Ce.
Claim 19: Sakuta teaches [0069- 0094, 0099] the narrowband red manganese-activated fluoride phosphor comprises at least one of: K2SiF6:Mn4+, K2GeF6:Mn4, K2TiF6:Mn4+, K2SnF6:Mn4+, Na2TiF6:Mn4+, Na2ZrF6:Mn4+, Cs2SiF6:Mn4+, Cs2TiF6:Mn4+, Rb2SiF6:Mn4+, or Rb2TiF6:Mn4+.
Claim 20: Sakuta teaches [0024-0025, 0129-0138] the device is for generating light with a color temperature of 2700K to 5000K, a CRI Ra of at least 90, a CRI R9 from 50 to 70, and the device has a luminous efficacy from 330 lm/Wopt to 355 lm/Wopt. Since it has been held when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on ranges by showing unexpected results or the criticality of the claimed range. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claim. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 716.02-716.02(g) for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH KATE SALERNO whose telephone number is (571)270-1266. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 6:30am-2:30pm.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 5712721705. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SARAH K SALERNO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
