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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 November 2025 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendment
The submission has overcome the objection to the disclosure. The amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections and the 35 USC 103 rejections.
The terminal disclaimer filed on 5 August 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. patent 11,873,431 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. In view of the terminal disclaimer, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 30-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 14 January 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 25 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities: “Nd2O2” should be “Nd2O3” in claim 25.
In claim 37, the phrase “and combinations thereof” in 8 line of the claim is unnecessary and the listing in claim 8 should be “holmium, europium, ytterbium, neodymium and magnesium”. This is because the teaching of “two or more metals or rare earth elements” in lines 5-6 requires a combination of the listed metals or rare earth elements of Ho, Eu, Yb, Nd and Mg. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25, amended 7 July 2025, teaches the nanoparticles can be ScAlO3 nanoparticles. Nanoparticles with this composition are nowhere taught in the originally filed disclosure. Amended claim 25 includes new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 21, 25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2011/0175029.
This reference teaches persistent luminescent aluminate particles. Paragraphs [0041] and [0058]-[0068] teach these particles can be nanoscale and thus the reference teaches persistent luminescent aluminate nanoparticles. The taught aluminate has the formula AxAlyO4:Euj,REk,Bm, Znn,Coo,Scp, wherein A is at least one or Se, Ca and Ba, RE is at least one of Nd and Dy, about 0.75<x<1.3, y is about 1.6 to 2, about 0.0005<j< about 0.1, about 0.0005<k< about 0.1, 0<m< about 0.3, 0<n< about 0.1, 0<o< about 0.01 and 0<p< about 0.05. Thus the reference suggests aluminates of the formulas SrAl2O4 or CaAl2O4 each doped with Eu, RE, Zn, Co, and Sc in an total amount of greater than about 0.001 to less about 0.36, which corresponds to about 0.1-36 % rare earth and metal dopants, when x=1, y=2 and m=0. This dopant range overlaps that of claim 21. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05.
Paragraphs [0047]-[0049] teach the nanoparticles can be coated with a polymer ligand or coating to increase the compatibility of the nanoparticles in a polymeric matrix when the nanoparticles are dispersed in the matrix. The reference teaches that the taught persistent luminescent aluminate nanoparticles can be incorporated into a fabric (para 72). When this teaching is combined with the teachings in section III that the particles can be embedded into a polymer matrix material; this suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that the taught fabric, which is a textile article, can comprise polymer fibers or yarns, wherein the polymer fibers or yarn have the taught persistent luminescent aluminate nanoparticles embedded and/or incorporated therein. This suggests the textile article of claims 21, 25 and 29.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2011/0175029 in view of CN 105780169.
As discussed above, U.S. patent application publication 2011/0175029 suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art a fabric comprise polymer fibers or yarns, wherein the polymer fibers or yarn have the taught persistent luminescent aluminate nanoparticles embedded and/or incorporated therein and the taught persistent luminescent aluminate nanoparticles suggests the nanoparticles of claim 21. While U.S. patent application publication 2011/0175029 does not teach how the fibers or yarn is produced, it does teach that the nanoparticles can be incorporated into the polymer matrix by normal plastic processing techniques which suggests that nanoparticles can be incorporated into the polymer fibers or yarns by normal plastic fiber processing techniques. Paragraph [0046] teaches one of the polymer matrix into which the nanoparticles can be incorporated is polyethylene terephthalate (PET). CN 105780169 teaches a method for forming long afterglow, or persistent, fibers used to make textiles. The taught process is to mix nanoparticles of a long afterglow, or persistent phosphor into a PET master batch and forming fibers from this mixture by melt spinning. It is noted that melt spinning is a normal plastic fiber processing technique. In view of the teachings in CN 105780169, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the suggested fibers for use in the fabric of U.S. patent application publication 2011/0175029, when the fabric is composed of PET, by melt spinning. Thus the article of claim 28 is suggested by the references.
Claims 21, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2960244.
This reference teaches polysaccharide fibers, which can be in the form of a textile, having nanoparticles coated with a polysiloxane grafted onto the surface of the fibers. The taught polysiloxane coating is a polymeric coating. The reference teaches that the nanoparticles can be luminescent nanoparticles, such as the Gd2O3:Eu and Y2O3O:Eu luminescent nanoparticles taught in the supplied Buzzi et al article. This article teaches the amount of europium in the Gd2O3:Eu and Y2O3O:Eu luminescent nanoparticles is 5%, which falls within the range of claim 21. Thus FR 2960244 suggests the textile article of claims 21, 25 and 26 when the taught nanoparticles are the taught Gd2O3:Eu and Y2O3O:Eu luminescent nanoparticles, which contain 5% europium.
Claims 21 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003/096340.
This reference teaches an inkjet ink for printing onto cloth, which is a textile article. The ink, which is a solution, comprises luminescent nanoparticles and a thermosetting resin in an amount so as to fix, or bind, the luminescent nanoparticles to the fibers of the cloth. This means the thermosetting resin, once set, forms a coating on the luminescent nanoparticles. The luminescent nanoparticles can be Y2O3O:Eu, which as shown by the art of record, contains 5% Eu, or Sr4Al14O25:Eu, which is an aluminate which contains 5-40% europium. This amount of europium overlaps the range of claim 21. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. The thermosetting resin can be an acrylic resin (which is a polyacrylate), an unsaturated polyester, an epoxy resin or a vinyl acetate resin (which is a polyvinyl acetate). The cloth printed with the taught ink suggests the claimed textile article.
Claims 21 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2008/0295983.
This reference teaches security paper, which is a textile article, having core/shell particles which can be applied to at least part of the paper using printing or spraying processes (para 83, 114-117) from an aqueous solution. This means that the surface of the fibers of the paper comprise the core/shell particles. The core/shell particles have a particle size of 50-800 nm and the core has a size of 30-400 nm, which means the taught cores and core/shell particles are nanoparticle. The shell coats the core and can be a polymer (para 57-66), which means the reference teaches nanoparticle cores having a polymeric coating. The taught polymers of the coating can be polyethylene, polyacrylates, polypropylene, polyamides (which are nylons), polyesters, polyurethanes, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride and combinations thereof. Paragraphs [0051]-[0053] teaches the core nanoparticles can be luminescent nanoparticles, such as be Y2O3O:Eu, which as shown by the art of record, contains 5% Eu, or Sr4Al14O25:Eu, which is an aluminate which contains 5-40% europium. This amount of europium overlaps the range of claim 21. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. The taught security paper containing luminescent core/polymeric shells suggest the claimed textile articles.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 20100136302.
This reference teaches an article of manufacture comprising a structure having a persistent phosphor coated thereon and/or incorporated therein. The taught article can have the structure of figure 2 where the substrate has a persistent phosphor containing layer coated thereon. The persistent phosphor containing layer is composed of the phosphors dispersed in a matrix materials, such as a polymer (para 43-44) This structure reads upon the claimed composite. The persistent phosphor used in the substrate has a persistent phosphor containing layer coated thereon can be CaAl2O4:0.005Eu,0.03Nd (para 45,54), which contains a total amount of the dopants Eu and Nd of 3.5%. This total amount of these two dopants falls within the range of claim 37. Paragraph [0066] teaches the taught persistent phosphor can be nanoscale, which means the reference suggests CaAl2O4:0.005Eu,0.03Nd luminescent nanoparticles. Paragraphs [0071]-[0074] teach the nanoparticles can be coated with a polymer ligand or coating to increase the compatibility of the nanoparticles in a polymeric matrix when the nanoparticles are dispersed in the matrix. In view of this teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to coat the suggested CaAl2O4:0.005Eu,0.03Nd luminescent nanoparticles in the taught substrate has a persistent CaAl2O4:0.005Eu,0.03Nd phosphor containing layer coated thereon. This suggested article makes obvious the article of claim 37.
Conclusion
U.S. patent application is cited as of interest as showing Sr2Al14O25:Eu phosphor contain 5-40% europium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
1/23/26