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 .
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-10, 12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendl et al (EP3878924A1).
Wendl discloses a synthesis method which can be used to synthesize nitridophosphate phosphors (or referred to simply as nitridophosphate) and including a dopant for use in a wavelength conversion layer of a light emitting device of general formula: MaPbAqNrOyXz:D, where D is a dopant, M is a metal or combinations of metals (for example, a rare earth or alkali metal) and X is a halide, A = Al and/or Si, and a > 0, b > 0, r > 0, q ≥ 0, y ≥ 0 and z ≥ 0. Dopant D may include, for example, Eu2+. M is further disclosed as potentially being any of Ca, Ba, or Sr (or any combination of). Examples of novel nitrodophosphate phosphors are provided including those of formula MLiPN:Eu [0008]-[0009]. Therefore, M can be any obvious combination of any selected from Li (alkali metal), Ca, Ba, or Sr. In examples, Wendl teaches the synthesis of Ca2PN3:Eu(3%), using a nitride precursor of Ca and a chloride precursor of Eu. Additionally, since q, y, and z can all be 0 (thus no inclusion of A, O or X), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to synthesize a nitridophosphate using a combination of Ca, Li, and Eu at a specific amount whereby a nitridophosphate of Ca2-0.03Li6P4N10:Eu0.03 (i.e., y = 2 and x = 0.03 which fall within the claimed values) for use in a wavelength conversion medium. Therefore, Wendl satisfies the claimed “A luminescent material comprising a nitridophosphate material having a general formula AEy-xLi10-2yP4N10:Eux, wherein (i) AE includes one or more of Ca, Sr, or Ba, and (ii) y >x > 0.”.
Regarding claim 2, Wendl teaches the luminescent material of claim 1. Furthermore, as described in the rejection of claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at a composition whereby y = 2 and x = 0.03. Therefore, Wendl satisfies the claimed “The luminescent material of claim 1 wherein y = 2 and 0.1 > x > 0”.
Regarding claim 3, Wendl teaches the luminescent material of claim 2. Furthermore, AE is Ca. Therefore, Wendl teaches the claimed “The luminescent material of claim 2 wherein AE includes only Ca”.
Regarding claim 4, Wendl teaches the luminescent material of claim 2 but does not specifically include Ba or Sr with Ca in a composition. However, Wendl does mention that M (akin to EA) could be any combination of Ca, Sr or Ba, and thus obvious to include any of those elements to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include Sr or Ba with Ca as precursor when synthesizing the luminescent material. Thus, Wendl satisfies the claimed “The luminescent material of claim 2 wherein AE includes a majority amount of Ca and lesser amounts of Sr or Ba”.
Regarding claim 5, Wendl teaches the luminescent material of claim 2. Furthermore, peak emission wavelength would be an inherent property of the material and Wendl discloses in paragraph [0029] that an Eu2+-doped phosphor emits in the red spectral range (>610nm). Therefore, the product would also have a peak emission wavelength greater than 600nm. Thus, Wendl satisfies the claimed “The luminescent material of claim 2, the luminescent material exhibiting a peak emission wavelength greater than 600 nm”.
Regarding claim 9, Wendl teaches a nitridophosphate luminescent material having a general formula AEy-xLi10-2yP4N10:Eux, wherein (i) AE includes one or more of Ca, Sr, or Ba, and (ii) y >x > 0, see rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Wendl in Doc #1 describes that these nitridophosphates are used in a wavelength converting structure layer (see Fig. 19 member 1908 and paragraphs [0069-71]). Therefore, Wendl teaches the claimed “A wavelength-converting structure comprising a nitridophosphate luminescent material having a general formula AEy-xLi10-2yP4N10:Eux, wherein (i) AE includes one or more of Ca, Sr, or Ba, and (ii) y >x > 0.”.
Regarding claim 10, Wendl teaches the wavelength-converting structure of claim 9. Furthermore, in paragraph [0071], Wendl discloses that the nitridophosphates are dispersed “for example in a transparent material” such as a ceramic matrix or any other suitable material or structure. In paragraph [0070], Wendl also discloses that the wavelength converting structure can be manufactured in ceramic form. These components absorb light emitted from a light source and emit a different wavelength of light for use as a light-emitting device. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to disperse or bind the nitridophosphates in a ceramic matrix for use in a light-emitting device. Therefore, Wendl teaches the claimed “A method for making the wavelength-converting structure of claim 9, the method comprising binding together particles of the nitridophosphate luminescent material in a polymer or ceramic binder material.”.
Regarding claim 12, Wendl teaches a method for making the wavelength converting structure of claim 9 (see rejection for claim 10). Wendl discloses that the light emitted by the light-emitting diode (LED) in a light-emitting device is absorbed by “one or more phosphors” whereby the emission from the phosphor-converted LED (pcLED) is from the phosphors and also mentions that light emitted from the phosphor can be mixed with light emitted from the LED source to create light of a desired wavelength (or white light as in paragraph [0004]) and with desired color temperature and color rendering properties. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to combine multiple phosphors together of different emission light (at same excitation) to tailor the overall emission light in terms of wavelength, color temperature, and color rendering. Therefore, Wendl satisfies the claimed “A method for making the wavelength-converting structure of claim 9, the method comprising (i) mixing particles of the nitridophosphate luminescent material with particles of one or more additional luminescent materials, and (ii) binding together the particles of the nitridophosphate luminescent material and the particles of the one or more additional luminescent materials in a polymer or ceramic binder.”.
Regarding claim 14, Wendl teaches the wavelength-converting structure of claim 9. As described in the rejection of claim 9, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive to the methods of claims 6 and 8 whereby creating the luminescent material of claims 1 and 9. In that scenario, y = 2 and x = 0.03. Therefore, Wendl teaches the claimed “The wavelength-converting structure of claim 9 wherein y = 2 and 0.1 > x>0”.
Regarding claim 15, Wendl teaches the wavelength-converting structure of claim 9. As described in the rejection of claim 9, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive to the methods of claims 6 and 8 whereby creating the luminescent material of claims 1 and 9. In that scenario, AE is Ca. Therefore, Wendl teaches the claimed “The wavelength-converting structure of claim 14 wherein AE includes only Ca”.
Regarding claim 16, Wendl teaches the wavelength-converting structure of claim 14 but does not specifically include Ba or Sr with Ca in a composition. However, Wendl does mention that M (akin to EA) could be any combination of Ca, Sr or Ba, and thus obvious to include any of those elements to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include Sr or Ba with Ca as precursor when synthesizing the luminescent material. Thus, Wendl satisfies the claimed “The wavelength-converting structure of claim 14 wherein AE includes a majority amount of Ca and lesser amounts of Sr or Ba”.
Regarding claim 17, Wendl teaches the wavelength-converting structure of claim 14. Furthermore, peak emission wavelength would be an inherent property of the material and Wendl discloses in paragraph [0029] that an Eu2+-doped phosphor emits in the red spectral range (>610nm). Therefore, the product would also have a peak emission wavelength greater than 600nm. Thus, Wendl teaches the claimed “The wavelength-converting structure of claim 14, the nitridophosphate luminescent material exhibiting a peak emission wavelength greater than 600 nm.”.
Claims 10-13, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendl et al (EP3878924A1) in view of Bechtel et al (US PGPub 20220320380).
Regarding claim 10, Wendl teaches the wavelength-converting structure of claim 9. Furthermore, in paragraph [0071], Wendl discloses that the nitridophosphates are dispersed “for example in a transparent material” such as a ceramic matrix or any other suitable material or structure. In paragraph [0070], Wendl also discloses that the wavelength converting structure can be manufactured in ceramic form. Bechtel specifically teaches depositing phosphors in a transparent matrix material using a binder material such as a glue to bond layers together within a light-emitting device. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to bind the phosphor particles together in a ceramic matrix using glue in order to hold the particles within the ceramic for use in a light-emitting device as a wavelength converting layer. Wendl and Bechtel thus teach the claimed “A method for making the wavelength-converting structure of claim 9, the method comprising binding together particles of the nitridophosphate luminescent material in a polymer or ceramic binder material.”.
Regarding claim 11, Wendl and Bechtel teach the method of claim 10. Bechtel also teaches coating the phosphor materials with Al2O3 (any other suitable materials may be used such as oxides, fluorides, phosphates or silicates) before the binding glue is added (paragraph [0044]) to mechanically stabilize the phosphor particle layers and provide a thermally conductive connection between particles (paragraph [0008]). Therefore, Wendl and Bechtel teach the claimed “The method of claim 10 further comprising, before binding together the particles of the nitridophosphate luminescent material, forming a particle coating on the particles of the nitridophosphate luminescent material.”.
Regarding claim 12, Wendl and Bechtel teach the wavelength-converting structure of claim 9. Wendl discloses that the light emitted by the light-emitting diode (LED) in a light-emitting device is absorbed by “one or more phosphors” whereby the emission from the phosphor-converted LED (pcLED) is from the phosphors and also mentions that light emitted from the phosphor can be mixed with light emitted from the LED source to create light of a desired wavelength (or white light as in paragraph [0004]) and with desired color temperature and color rendering properties. As described in the rejection of claim 10, Bechtel teaches a method of binding together phosphor particles. Furthermore, in paragraph [0034], Bechtel discloses that any suitable phosphor particles may be used and that they may all have the same composition or different compositions and consequently different emission peaks. In the last sentence of that paragraph, Bechtel teaches that a layer may comprise particles having different compositions. Thus, a single layer is capable of emitting different emission peaks. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to combine multiple phosphors together of different emission light (at same excitation) to tailor the overall emission light. Therefore, Wendl and Bechtel teach the claimed “A method for making the wavelength-converting structure of claim 9, the method comprising (i) mixing particles of the nitridophosphate luminescent material with particles of one or more additional luminescent materials, and (ii) binding together the particles of the nitridophosphate luminescent material and the particles of the one or more additional luminescent materials in a polymer or ceramic binder.”.
Regarding claim 13, Wendl and Bechtel teach the wavelength-converting structure of claim 9. Wendl discloses that the light emitted by the light-emitting diode (LED) in a light-emitting device is absorbed by “one or more phosphors” or at least partially absorbed. Bechtel also teaches such a case and specifies the LED as a III-nitride LED (paragraph [0023]) that emits blue, violet or UV light (thus wavelengths <500nm). In paragraph [0003], Bechtel teaches that the phosphors absorb light emitting by the LED and in response emit light of a longer wavelength. Additionally, the wavelength-converting structure of claim 9 would emit light at a wavelength >600nm as described in rejections of claims 5 and 17. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement a wavelength-converting structure with a III-nitride LED emitting light of wavelength <500nm that is absorbed by the luminescent particles contained within the wavelength-converting structure and subsequently emitted at a wavelength >600nm (greater than the excitation light) to create a light-emitting device. Therefore, Wendl and Bechtel teach the claimed “A light-emitting device comprising a III-nitride light-emitting diode (LED) and the wavelength-converting structure of claim 9, the LED being arranged so as to emit light at a first wavelength that is at least partly absorbed by the luminescent material, the nitridophosphate luminescent material exhibiting emission of light at a second wavelength, the emission resulting from absorption of the light at the first wavelength, the second wavelength being longer than the first wavelength.”.
Regarding claim 18, Wendl teaches the wavelength-converting structure of claim 17. The teachings of Bechtel would have one of ordinary skill in the art arrive at the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 13 (see above). The LED taught by Bechtel is a III-nitride LED emitting light <500nm and the implemented wavelength-converting structure of claim 17 would absorb that light (fully or partially) and subsequently emit light at a greater wavelength (>600nm). Therefore, Wendl and Bechtel teach the claimed “A light-emitting device comprising a III-nitride light-emitting diode (LED) and the wavelength-converting structure of claim 17, the LED being arranged so as to emit light, at a first wavelength that is less than 500 nm, that is at least partly absorbed by the nitridophosphate luminescent material of the wavelength-converting structure, the nitridophosphate luminescent material exhibiting emission of light at a second wavelength that is greater than 600 nm, the emission resulting from absorption of the light at the first wavelength.”.
Regarding claim 19, Wendl and Bechtel teach the light-emitting device of claim 18. Bechtel discloses in paragraph [0007] the general operation of pcLEDs whereby operating conditions of >2Amps/mm2 results in limited reliability and output of pcLEDs due to resulting temperature of the phosphor layer. Thus, it is assumed that by operating the light-emitting device requires a power supply of electrical current to operate the LED. Furthermore, per MPEP 2112.02 directed to process claims, under the principles of inherency “if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device”. The device of Bechtel already comprises an LED that emits light at a first wavelength which is absorbed at least partially by the luminescent materials of the wavelength-converting structures, thus resulting in emission of light at a second wavelength (the output of the light-emitting device). Therefore, Wendl and Bechtel teach the claimed “A method for operating the light-emitting device of claim 18, the method comprising supplying electrical current to the LED so that (i) the LED emits the light at the first wavelength, and (ii) absorption of at least a portion of the light at the first wavelength by the nitridophosphate luminescent material of the wavelength-converting structure results in emission of the light at the second wavelength, the light at the second wavelength being included in output light of the light-emitting device.”.
Regarding claim 20, Wendl and Bechtel teach the method of claim 19. Bechtel teaches that the light from the LED can be entirely absorbed by the phosphors and thus absent from the emission light. Therefore, Wendl and Bechtel teach the claimed “The method of claim 19, the light at the first wavelength being absent from or only negligibly present in the output light of the light-emitting device.”.
Regarding claim 21, Wendl and Bechtel teach the method of claim 19. Wendl (paragraph [0004]) teaches that the light emitted by the LEDs may only be partially absorbed. In such cases, emission from the pcLED is a mixture of light emitted by the LED and light emitted by the phosphors. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, create phosphor layers such that only partial absorption of LED light occurs whereby the light-emitting device can emit white light having desired color temperature and desired color-rendering properties (see also rejection of claim 12). Therefore, Wendl and Bechtel teach the claimed “The method of claim 19, a portion of the light at the first wavelength being included in the output light of the light-emitting device”.
Regarding claim 22, Wendl and Bechtel teach the method of claim 19. As described in the above rejections for claim 12, in paragraph [0034], Bechtel discloses that any suitable phosphor particles may be used and that they may all have the same composition or different compositions and consequently different emission peaks. In the last sentence of that paragraph, Bechtel teaches that a layer may comprise particles having different compositions. Thus, a single layer is capable of emitting different emission peaks. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to combine multiple phosphors together of different emission light (at same excitation) to tailor the overall emission light. Therefore, Wendl and Bechtel teach the claimed “The method of claim 19, the wavelength-converting structure including one or more additional luminescent materials, absorption of at least a portion of the light at the first wavelength by each of the one or more additional luminescent materials of the wavelength-converting structure resulting in emission of the light at a corresponding additional wavelength that is longer than the first wavelength, the output light of the light-emitting device including the light emitted by the one or more additional luminescent materials of the wavelength-converting structure”.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendl et al (EP3878924A1) in view of Kloß et al., "High-Pressure Synthesis of Melilite-type Rare-Earth Nitridophosphates RE2P3N7 and a Ba2Cu[Si2O7]-type Polymorph," Inorg. Chem. Issue 18, Vol 55 Pg 9044-909. doi: 10.1021/acs.inorgchem.6b01611.
Regarding claim 8, Wendl teaches the luminescent material of claim 1. Wendl teaches a method for producing nitridophosphates as such. In paragraph [0020], Wendl discloses preferential N2 pressure ranging from 2-300MPa and temperatures of 800-1300°C. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Furthermore, in examples 1-10 for syntheses, Wendl uses atmospheres of N2 at 1500 bar (150MPa) and temperatures of 1,000, 1,100, or 1,200°C. In paragraph [0011] and Fig. 1, Wendl teaches that nitridophosphate precursor materials may include a metal source material for M, a phosphorous material for P, a nitrogen source material for N, and a dopant source material for D. In paragraphs [0012-0014], Wendl teaches metal sources can include metal nitrides, phosphorous sources can include nitrides, and that the nitrogen source material may be provided as the counter ion with the metal source material and/or in the compound with the phosphorous source material. In example 1, Wendl teaches synthesis of a Ca2PN3:Eu(3%) nitridophosphate.
Kloß et al teach a synthesis of RE2P3N7 (RE is rare earth material and can include Li according to introduction) whereby the precursors are REF3, LiPN2 and Li3N. By using LiPN2 and Li3N as precursors, a nitridophosphate with less condensed molar ratio of P/N smaller than ½ can be obtained. From Wendl’s disclosure, the precursor materials LiPN2 and Li3N taught by Kloß could be interchangeably used in the synthesis taught by Wendl to produce nitridophosphate with lower degrees of condensation. Thus, the precursor materials for Ca2PN3:Eu(3%) (Ca-3N2, P3N5 and EuCl2 inherently producing Ca2PN3:Eu in the reaction mix) could be provided with the LiPN2 and Li3N, after proper modification of stoichiometric ratios, with a predictable result of producing a nitridophosphate that satisfies the luminescent material of claim 1. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to add precursor materials of LiPN2 and Li3N taught by Kloß into the synthesis taught by Wendl to produce a nitridophosphate with a lower degree of condensation. Thus Wendl and Kloß teach the claimed “A method for making the luminescent material of claim 1, the method comprising carrying out a solid-state reaction, at an isostatic nitrogen pressure from 50 MPa to 200 MPa and at a temperature 800°C to 1000°C, of a mixture of (i) AE2PN3:Eu, (ii) LiPN2, and (iii) Li3N”.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendl in view of Kloß as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bertschler et al., “Li+ Ion Conductors with Adamantane-Type Nitridophosphate Anions β-Li10P4N10 and Li13P4N10X3 with X=Cl, Br” Chem. Eur. J.2018, 24, 196.
Regarding claim 6, Wendl teaches the luminescent material of claim 1. As described in the rejection of claim 8, Wendl and Kloß teach a synthesis method for producing that luminescent material. In example reaction (a), Wendl discloses the Ca2PN3:Eu synthesis occurs at 50-150 MPA N2 and between 1000-1200°C. In examples 1 and 2, Wendl uses 1500 bar (150MPa N2) and 1200°C with Ca3N2, EuCl2 and P3N5 (example 1) or elemental Pred (example 2). From paragraph [0012], this metal source material can be any of metal azides, nitrides, hydrides, and/or halides, and thus obvious to select the Ca and/or Li precursor from any. From paragraph [0018], the dopant source material can be halide or oxide of Eu, and thus obvious to select the Eu precursor from any. In paragraph [0020], Wendl discloses synthesis temperatures for forming nitridophosphates in a range of 800°C to 1300°C, and thus obvious to select a temperature within that range to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, Kloß teaches a synthesis of nitridophosphates having lower degrees of condensation by using LiPN2 and Li3N precursors.
Bertschler et al teach that combination of LiPN2 and Li3N can synthesize Li10P4N10. Although Bertschler does not teach a use of this compound as a further precursor, Wendl suggests that any N counter ion of a metal or phosphorous source can reasonably be substituted as a precursor material for their disclosed synthesis procedure and thus obvious to pursue a mixed phosphorous, metal, nitrogen source for efficiency. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute Li10P4N10 as a precursor source with the taught Ca3N2 (or any other metal azides, nitrides, hydrides, and/or halides) and EuCl2 (or oxide of Eu) with a predictable result of synthesizing a nitridophosphate. Thus, Wendl, Kloß, and Bertschler teach the claimed “A method for making the luminescent material of claim 1, the method comprising carrying out a solid-state reaction, at an isostatic nitrogen pressure from 50 MPa to 200 MPa and at a temperature from 800°C to 1000°C, of a mixture of (i) Li10P4N10, (ii) a halide, hydride, azide, or nitride of AE, and (iii) a halide or oxide of Eu”.
Regarding claim 7, Wendl, Kloß, and Bertschler teach the method of claim 6. Furthermore, Bertschler teaches that when halide precursors are used in forming lithium nitridophosphates, excess LiCl side phases persist. Generally, this side formation occurs because excesses of LiCl/LiBr and Li3N were used for successful reactions. Bertschler discloses that the excess side phases are removed by washing with ethanol. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use excess starting materials for more successful reactions and subsequently wash away unwanted excess side products. Therefore, Wendl, Kloß, and Bertschler teach the claimed “The method of claim 6 further comprising washing the luminescent material to remove LiCI formed by the solid-state reaction
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants present arguments equally in regards to independent claims 1 and 9.
The applicant argues against arrival to a N-to-P (N:P) ratio of 10:4, or equivalently 2.5:1, as the general formula of the Wendl reference defines a genus wherein the claimed formula may fall within as a subgenus. However, Wendl does disclose examples that fall above, below, and close to the N:P ratio (paragraph [0009]). For instance, Wendl discloses M2Li5P3N8:Eu (8:3 or 2.67:1), MLi2Be2P2N6:Eu (6:2 or 3:1), and MLi4P2N4:Eu (4:2 or 2:1). Thus, Wendl suggests a N:P ratio within a range of 2:1 to 3:1 wherein a value of 2.5:1 would fall within such a range and one of ordinary skill in the art could arrive to such a ratio. Furthermore, the applicant presents that Bechtel discloses nitridophosphate materials having such a N:P stoichiometry of 2.5:1 without doping such materials. However, both presented references of Wendl and Kloβ direct towards doping of luminescent nitridophosphate materials without directly presenting such a stoichiometry. However, the general teachings and applications of doping are well known and would be obvious to pursue with the nitridophosphate materials of Bertschler as known modifications capable of improving luminescent properties. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The applicant further argues, in regards to doping of Bertschler nitridophosphate materials, that applying such doping principles of Wendl and Kloβ may not be suitable or practically relevant “in unpredictable arts, such as the subject matter of the instant application and Wendl”. The examiner respectfully argues that such an assertion of unpredictably is attorney argument without evidence and is contradictory towards the broad claimed subject matter for independent claims 1 and 9 whereby the value of y can be any value greater than x, which is greater than 0, up to a limit of 5 (whereby no Li would be present). The applicant only presents an example in the instant specification wherein y = 2, thus there is no guarantee of “predictable” success when working above or below y = 2 that such a claim as presented would offer protection towards. If the principle is “especially relevant in unpredictable arts”, then suitability of a given composition as a doped luminescent material for LED wavelength conversion and capability for specific optical properties for values of y outside of 2 are not predictably guaranteed as claimed. The applicant combines such arguments wherein “no skilled artisan could predict, or would have any reason to predict, that a particular N-to-P ratio not already disclosed by Wendl or Kloβ would result in an Eu-doped luminescent nitridophosphate material with the desired optical properties (e.g., the optical spectra shown in Figs. 6A through 7C)”. However, the independent claims as currently presented do not direct towards any limitations wherein optical and luminescent properties are claimed. The applicant points to a desirable emission spectrum offered by their invention (pg 7 lines 7-11), but the independent claims are not limited to any particular spectrum. Furthermore, the instant specification only shows a desirable emission spectrum for one formula: Ca2Li6P4N10:Eu (1%) (i.e., y = 2 and x = 1%), and thus there would be no guarantee of predicted success of the same emission spectrum if y and/or x were to change from such values. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Visco et al (US PGPub 20230091921) teach Li-P-N based films whereby a N:P ratio can be between 1.65 to 3.00. Bertschler et al teach (NPL: “Li+ Ion Conductors with Adamantane-Type…”) adamantane-type nitridophosphate anions which include Li10P4N10 but are not doped with Eu nor substituted with alkaline earth metals. Chen et al (NPL: “Lithium superionic conduction…”) teach use of Li10P4N10 as organic liquid electrolytes.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
