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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 is still written as depending from claim 4, despite claim 4 being canceled from the claim set. Claim 5 is being interpreted as depending from claim 1 which was amended to incorporate canceled claim 4. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/183618 A1 to Yamaguchi et al. (hereinafter “Yamaguchi” – previously cited reference – using US 2022/0187517 A1 as the translation), in view of JP 2015-147705 A to Umayahara et al. (hereinafter “Umayahara” – previously cited reference).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses a wavelength conversion member, which comprises a resin matrix; and phosphor powder and spherical silica filler powder dispersed in the resin matrix (cured resin wavelength conversion member comprising quantum dot phosphor material and spherical silica dispersed therein; abstract; paragraphs [0176]-[0177], [0182]), wherein, when the particle sizes representing 10%, 50%, and 90% of the cumulative volume (%) in a particle size distribution measured by laser diffraction are D10, D50, and D90, respectively, D50 of the spherical silica filler powder is 1.0 to 15.0 μm (laser diffraction used to determine particle size, where spherical silica filler may have average particle size of 0.2 microns or more; paragraphs [0011], [0046], [0130]), and the SPAN value of the following Equation 1 is 1.0 to 5.0: [Equation 1] Span = (D90 - D10)/D50 (D10/D90 value of filler materials may be 0.4 or less, which provides a D90/D10 value of 2.5 or more, which comprises a D90 value of e.g. 2.5 microns and a D10 value of e.g. 1 micron with a D50 value of e.g. 1.5, which yields a SPAN value of 1; paragraphs [0130]-[0131); and wherein the difference in refractive index between the glass matrix and the spherical silica filler powder is 0.01 to 0.52 (spherical silica filler may have a refractive index of 2.3 or less while a glass material matrix is known to be around 1.5, which yields results within the range of 0.01 and 0.52; paragraph [0124]).
Yamaguchi fails to disclose a wavelength conversion member comprising a glass matrix.
However, Umayahara discloses a wavelength conversion member comprising a glass matrix (glass matrix wavelength conversion member; abstract; paragraph [0037]).
Yamaguchi and Umayahara are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wavelength conversion members. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamaguchi to incorporate the teaching of Umayahara in order to potentially provide superior thermal stability and heat dissipation, enhanced chemical and environmental stability, and better optical and mechanical durability.
Regarding claim 2, Yamaguchi in view of Umayahara discloses the wavelength conversion member of claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the spherical silica filler powder has a D90/D10 of 1.5 to 15 (D10/D90 value of filler materials may be 0.4 or less, which provides a D90/D10 value of 2.5 or more; paragraph [0131]).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaguchi in view of Umayahara discloses the wavelength conversion member of claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the glass matrix has a refractive index of 1.44 to 1.89 (glass materials known to have a refractive index in the range of 1.4 to 2 and the SiO2 and ZnO filler material may have a refractive index of 2.3 or lower; paragraph [0124]).
Yamaguchi fails to disclose the glass matrix having a softening point (Ts) of 550 to 850°C.
However, Umayahara discloses the glass matrix having a softening point (Ts) of 550 to 850°C (softening point of glass material is 850°C or less; paragraph [0026]).
Yamaguchi and Umayahara are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wavelength conversion members. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamaguchi to incorporate the teaching of Umayahara in order to potentially provide minimal degradation of filler during fabrication and cost-effective facile processing using low-temperature sintering.
Regarding claim 6, Yamaguchi in view of Umayahara discloses the wavelength conversion member of claim 1. Yamaguchi fails to disclose wherein the phosphor powder has an average particle diameter (D50) of 3 to 30 μm.
However, Umayahara discloses wherein the phosphor powder has an average particle diameter (D50) of 3 to 30 μm (phosphor powder has D50 of 1 to 75 microns; paragraph [0033]).
Yamaguchi and Umayahara are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wavelength conversion members. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamaguchi to incorporate the teaching of Umayahara in order to potentially provide optimal balance of light absorption, conversion efficiency, and scattering.
Regarding claim 7, Yamaguchi in view of Umayahara discloses the wavelength conversion member of claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the content of the spherical silica filler powder is 0.5 to 50% by weight based on the total weight of the glass matrix, the spherical silica filler powder, and the phosphor powder (silica filler may be 3% or more of the total amount of wavelength conversion resin; paragraph [0123]).
Regarding claim 8, Yamaguchi in view of Umayahara discloses the wavelength conversion member of claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the weight ratio of the phosphor powder and the spherical silica filler powder is 1:0.1 to 5 (quantum dot phosphor material may be 1% to 30% of the total amount of wavelength conversion resin, which provides ratio values with silica of between 1:0.1 and 1:5; paragraphs [0119], [0123]).
Regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi in view of Umayahara discloses the wavelength conversion member of claim 1. Yamaguchi fails to disclose wherein the glass matrix is derived from glass powder having an average particle diameter (D50) of 2 to 15 μm, and the glass powder has the following composition based on the total number of moles of the glass powder: 2 to 10% by mole of P205, 30 to 50% by mole of ZnO, 10 to 25% by mole of SiO2, and 15 to 25% by mole of B2O3.
However, Umayahara discloses wherein the glass matrix is derived from glass powder having an average particle diameter (D50) of 2 to 15 μm (glass powder average particle size of 0.1 to 300 microns; paragraph [0030]), and the glass powder has the following composition based on the total number of moles of the glass powder: 2 to 10% by mole of P205, 30 to 50% by mole of ZnO, 10 to 25% by mole of SiO2, and 15 to 25% by mole of B2O3 (P2O5 may be included in an amount of 10%, ZnO may be included in an amount of 30% or more, SiO2 may be included in an amount of up to 30%, and B2O3 may be included in an amount of 15%; paragraphs [0027]-[0029]).
Yamaguchi and Umayahara are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wavelength conversion members. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamaguchi to incorporate the teaching of Umayahara in order to potentially provide the ability to sinter at low temperatures of 500-700 Celsius, improved chemical durability, and long-term stability.
Regarding claim 10, Yamaguchi in view of Umayahara discloses the wavelength conversion member of claim 1. Yamaguchi fails to disclose wherein the glass powder further comprises at least one selected from the following components: 1 to 10% by mole of Al2O3, 0.1 to 7% by mole of SnO2, 1 to 5% by mole of BaO, 0.1 to 5% by mole of SrO, 1 to 5% by mole of CaO, 1 to 5% by mole of Li2O, 1 to 7% by mole of Na2O, and 1 to 5% by mole of K2O.
However, Umayahara discloses wherein the glass powder further comprises at least one selected from the following components: 1 to 10% by mole of Al2O3, 0.1 to 7% by mole of SnO2, 1 to 5% by mole of BaO, 0.1 to 5% by mole of SrO, 1 to 5% by mole of CaO, 1 to 5% by mole of Li2O, 1 to 7% by mole of Na2O, and 1 to 5% by mole of K2O (Al2O3 may be included in an amount of 0-10%; paragraph [0028]).
Yamaguchi and Umayahara are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wavelength conversion members. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamaguchi to incorporate the teaching of Umayahara in order to potentially provide the ability to sinter at low temperatures of 500-700 Celsius, improved chemical durability, and long-term stability.
Regarding claim 11, Yamaguchi in view of Umayahara discloses a process for preparing the wavelength conversion member of claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses a first step of obtaining a composition for a wavelength conversion member comprising resin, phosphor powder, and spherical silica filler powder (preparing wavelength conversion member comprising quantum dot phosphor material and spherical silica dispersed therein; abstract; paragraphs [0176]-[0177], [0182]); a second step of applying the composition for a wavelength conversion member onto a substrate to obtain a green sheet for a wavelength conversion member (resin may include green quantum dot phosphor material before being cured into a planar flat shape; Fig. 2; paragraphs [0097], [0111]).
Yamaguchi fails to disclose a glass powder; and a third step of sintering for a wavelength conversion member.
However, Umayahara discloses a glass powder; and a third step of sintering for a wavelength conversion member (glass powder is sintered to form wavelength conversion member; paragraphs [0024]-[0025]).
Yamaguchi and Umayahara are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wavelength conversion members. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamaguchi to incorporate the teaching of Umayahara in order to potentially provide superior thermal stability and heat dissipation, enhanced chemical and environmental stability, and better optical and mechanical durability.
Regarding claim 12, Yamaguchi in view of Umayahara discloses a light emitting device, which comprises the wavelength conversion member of claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses a light source that irradiates excitation light to the wavelength conversion member (light source 21 emitting light to the member 10; Fig. 2; paragraph [0097]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Umayahara and JP 2015-181140 A Haraguchi et al. (hereinafter “Haraguchi”).
Regarding claim 3, Yamaguchi in view of Umayahara discloses a process for preparing the wavelength conversion member of claim 1. Yamaguchi fails to disclose wherein the spherical silica filler powder has a specific surface area (Brunauer-Emmett-Teller; BET) of 1.0 to 6.5 m2/g.
However, Haraguchi discloses wherein the spherical silica filler powder has a specific surface area (Brunauer-Emmett-Teller; BET) of 1.0 to 6.5 m2/g (spherical silica having specific surface area 2.2 m^2/g; paragraph [0052]).
Yamaguchi and Haraguchi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wavelength conversion members. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamaguchi to incorporate the teaching of Haraguchi in order to potentially provide superior flowability, packing density, and high filler loading.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant provides amendments to claim 1 along with corresponding arguments. Specifically, Applicant first assets that Yamaguchi and Umayahara do not disclose the parameters of Equation 1 because they do not disclose simultaneously satisfying both the D50 range and the SPAN range. However, Yamaguchi discloses all the constraints needed to derive such a SPAN range associated with Equation 1 of claim 1. Specifically, D10/D90 is disclosed to be 0.4 or less and D50 to be 0.2 microns or more, which allows for D90, D50, and D10 values such as 2.5, 1.5, and 1 micron, respectively, which yields a SPAN value of 1, for example. The D90, D50, and D10 values disclosed in Yamaguchi are inherently correlated given the known constraints are D10<D50<D90, D50/D10 and D90/D50 both > 1, and therefore the conventional SPAN (D90- D10)/D50 is always positive. Note – claim 1 does not include specific values for D10 and D90. Yamaguchi merely discloses ranges for these values that still meet the known constraints. Values are not chosen arbitrarily from Yamaguchi, but rather form the specific ranges disclosed therein. Applicant next asserts that Yamaguchi fails to disclose the recited refractive index difference between the glass matrix and filler. Examiner sincerely apologizes for the typo in the non-final office action that repeated the analysis from claim 2 for claim 4. Examiner did examine claim 4 and mapped the following analysis to it: “spherical silica filler may have a refractive index of 2.3 or less while a glass material matrix is known to be around 1.5, which yields results within the range of 0.01 and 0.52; paragraph [0124]” which discloses this limitation. While the analysis for claim 4 was inadvertently omitted from the non-final, Applicant was provided the analysis for claim 5, which recited the same substantive disclosure from Yamaguchi that the filler may have a refractive index of 2.3 or lower and glass matrices are known to have a refractive index of and around 1.5, which therefore yields values within the range claimed in canceled claim 4 which has been amended into claim 1. If Applicant had contacted Examiner informally via email or phone or formally for an interview, then Examiner would have provided this information at that time. Further, it is recommended that “when” on line 4 in claim 1, is removed to remove a conditional limitation from claim 1 to avoid broad claim interpretation and clarify what must be present in the conversion member as related to the particle sizes.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 IAN DEGRASSE whose telephone number is (571) 272-0261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30a until 5:00p.
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, JEFF NATALINI can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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.
/IAN DEGRASSE/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
