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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application Nos. JP 2021-091754, JP2021-130074, JP2021-141629, and JP2022-083514 filed on May 31, 2021, August 6, 2021, August 31, 2021, and May 23, 2022, respectively.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on August 3, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-17, and 19-22 are now pending. The amendments entered to the presented claims and specification have overcome the objections in the Non-Final Office Action dated May 6, 2026.
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 1-3, 6-8, 10-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al (US PGPub 20180134955) in view of Saka et al (US PGPub 20160149097) and Tsuneto (JP2018087323A).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida teaches in paragraphs [0020] fluoride particle formula (1): “A2[M1-pMn4+pF6]” where A is at least one selected from the group consisting of alkali metal elements and NH4+; M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Group 4 elements and Group 14 elements; and p satisfies 0<p<0.2. Furthermore, Yoshida discloses in paragraphs [0011] and [0012] that rare-earth phosphates are adhered to the fluorescent material particles (fluoride particles). Yoshida discloses La, Ce, Dy, and Gd can be used in paragraph [0035]. In examples 1-9, Yoshida discloses addition of La to the fluoride particle by using lanthanum phosphate in the mix. Yoshida does not teach oxide layer. Saka discloses in paragraph [0011] oxide particles and oxide (cover) layer that can cover a portion of KSF-based fluoride particles (K2SiF6:Mn general formula, paragraph [0039]). Oxide particles (paragraph [0046]) can contain Al, Si, Zr, Ti, Zn, or Sn and are mixed in weight ratio of 1-10% (paragraph [0057]). In paragraphs [0068] to [0076], Saka discloses the cover layer properties. Ideally, the cover layer is composed of the same oxide as the oxide particles within the phosphor layer to suppress internal light scattering. Oxide particles act as binder to fix the phosphor particles together more securely (paragraph [0037] of Saka). Cover layer functions as protective layer for phosphor particles, as a binder that strengthens adhesion, and as thermal conduction pathway (paragraph [0068] of Saka). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to cover the fluoride particles of Yoshida with oxide particles and/or a cover layer of the same composition as the oxide particles, selecting for a weight ratio in the overlapping range, to fix the phosphor particles together more securely (strengthen adhesion) and protect the particles, arriving at the claimed invention. Neither Yoshida nor Saka disclose a functional group derived from a coupling agent on a surface of the oxide. However, Tsuneto similarly teaches fluoride particles but discloses addition of a silicon compound to form a film-like material on the surface of the phosphor core. Tsuneto suggests the mass of the silicon compound should be 5-30 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the phosphor, thus 5-30%. Tsuneto discloses examples of the silicon compound that include alkoxy silicon compounds. In example 4, Tsuneto uses tetraethoxysilane as the metal alkoxide and mixes it with an aqueous solution (liquid medium). The surface covering improves adhesion between particles and resin in a light emitting device, thus improving durability of the device, since the resin is sensitive to high currents passing through. Further, Tsuneto teaches that the silicon compound is formed by hydrolysis and condensation reactions which are silane coupling treatments. Tsuneto’s teachings are analogous to that of the combined teachings of Yoshida and Saka as both seek to improve durability and protection from degradation to fluoride phosphors. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the combined phosphor of Yoshida and Saka in view of Tsuneto. The combined fluoride phosphor of Yoshida and Saka produces a fluoride whose surface is disposed with a rare earth phosphate and is at least partially covered by an oxide, and Tsuneto teaches a silicon compound which adheres to the surface of a fluoride phosphor (via hydrolysis and condensation, thus silane coupling). Therefore, modifying the phosphor of Yoshida and Saka in view of Tsuneto would cover the surface of the phosphor whose surface is disposed with a rare earth phosphate and is covered by an oxide layer, thus the surface treatment layer of Tsuneto would be on a surface of the oxide as well. In example 4 of Tsuneto, tetraethoxysilane is hydrolyzed and condensed, adhering to the surface of the phosphor core. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a surface treatment layer by silane coupling reaction, as informed by Tsuneto, to the combined fluoride phosphor of Yoshida and Saka in order to improve adhesion between particles in a produced resin for use in a light emitting device and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto teach the claimed “A fluoride phosphor comprising a fluoride particle and an oxide covering at least a portion of a surface of the fluoride particle, the oxide comprising at least one element selected from the group consisting of Si, Al, Ti, Zr, Sn, and Zn, and a content of the oxide being in a range from 2 mass% to 30 mass% in relation to the fluoride phosphor, and the fluoride particle having a composition comprising an element M, an alkali metal, Mn, and F, the element M comprising at least one element selected from the group consisting of Group 4 elements, Group 13 elements, and Group 14 elements, wherein, when a number of moles of the alkali metal is 2, a number of moles of Mn is in a range greater than 0 and less than 0.2, a number of moles of the element M is in a range greater than 0.8 and less than 1, and a number of moles of F is in a range greater than 5 and less than 7, wherein a rare earth phosphate containing at least one rare earth element selected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Dy and Gd is disposed on a surface of the fluoride particle, and the oxide covers the fluoride particle with the rare earth phosphate interposed therebetween, and wherein the fluoride phosphor further comprises a surface treatment layer containing a functional group derived from a coupling agent on a surface of the oxide”.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto teach the fluoride phosphor of claim 1. In paragraph [0058], Yoshida discloses the method for synthesizing fluoride particles of formula (1): K2[Si1-pMnpF6], where 0<p<0.2. Yoshida also discloses Si and Ge can be used together in paragraph [0023]. Thus, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto satisfy the claimed “The fluoride phosphor according to claim 1, wherein the fluoride particle has a composition comprising Si and/or Ge as the element M, and when the number of moles of the alkali metal is 2, a total number of moles of Si, Ge, and Mn is in a range from 0.9 to 1.1”.
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto teach the fluoride phosphor of claim 1. In paragraph [0058], Yoshida discloses the method for synthesizing fluoride particles of formula (1): K2[Si1-pMnpF6], where 0<p<0.2. Yoshida also discloses Si and Ge can be used together in paragraph [0023]. Thus, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto satisfy the claimed “The fluoride phosphor according to claim 1, wherein the fluoride particle has a composition represented by Formula (1) below: A1c[M11-bMnbFd] (1) where in Formula (1), A1 comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of Li, Na, K, Rb and Cs; M1 at least comprises at least Si and/or Ge, and may further comprise at least one element selected from the group consisting of Group 4 elements and Group 14 elements; b satisfies 0 < b < 0.2, c is an absolute value of a charge of the [M11-bMnbFd] ion, and d satisfies 5 < d < 7.”.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto teach the fluoride phosphor of claim 1. Saka teaches use of aluminum but discloses that silicon can be used as oxide particle and/or cover layer (paragraph [0046]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select silicon from Saka’s listed options (substituting elements with predictable results) and arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto teach the claimed “The fluoride phosphor according to claim 1, wherein the oxide contains silicon”.
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto teach the fluoride phosphor of claim 1. Saka further teaches the cover layer (oxide) thickness is 1 nm to 50 μm but specifies that a thickness of 1 μm or less or at least 1 μm or more is preferable (paragraph [0076)]). Saka discloses that thicknesses below 1 μm reduces absorption by the cover layer while thicknesses above 1 μm increase adhesive strength and thermal conductivity. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select for a thickness around 1 μm to balance the effects of light absorption, adhesive strength, and thermal conductivity. Thus, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto satisfy the claimed “The fluoride phosphor according to claim 1, wherein an average thickness of the oxide is in a range from 0.1 µm to 1.8 µm”.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto teach the fluoride phosphor of claim 1. However, neither disclose use of an X-ray fluorescent elemental analysis for F in the fluoride particles. Yoshida and Saka teach the phosphor, regardless, as claimed. This ratio of peak intensity of Kα for fluorine would be an inherent property of the fluoride phosphor vs the fluoride particle. Since the fluoride phosphor possesses an oxide, there will be a reduction in the peak intensity of fluorine as the oxide does not possess fluorine. The fluoride particle will inherently represent 100% of the fluorine by X-ray analysis. Furthermore, using the oxide and cover layer teachings of Saka as described in the rejections for claims 1 and 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive to a ratio of 80% or less. Thus, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto satisfy the claimed “The fluoride phosphor according to claim 1, wherein in X-ray fluorescence elemental analysis, a ratio of a peak intensity of Kα rays of the element F in the fluoride phosphor to a peak intensity of Kα rays of the element F in the fluoride particles is 80% or less.”.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto teach the fluoride phosphor of claim 1. In examples 1-9, Yoshida discloses addition of La to the fluoride particle by using lanthanum phosphate in the mix. Thus, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto teach the claimed “The fluoride phosphor according to claim 1, wherein the rare earth phosphate comprises lanthanum”.
Regarding claim 11, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto teach the fluoride phosphor of claim 1. In examples 1-9, Yoshida discloses addition of La to the fluoride particle by using lanthanum phosphate in the mix. Yoshida increases the mass% of La relative to the fluoride particle as follows in examples 1-9 respectively: 1.1%, 2.9%, 4.8%, 6.7%, 2.3%, 5.2%, 7.6%, 9.7%, and 12.0%. Thus, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto teach the claimed “The fluoride phosphor according to claim 9, wherein a content percentage of the rare earth phosphate is in a range from 0.1 mass% to 20 mass% as a content percentage of the rare earth element.”
Regarding claim 20, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto teach the fluoride phosphor of claim 1. Yoshida further discloses implementing the fluoride phosphor into a light-emitting device. The light emitting-device contains a fluorescent member (the phosphor and a resin) and a light emitting element having a peak emission wavelength in the range of 380-470nm (paragraph [0046]). Therefore, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto teach the claimed “A light-emitting device comprising: a fluorescent member comprising a fluoride phosphor described in claim 1 and a resin; and a light-emitting element having a light emission peak wavelength in a wavelength range from 380 nm to 485 nm”.
Claims 4-5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Saka and Tsuneto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al (CN105623656A).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto teach the fluoride phosphor of claim 1 but none disclose addition of Al with Si into the fluoride particle. Liu et al discloses a fluoride particle of similar structure to Yoshida: A(2-x)Dx [X1-x-yAlxF6]yMn4+, wherein A is selected from Li, Na and K in the any one kind of or more. D is selected from any of Ba, Sr, Ca and Mg in the one kind of or more, X is selected from Si, Ge and Ti in the any one kind of or more, and x is more than or equal to 0.001 and less than or equal to 0.5, y is between 0.001 and 0.3. Liu discloses that preferably x is more than or equal to 0.03 and less than or equal to 0.1 in order to further improve optical performance. 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 of Al to include within the fluoride phosphor as a known amount of Al capable of improving optical performance of the particle and arrive at the invention as claimed. Furthermore, Liu also uses Al3+ to replace portions of “X” to influence the luminous center of the Mn crystal field, thereby adjusting light color performance and chroma luminance of the fluoride particle. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to supplement the fluoride particle as taught by Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto with Al as taught by Liu in order to influence the luminous center of the Mn crystal field and adjust light color performance and luminance. Thus, Yoshida, Saka, Tsuneto, and Liu teach the claimed “The fluoride phosphor according to claim 1, wherein the fluoride particle has a composition comprising Si and Al as the element M, and when the number of moles of the alkali metal is 2, a total number of moles of Si, Al, and Mn is in a range from 0.9 to 1.1, and a number of moles of Al is in a range greater than 0 to 0.1.”.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto teach the fluoride phosphor of claim 1 but none disclose addition of Al with Si into the fluoride particle. As described in the rejection for claim 4, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto do not teach addition of Al into the fluoride particle, but Liu does in order to adjust light color performance and luminance. Implementing Al to Yoshida’s particle would yield particle of composition: K2[(Si,Al)1-pMnpF6]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to supplement the fluoride particle as taught by Yoshida with Al as taught by Liu in order to influence the luminous center of the Mn crystal field and adjust light color performance and luminance. Thus, Yoshida, Saka, Tsuneto, and Liu teach the claimed “The fluoride phosphor according to claim 1, wherein the fluoride particle has a composition represented by Formula (2) below: A2f[M21-eMneFg] (2) where in Formula (2), A2 comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of Li, Na, K, Rb, and Cs; M2 comprises at least Si and Al, and may further comprise at least one element selected from the group consisting of Group 4 elements, Group 13 elements, and Group 14 elements; e satisfies 0 < e < 0.2, f is an absolute value of a charge of the [M21-eMneFg] ion, and g satisfies 5 < g < 7.”.
Regarding claim 21, Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto teach the fluoride phosphor of claim 1 but none disclose addition of Al with Si into the fluoride particle. Liu et al discloses a fluoride particle of similar structure to Yoshida: A(2-x)Dx [X1-x-yAlxF6]yMn4+, wherein A is selected from Li, Na and K in the any one kind of or more. D is selected from any of Ba, Sr, Ca and Mg in the one kind of or more, X is selected from Si, Ge and Ti in the any one kind of or more, and x is more than or equal to 0.001 and less than or equal to 0.5, y is between 0.001 and 0.3. Liu discloses that preferably x is more than or equal to 0.03 and less than or equal to 0.1 in order to further improve optical performance. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to start with Al in the range for improving optical performance of the particle and arrive at the invention as claimed. Furthermore, Liu also uses Al3+ to replace portions of “X” to influence the luminous center of the Mn crystal field, thereby adjusting light color performance and chroma luminance of the fluoride particle. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to supplement the fluoride particle as taught by Yoshida, Saka, and Tsuneto with Al as taught by Liu in order to influence the luminous center of the Mn crystal field and adjust light color performance and luminance. 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 of Al to include within the fluoride phosphor as a known amount of Al capable of improving optical performance of the particle and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Yoshida, Saka, Tsuneto, and Liu teach the claimed “The fluoride phosphor according to claim 1, wherein the fluoride particle has a composition comprising Si and Al as the element M, and when the number of moles of the alkali metal is 2, a total number of moles of Si, Al, and Mn is in a range from 0.9 to 1.1, and a number of moles of Al is in a range greater than 0 and less than 0.1”.
Claims 13-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al (US PGPub 20180134955) in view of Tsuneto (JP2018087323A).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshida teaches preparation of the fluoride particle having the composition as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but does not disclose an oxide layer or coating. Tsuneto similarly teaches fluoride particles but discloses addition of a silicon and/or aluminum compound to form a film-like material (oxide layer) on the surface of the phosphor core. Tsuneto suggests the mass of the silicon compound should be 5-30 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the phosphor, thus 5-30%. The mass of included aluminum in aluminum hydroxide particles are preferably 0.1% by mass to 5.0% by mass on the surface, thus a total % between silicon and aluminum of 5.1-35.0% which overlaps with the claimed oxide range. The aluminum amount provided alone also overlaps with the claimed range. The surface covering improves adhesion between particles and resin in a light emitting device, thus improving durability of the device, since the resin is sensitive to high currents passing through. 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 as a known amount of metal oxide to include for forming an oxide layer to protect the prepared phosphor to arrive at the invention as claimed. Although Tsuneto does not teach an aluminum alkoxide, Tsuneto discloses examples of silicon compound that include alkoxy silicon compounds. In example 4, Tsuneto uses tetraethoxysilane as the metal alkoxide and mixes it with an aqueous solution (liquid medium). The metal alkoxide through this process described by Tsuneto forms an oxide layer on the fluoride particles as disclosed in the final sentence of example 4. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date to substitute a provided aluminum hydroxide for aluminum alkoxide as a known alternative metal compound source for forming an oxide layer to improve durability of the phosphor. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to provide an aluminum alkoxide alone within the overlapping claimed range, or in combination with the silicon alkoxide, as a known metal oxide capable of improving adhesion and/or durability of the phosphor in a device (see examples 1-3 of Tsuneto) and arrive at the invention as claimed. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to coat the fluoride particles of Yoshida with an oxide derived from a metal alkoxide as taught by Tsuneto in order to improve adhesion of particles to a resin for use in a light-emitting device, thus improving the device’s durability. Tsuneto teaches a silicon compound which adheres to the surface of a fluoride phosphor (via hydrolysis and condensation, thus silane coupling). Therefore, further modifying the phosphor in view of Tsuneto would cover the surface of the phosphor whose surface is covered by an oxide layer, thus the surface treatment layer of Tsuneto would be on a surface of the oxide as well. In example 4 of Tsuneto, tetraethoxysilane is hydrolyzed and condensed, adhering to the surface of the phosphor core and forms within the oxide “film” layer, thus could be performed after covering with the oxide from an aluminum alkoxide provided. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to include a surface treatment layer by silane coupling reaction, as informed by Tsuneto, to the fluoride phosphor of Yoshida, after oxide layer formation, in order to improve adhesion between particles in a produced resin for use in a light emitting device and arrive at the invention as claimed. Therefore, Yoshida and Tsuneto teach the claimed “A method for manufacturing a fluoride phosphor, the manufacturing method comprising: preparing a fluoride particle having a composition comprising an element M, an alkali metal, Mn, and F, the element M comprising at least one element selected from the group consisting of Group 4 elements, Group 13 elements, and Group 14 elements, wherein, when a number of moles of the alkali metal is 2, a number of moles of Mn is in a range greater than 0 and less than 0.2, a number of moles of the element M is a range greater than 0.8 and less than 1, and a number of moles of F is in a range greater than 5 and less than 7; causing the prepared fluoride particle, rare earth ions including at least one type selected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Dy, and Gd, and phosphate ions to come into contact with each other in a liquid medium thereby obtaining a fluoride particle to which a rare earth phosphate is adhered; and causing the fluoride particle to which the rare earth phosphate is adhered and a metal alkoxide comprising at least one element selected from the group consisting of Si, Al, Ti, Zr, Sn, and Zn to come into contact with each other in a liquid medium thereby covering at least a portion of a surface of the fluoride particle to which the rare earth phosphate is adhered with an oxide derived from the metal alkoxide at an amount in a range from 2 mass% to 30 mass% relative to the fluoride phosphor, and performing a silane coupling treatment after at least a portion of the surface of the fluoride particle has been covered with the oxide derived from the metal alkoxide”
Regarding claim 14, Yoshida and Tsuneto teach the method of claim 13. In paragraph [0058], Yoshida discloses the method for synthesizing fluoride particles of formula (1): K2[Si1-pMnpF6]. Yoshida also discloses Si and Ge can be used together in paragraph [0023]. Thus, Yoshida and Tsuneto teach the claimed “The manufacturing method according to claim 13, wherein the prepared fluoride particle has a composition comprising at least Si and/or Ge as the element M, and when a number of moles of the alkali metal is 2, a total number of moles of Si, Ge, and Mn is in a range from 0.9 to 1.1”.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshida and Tsuneto teach the method of claim 14. In paragraph [0058], Yoshida discloses the method for synthesizing fluoride particles of formula (1): K2[Si1-pMnpF6]. Yoshida also discloses Si and Ge can be used together in paragraph [0023]. Thus, Yoshida and Tsuneto teach the claimed “The manufacturing method according to claim 14, wherein the prepared fluoride particle has a composition represented by Formula (1) below: A1c[M11-bMnbFd] (1) where in Formula (1), A1 comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of Li, Na, K, Rb and Cs; M1 comprises at least Si and/or Ge, and may further comprise at least one element selected from the group consisting of Group 4 elements and Group 14 elements; b satisfies 0 < b < 0.2, c is an absolute value of a charge of the [M11-bMnbFd] ion, and d satisfies 5 < d < 7.”.
Regarding claim 19, Yoshida and Tsuneto teach the method of claim 13. Tsuneto discloses examples of the silicon compound that include alkoxy silicon compounds (preferably at least one of tetramethoxysilane, tetraethoxysilane, methyltrimethoxysilane, methyltriethoxysilane, ethyltrimethoxysilane, and ethyltriethoxysilane). In example 4, Tsuneto uses tetraethoxysilane as the metal alkoxide. Thus, Yoshida and Tsuneto satisfy the claimed “The manufacturing method according claim 13, wherein the metal alkoxide brought into contact in the liquid medium includes at least one selected from the group consisting of tetramethoxysilane, tetraethoxysilane, and tetraisopropoxysilane”.
Claims 16-17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Tsuneto as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Liu et al (CN105623656A).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshida and Tsuneto teach the method of claim 13 but neither mention the addition of Al to the fluoride particle. Liu et al discloses a fluoride particle of similar structure to Yoshida: A(2-x)Dx [X1-x-yAlxF6]yMn4+, wherein A is selected from Li, Na and K in the any one kind of or more. D is selected from any of Ba, Sr, Ca and Mg in the one kind of or more, X is selected from Si, Ge and Ti in the any one kind of or more, and x is more than or equal to 0.001 and less than or equal to 0.5, y is between 0.001 and 0.3. Liu discloses that preferably x (amount of Al) is more than or equal to 0.03 and less than or equal to 0.1 in order to further improve optical performance. 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 of Al to include within the fluoride phosphor as a known amount of Al capable of improving optical performance of the particle and arrive at the invention as claimed. Furthermore, Liu also uses Al3+ to replace portions of “X” to influence the luminous center of the Mn crystal field, thereby adjusting light color performance and chroma luminance of the fluoride particle. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to supplement the fluoride particle as taught by Yoshida with Al as taught by Liu in order to influence the luminous center of the Mn crystal field and adjust light color performance and luminance. Thus, Yoshida, Tsuneto, and Liu teach the claimed “The manufacturing method according to claim 13, wherein the prepared fluoride particle has a composition comprising Si and Al as the element M, and when a number of moles of the alkali metal is 2, a total number of moles of Si, Al, and Mn is in a range from 0.9 to 1.1, and a number of moles of Al is in a range greater than 0 and 0.1”.
Regarding claim 17, Yoshida, Tsuneto, and Liu teach the method of claim 16. Furthermore, by implementing Al within the overlapping ranges to adjust light color performance would yield fluoride particle of composition: K2[(Si, Al)1-pMnpF6] where 0<p<0.2. Thus, Yoshida, Tsuneto, and Liu teach the claimed “The manufacturing method according to claim 16, wherein the prepared fluoride particle has a composition represented by Formula (2) below: A2f[M21-eMneFg] (2) where in Formula (2), A2 comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of Li, Na, K, Rb, and Cs; M2 comprises at least Si and Al, and may further comprise at least one element selected from the group consisting of Group 4 elements, Group 13 elements, and Group 14 elements; e satisfies 0 < e < 0.2, f is an absolute value of the charge of the [M21-eMneFg] ion, and g satisfies 5 < g < 7”.
Regarding claim 22, Yoshida and Tsuneto teach the method of claim 13. Liu et al discloses a fluoride particle of similar structure to Yoshida: A(2-x)Dx [X1-x-yAlxF6]yMn4+, wherein A is selected from Li, Na and K in the any one kind of or more. D is selected from any of Ba, Sr, Ca and Mg in the one kind of or more, X is selected from Si, Ge and Ti in the any one kind of or more, and x is more than or equal to 0.001 and less than or equal to 0.5, y is between 0.001 and 0.3. Liu discloses that preferably x is more than or equal to 0.03 and less than or equal to 0.1 in order to further improve optical performance. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to start with Al in the range for improving optical performance of the particle and arrive at the invention as claimed. Furthermore, Liu also uses Al3+ to replace portions of “X” to influence the luminous center of the Mn crystal field, thereby adjusting light color performance and chroma luminance of the fluoride particle. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to supplement the fluoride particle as taught by Yoshida and Tsuneto with Al as taught by Liu in order to influence the luminous center of the Mn crystal field and adjust light color performance and luminance. 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 of Al to include within the fluoride phosphor as a known amount of Al capable of improving optical performance of the particle and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Yoshida, Saka, Tsuneto, and Liu teach the claimed “The manufacturing method according to claim 13, wherein the prepared fluoride particle has a composition comprising Si and Al as the element M, and when a number of moles of the alkali metal is 2, a total number of moles of Si, Al, and Mn is in a range from 0.9 to 1.1, and a number of moles of Al is in a range greater than 0 and less than 0.1”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants present arguments towards independent claims 1 and 13 over cited references whereby the silane coupling treatment or surface treatment layer presenting a functional group on the surface of the oxide are not disclosed by Yoshida and Saka nor Yoshida and Tsuneto.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13 are not persuasive. The applicant argues that there is no motivation for making the proposed modifications but does not present argument with respect to the provided motivations in the 35 USC 103 rejections provided by examiner in the Office Action dated May 6, 2026. In the presented rejections, Yoshida teaches the rare earth phosphate. The examiner maintains that the teachings of Yoshida and Tsuneto are analogous as both teach fluoride phosphors of similar composition whereby Tsuneto teaches formation of oxide layer and a surface treatment by silane coupling (hydrolysis and condensation reactions) in order to improve the durability of the phosphor when implemented into a light emitting device. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify such a fluoride phosphor of Yoshida according to the teachings of Tsuneto in order to improve such properties of the fluoride phosphor and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, the examiner does not find the provided arguments to be persuasive.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights