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 § 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 24-28 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.
Claim 24 is dependent from canceled claim 7. Claims 25-28 are ultimately dependent from claim 24. Canceled claim 7 was drawn to a device.
While not a suggestion of claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, claim 24 will be treated as dependent from device claim 23.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claims 17, 18, 22, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Design of a Novel Near-Infrared Phosphor by Controlling the Cationic Coordination Environment” by Meng et al. (hereinafter Meng).
Regarding claim 17, Meng discloses an oxide phosphor having a composition,
In1-xMgGaO4: xCr (Fig. 8a), which comprises Mg, Ga, O, and Cr, the composition optionally including an element M² selected from the group consisting of B, Al, In, and Sc, particularly In. The instant claim also recites additional optional elements M1 and M3. However, these elements are optional and not required. Neither M1 nor M3 are present in Meng.
Meng further discloses wherein, based on the formula In1-xMgGaO4: xCr (Fig. 8a), when a total molar ratio of Ga, Cr, and the second element M² of the composition of the oxide phosphor is 2, a molar ratio of Mg is 1, which falls completely within the instantly claimed range of 0.7 to 1.3,
a molar ratio of O is 4, which falls completely within the instantly claimed range of 3.7 to 4.3, and
a molar ratio of Cr is 0.001 to 0.1 (Fig. 8a), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than 0.02 and 0.3 or less, and
further, when a molar ratio of a total of Mg and the first element M¹ is 1, a molar ratio of the first element M¹ is 0 (optional M1 is not present),
a molar ratio of the second element M² (In) is 1, which falls within the instantly claimed range of 0 to 1.6, a molar ratio of the third element M³ is 0 (optional M3 is not present), the molar ratio of the third element M³ (0) being smaller than the molar ratio of Cr, and
wherein the oxide phosphor has a light emission peak wavelength in a range of 650 to 1200 nm (page 4695, para 3), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 800 nm to 1600 nm. See MPEP 2144.05(I), which states that ‘In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists’.
Regarding claim 18, Meng discloses the oxide phosphor according to claim 17, having a composition represented by the formula
In1-xMgGaO4: xCr where x is 0.001 to 0.1 (Fig. 8a), which overlaps instantly claimed Formula (1) below:
(Mg1-tM1t)u(Ga1-v-x-yM2v)2Ow:CrxM3y (1)
where 0 ≤ t ≤ 0.8; 0.7 ≤ u ≤ 1.3; 0 ≤ v ≤ 0.8; 3.7 ≤ w ≤ 4.3; 0.02 ≤ x ≤ 0.3; 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.2; and y < x, particularly where t=y=0, which provides the formula
(Mg)u(Ga1-v-xM2v)2Ow:Crx (1)
where 0.7 ≤ u ≤ 1.3; 0 ≤ v ≤ 0.8; 3.7 ≤ w ≤ 4.3; 0.02 ≤ x ≤ 0.3; 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.2; and 0 < x. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 22, Meng discloses the oxide phosphor according to claim 17, wherein a full width at half maximum of the oxide phosphor in a light emission spectrum having the light emission peak wavelength is 150 nm or greater (peak 3, Fig. 8a).
Regarding claim 29, Meng discloses a method for producing an oxide phosphor, the method comprising:
preparing a raw material mixture comprising a first compound containing Mg, a
second compound containing Ga, and a third compound containing Cr, a compound containing In, optionally a compound containing an M2 element of Al, and optional elements M1 and M3 are not present (0 amounts), (page 4693, para 1),
wherein the raw material mixture has a composition in which when a total molar ratio of Ga, Cr, the second element M², and the third element M³ (0) per mole of the composition is 2, a molar ratio of Mg is 1, which falls completely within the instantly claimed range of 0.7 to 1.3, a molar ratio of Cr is in a range of 0.001 to 0.1, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of more than 0.02 and 0.3 or less, when a molar ratio of a total of Mg and the first element M¹ is 1, a molar amount of the first element M¹ is in a range of 0, a molar ratio of the second element M² (In, Al) is in a range of 0 to 0.9 (page 4693, para 1), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0 to 1.6, a molar amount of the third element M³ is 0 and is therefore smaller than the molar ratio of Cr; in In0.9-yMgGaO4: 0.1Cr, yAl where y=0-0.9 (page 4693, para 1) and
obtaining an oxide phosphor by heat-treating the raw material mixture in an
atmosphere containing oxygen at a temperature of 1500 C (page 4693, para 1), which falls completely within the instantly claimed range of 1200°C to 1700°C,
wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the first compound, the second compound, and the third compound is an oxide (all are oxides, page 4693, para 1). See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 30, Meng discloses the method for producing an oxide phosphor according to claim 29, wherein the raw material mixture has a composition
represented by the formula
In1-xMgGaO4: xCr where x is 0.001 to 0.1 (Fig. 8a), which overlaps instantly claimed Formula (1) below:
(Mg1-tM1t)u(Ga1-v-x-yM2v)2Ow:CrxM3y (1)
where 0 ≤ t ≤ 0.8; 0.7 ≤ u ≤ 1.3; 0 ≤ v ≤ 0.8; 3.7 ≤ w ≤ 4.3; 0.02 ≤ x ≤ 0.3; 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.2; and y < x, particularly where t=y=0, which provides the formula
(Mg)u(Ga1-v-xM2v)2Ow:Crx (1)
where 0.7 ≤ u ≤ 1.3; 0 ≤ v ≤ 0.8; 3.7 ≤ w ≤ 4.3; 0.02 ≤ x ≤ 0.3; 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.2; and 0 < x.
See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 31, Meng discloses the method for producing an oxide phosphor according to claim 29, wherein the atmosphere in which the heat-treatment is performed is an air atmosphere (page 4693, para 1).
Regarding claim 32, Meng discloses the method for producing an oxide phosphor according to claim 29, wherein the temperature at which the heat-treatment is performed is1500 C (page 4693, para 1), which falls completely within the instantly claimed range of 1300°C to 1600°C.
Claims 17-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0335670 A1 to Heiden et al. (hereinafter Heiden).
Regarding claim 17, Heiden discloses an oxide phosphor having a composition comprising Mg, Ga, O, and Cr, M2+Ga2O4:D, where D is selected from a group of activators that includes Cr (para [0103]) and M2+ is selected from a group that includes Mg (para [0103] and [0104]), the composition optionally including: optional (but not required) at least one first element M¹ selected from the group consisting of Ca, Sr, Ba, Ni, and Zn (Heiden M2+, para [0103]); optional (but not required) second element M² is not present; and optional (but not required) at least one third element M³ selected from the group consisting of Eu, Ce, Tb, Sm, Tm, and Mn (Heiden D activator, para [0103]),
wherein, when a total molar ratio of Ga, Cr, the second element M² (not present), and the third element M³ per mole of the composition of the oxide phosphor is 2, a molar ratio of Mg or a molar ratio of a total of Mg and the first element M¹ when the first element M¹ is included is 1 (total amount of M2+), which falls within the instantly claimed range of 0.7 to 1.3,
a molar ratio of O is 4, which falls completely within the instantly claimed range of 3.7 to 4.3, and
further, when a molar ratio of a total of Mg and the first element M¹ is 1, a molar ratio of the first element M¹ is in a range that overlaps 0 as M1 is optional and therefore overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0 to 0.8.
Heiden does not expressly recite the amount of Cr, particularly wherein a molar ratio of Cr is in a range greater than 0.02 and 0.3 or less. However, the reference does teach that typical doping amounts are in the range of 0.5 to 5 mol% (atom%, para [0123]-[0125]) or a molar ratio of 0.005 to 0.05, that overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.02 to 0.03. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a typical doping range to facilitate production of light with the desired combination of efficiency in light conversion and improved controllability (para [0010]).
Heiden further discloses a molar amount of the second element M² of 0 as M2 is not present, a molar ratio of the third element M³ is in a range that overlaps 0 as the third element is optional and therefore overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0 to 0.2, and the molar ratio of the third element M³ overlapping a range that is smaller than the molar ratio of Cr. It would also be obvious to optimize the amount of M3 relative to Cr to control efficiency (para [0010]) and reproduction (para [0011]) of light conversion. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Heiden is silent regarding the light emission peak of the oxide phosphor, particular wherein the oxide phosphor has a light emission peak wavelength in a range of 800 nm to 1600 nm. However, Heiden does teach an overlapping phosphor, particularly a MgGa2O4 phosphor (para [0104]) doped with Cr and optionally at least one of Eu, Ce, Tb, Sm, Tm, and Mn (D activator, para [0103]). See MPEP 2112.01(I), which states 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, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established…"When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not."…Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product’. The oxide phosphors overlap, as discussed above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Heiden oxide phosphor to have overlapping optical properties including but not limited to light emission peak wavelengths that overlap a range of 800 nm to 1600 nm, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 18, Heiden discloses the oxide phosphor according to claim 17, having a composition represented by the formula
M2+Ga2O4:D (para [0103]-[0104] where M2+ includes Mg and M1, as discussed above, and D includes at least one activator (para [0103]) comprising Cr and M3, as discussed above. The Heiden formula overlaps instantly claimed Formula (1) below where v=0:
(Mg1-tM1t)u(Ga1--x-y)2Ow:CrxM3y (1)
where 0 ≤ t ≤ 0.8; 0.7 ≤ u ≤ 1.3; v=0; 3.7 ≤ w ≤ 4.3; 0.02 ≤ x ≤ 0.3; 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.2; and y< x. see MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 19, Heiden discloses the oxide phosphor according to claim 17, wherein the first element M¹ is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ca, Sr, Ni and Zn, and the third element M³ is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Eu, Ce and Mn (para [0103]).
Regarding claim 20, Heiden discloses the oxide phosphor according to claim 17, wherein the first element M¹ is Ni (para [0103]), but is silent regarding the limitation “a molar ratio of the first element M¹ (Ni) is in a range of 0.001 to 0.50 when a molar ratio of a total of Mg and the first element M¹ is 1”. However, see 2144.05(II)(A), which states that ‘Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical’. Para [0103] of the reference suggests that M2+Ga2O4 phosphors comprising Mg and Ni are known. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to arrive at the optimal Ni concentration via routine experimentation, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 21, Heiden discloses the oxide phosphor according to claim 18, wherein the first element M¹ is Ni (para [0103]), but is silent regarding the limitation “in Formula (1), t satisfies 0.001 ≤ t ≤ 0.50”. However, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), cited above. Para [0103] of the reference suggests that M2+Ga2O4 phosphors comprising Mg and Ni are known. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to arrive at the optimal Ni concentration via routine experimentation, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 22, Heiden discloses the oxide phosphor according to claim 17, but is silent regarding the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the oxide phosphor, particularly wherein a FWHM of the oxide phosphor in a light emission spectrum having the light emission peak wavelength is 150 nm or greater. However, see MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above. The oxide phosphors overlap. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Heiden oxide phosphor to have overlapping optical properties including but not limited to overlapping FWHM, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 23, Heiden discloses a light-emitting device (para [0170]) comprising:
the oxide phosphor (gallate, para [0089]) according to claim 17 (para [0169]); and
a light-emitting element (LED, para [0168]) having a light emission peak wavelength in a range of 365 nm to 500 nm (450 nm chip, para [0172]), the light-emitting element irradiating the oxide phosphor (para [0170]).
Regarding claim 24, Heiden discloses a light-emitting device according to claim 7 (treated as claim 23), comprising:
as an essential component, the oxide phosphor according to claim 17 as a first
phosphor (gallate, para [0089] and [0103]); and
at least one phosphor (one or more phosphors emitting light of different wavelengths, para [0155]) that emit light in a range of 400 to 750 nm (para [0157]), which overlaps the instantly claimed phosphors selected from the group consisting of: a second phosphor having a light emission peak wavelength in a range of 455 nm to less than 495 nm in a light emission spectrum of the second phosphor; a third phosphor having a light emission peak wavelength in a range of 495 nm to less than 610 nm in a light emission spectrum of the third phosphor; a fourth phosphor having a light emission peak wavelength in a range of 610 nm to less than700 nm in a light emission spectrum of the fourth phosphor; and a fifth phosphor having a light emission peak wavelength in a range of 700 nm to 1050 nm in a light emission spectrum of the fifth phosphor. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Heiden is silent regarding the limitation “wherein the light-emitting device has a light emission spectrum such that, when a maximum value of light emission intensity in a range of the light emission peak wavelength of the light-emitting element to 900 nm is defined as 100%, a minimum value of light emission intensity in the range of the light emission peak wavelength of the light-emitting element to 900 nm is 3% or higher”. However, the reference does teach that emission intensity is dependent upon wavelength (para [0048]). The reference also teaches overlapping phosphors and devices. Therefore, per MPEP 2112.01(I) cited above, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the overlapping Heiden device to have overlapping intensities at the same wavelengths under the same conditions, absent evidence to the contrary.
This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para #3, above.
Regarding claim 25, Heiden discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 24, wherein the second phosphor comprises at least one phosphor selected from the group consisting of a phosphate phosphor having a composition represented by Formula (2b) below, and an aluminate phosphor having a composition represented by Formula (2c) below:
(Ba, Sr, Ca)MgAl₁₀O₁₇:Eu (2b), (Ba, Sr, Ca)MgAl₁₀O₁₇:D (para [0104]) where D is Eu (para [0103]) and
Sr4Al14O25:Eu (2c), Sr4Al14O25:D where D is Eu (para [0103]).
Regarding claim 26, Heiden discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 24, wherein the third phosphor comprises at least one phosphor selected from the group consisting of an aluminate phosphor or a gallate phosphor having a composition represented by Formula (3b) below, a ß-sialon phosphor having a composition represented by Formula (3c) below, and a nitride phosphor having a composition represented by formula (3e) below:
(Lu, Y, Gd, Tb)₃(Al, Ga)5O12Ce (3b) (para [0159])
Si6-zAl₂O₂N8-z:Eu 0 < z ≤ 4.2) (3c) (para [0159])
(La, Y, Gd)₃Si₆N₁₁:Ce (3e), La3Si6N11:D (para [0112]) where D is Ce (para [0111]).
Regarding claim 27, Heiden discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 24, wherein the fourth phosphor comprises at least one phosphor selected from the group consisting of a nitride phosphor having a composition represented by Formula (4a) below, a fluorogermanate phosphor having a composition represented by Formula (4b) below, a fluoride phosphor having a composition represented by Formula (4d) below, a fluoride phosphor having a composition represented by formula (4e) below, and a nitride phosphor having a composition represented by formula (4f) below:
(Sr, Ca)AlSiN₃:Eu (4a) (para [0125])
3.5MgO*0.5MgF2*GeO₂:Mn (4b) (para [0159])
K2SiF6:Mn (4d,4e) (para [0159]) with typical dopant range of 0.005 to 0.05 at% (para [0123]-[0125]), as discussed above, which overlaps the instantly claimed b range of 0 < b < 0.2 (see MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above) and
(Ba, Sr, Ca)2Si5N8:Eu (4f), (Ba, Sr, Ca)2Si5N8:D (para [0112]) where D is Eu (para [0111]).
Regarding claim 28, Heiden discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 24, wherein the fifth phosphor comprises at least one phosphor selected from the group consisting of a gallate phosphor having a composition represented by Formula (5a) below, an aluminate phosphor having a composition represented by Formula (5b) below, a gallate phosphor having a composition represented by Formula (5c) below, and an aluminate phosphor having a composition represented by Formula (5d) below,
Ga₂O₃:Cr (5a), Ga₂O₃:D (para [0092]) where D is Cr (para [0091])
Al₂O₃:Cr (5b), Al₂O₃:Cr (para [0092]) where D is Cr (para [0091])
ZnGa₂O4:Cr (5c), ZnGa₂O4:D (para [0110]) where D is Cr (para [0109])
(Lu, Y, Gd, Tb)₃(Al, Ga)5O12:Ce,Cr (5d) (para [0159]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2678. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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.
/L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights