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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I (claims 1-7 and 15-17) in the reply filed on July 6, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that invention II (claims 8-14) include all limitations of claim 1, thereby incorporating the features of the wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor as recited and directs to the same inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because the applicant did not clarify why the process of invention II provides a materially different effect to the wet-resistant red fluoride phosphor compared to other methods of producing such a phosphor. The examiner respectfully asserts that other processes can be used to make such phosphors outside of invention II as claimed such as providing a preformed fluoride phosphor core and subsequently coating with a shell, thus it is not clear as to why the process as claimed is necessary for producing the invention I as claimed.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 No. CN202310161936.1, filed on February 21, 2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the “core” and “shell” as claimed are stated to be “the core is…” and “the shell is…” whereby the term “is” can be construed as being “open” meaning each can include other components or can be construed as being “closed” meaning each are strictly what they are as claimed. For the purposes of examination, the latter “closed” interpretation will be read upon for the term “is” whereby the core is only a Mn4+ doped fluoride red phosphor and the shell is only a cubic perovskite-type compound and do not include any other components within.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “An application” is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter
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 2, 4-7, and 15-17 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-7, these claims include “the molar ratio of the shell to the core” which is indefinite for the following reasons. It is unclear as to what delineates a molar amount of “the shell” and “the core” particularly if the definitions of such can be read upon to include components outside of the cubic perovskite-type compound of the shell and components outside of the doped fluoride red phosphor of the core. It is unclear as to what calculates or defines a molar ratio of such shells and cores. Thus, the claims are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, “the molar ratio of the shell to the core” will be interpreted as a molar ratio between the CMgF3 compound to the A2B1-xF6: xMn4+ phosphor.
The term “high color rendering" and "high contrast lighting source” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high color rendering" and "high contrast lighting source” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of "high" when referring to a color rendering and to a contrast lighting source is indefinite because it is unclear as to what degree of color rendering and contrast is required to classify as "high". Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear since such a threshold of color rendering and contrast is unable to be resolved as currently written. Thus, claim 15 is indefinite.
The term “high color rendering" and "high contrast lighting source” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high color rendering" and "high contrast lighting source” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of "high" when referring to a color rendering and to a contrast lighting source is indefinite because it is unclear as to what degree of color rendering and contrast is required to classify as "high". Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear since such a threshold of color rendering and contrast is unable to be resolved as currently written. Thus, claim 16 is indefinite. Claim 17 is rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected claim 16.
Claim 15 to “An application”, like a “Use” claim, is indefinite as unclear as to whether it is directed to a process as the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the process. Mention of the phosphor “used as a red component” merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this application/use is actually practiced.
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, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al (US Pat No 11952521) in view of Kato et al (US PGPub 20240034926).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy teaches a wet- or water- resistant fluoride red phosphor which is of core-shell structure. At the bottom of Col 1, Murphy discloses a Mn4+ doped phosphor of formula I: Ax[MFy]:Mn4+ whereby A is Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, or a combination thereof (maps to “A is at least one of Li, Na, K, Rb, and Cs”), M is Si, Ge, Sn, Ti, Zr, Al, Ga, In, Sc, Y, La, Nb, Ta, Bi, Gd, or a combination thereof (maps to “B is at least one of Ti, Si, Ge, Zr, and Sn”), x is an absolute value of the charge of the [MFy] ion, and y is 5, 6, or 7 (maps to “F6”). In Col. 3 lines 1-12, Murphy provides more information on the chemical identity of phosphors that are encompassed by their disclosed formula such as K2[SiF6]:Mn4+ and K2[TiF6]:Mn4+, thus encompassing the claimed “A2B1-xF6”. Murphy further discloses that in particular embodiments, K2[SiF6]:Mn4+ is the utilized phosphor. In Col. 3 lines 14-26, Murphy disclosed the amount of Mn4+ that may be present in the phosphor which ranges from 1.2 mol % based on the total number of moles of Mn and Si to about 21 mol %. Thus, the range of the Mn included at a molar amount is 0.012-0.21 which is encompassed by the claimed “0 ≤ x ≤ 0.4”. In Col. 8 lines 37-45, Murphy describes that the phosphor of formula I is coated with a “manganese-free shell comprising a metal fluoride compound disposed on the core”, thus this coating is a shell whereby the disclosed “coated phosphor” is a “fluoride red phosphor is a core-shell structure”. Furthermore, Murphy defines that the metal fluoride compound is KMgF3 in particular embodiments in Col. 8 lines 61-62 (maps to “CMgF3 wherein C is at least one of Li, Na, K, Rb, and Cs” as claimed). Therefore, Murphy discloses a Mn4+ red phosphor (Col. 13 lines 43-45 teaches that the phosphor of formula I is a red phosphor) having a core-shell structure whereby the core is of formula I and the shell is a metal fluoride that is KMgF3. In provided examples, Murphy compares the efficiency of the prepared phosphors with and without coatings after water treatment whereby the coating provides resistance to degradation by water, thus the prepared red phosphors are wet-resistant. Furthermore, in example 19, Murphy teaches a microemulsion method for preparation of KMgF3-coated K2SiF6:Mn phosphor, whereby the coating is a shell according to Col. 8 lines 37-45 as described above. Murphy is silent on the KMgF3 shell being a “cubic perovskite-type compound”. Kato also teaches a core-shell structured nanoparticle whose core can be a phosphor, quantum dot, or perovskite (paragraphs [0097-98]) and is thus analogous to the invention as claimed by providing a core-shell based phosphor for use in light emitting devices. Kato differs from Murphy in that the shell is composed of a chalcogenide perovskite and not necessarily limited to a metal fluoride (paragraphs [0033-36]). Kato further teaches that the perovskite described has a cubic crystal structure represented by the chemical formula ABX3 (paragraph 0037) whereby cubic perovskites have “excellent photoelectronic properties and chemical characteristics” (paragraph [0042]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to ensure that the provided KMgF3 shell of the fluoride phosphor of Murphy is of cubic perovskite-type compound or structure to provide improved photoelectronic properties and chemical characteristics and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Murphy and Kato teach the claimed “Wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor, wherein the fluoride red phosphor is a core-shell structure: the core is Mn4+ doped fluoride red phosphor, and the chemical structural formula is A2B1-xF6: xMn4+, wherein A is at least one of Li, Na, K, Rb, and Cs, B is at least one of Ti, Si, Ge, Zr, and Sn, and 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.4; and the shell is a cubic perovskite-type compound, and the chemical structural formula is CMgF3, wherein C is at least one of Li, Na, K, Rb, and Cs”.
Regarding claim 3, Murphy and Kato teach the wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor of claim 1. Furthermore, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Murphy teaches that their fluoride red phosphor can have K and/or Na as “A”, Ti and/or Si as “M” (“B” as claimed), and uses KMgF3 as the shell (thus matches claimed “C is at least one of Na and K”) whereby the shell would be of cubic perovskite structure as informed by Kato. Also, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Murphy provides in example 19 a KMgF3-coated K2SiF6:Mn phosphor. Thus, Murphy and Kato teach the claimed “The wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor according to claim 1, wherein A is at least one of Na and K, B is at least one of Ti and Si, and C is at least one of Na and K”.
Regarding claim 15, Murphy and Kato teach the wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor of claim 1. In Cols. 9-11, Murphy provides context to the application of their phosphor into light emitting devices or LED device. In Col. 11 lines 15-30, Murphy describes that the phosphors according to their invention are used in “direct emission display devices” and/or devices that include a backlight unit or direct emission display. In Col. 11 lines 32-35, Murphy describes that when the phosphor is used with an LED emitting from 350-550 nm light and “one or more other appropriate phosphors”, the resulting lighting system will produce a light of white color. Cols. 13-14 specify that the provided phosphor serves as the red component (Col. 13 lines 43-45) and is employed in an LED lighting device producing white light (Col. 13 lines 60-63). Col. 14 line 1 discloses that “the material [phosphor] can be used for LEDs intended for liquid crystal display backlighting”. Thus, Murphy discloses that the provided phosphor is used as a red component of an LED that produces white light and serves as a display backlighting or backlight source. Furthermore, in Col 13 lines 55-67, Murphy teaches tunability of color rendering and contrast of such an LED source and display, thus providing “high color rendering” and “high contrast”. Therefore, Murphy and Kato teach the claimed “An application of the wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor according to claim 1 used as a red component of a white light LED device serving as a display backlight source and a high color rendering and high contrast lighting source”.
Regarding claim 16, Murphy and Kato teach the wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor of claim 1. In Cols. 9-11, Murphy provides context to the application of their phosphor into light emitting devices or LED device. In Col. 11 lines 15-30, Murphy describes that the phosphors according to their invention are used in “direct emission display devices” and/or devices that include a backlight unit or direct emission display. In Col. 11 lines 32-35, Murphy describes that when the phosphor is used with an LED emitting from 350-550 nm light and “one or more other appropriate phosphors”, the resulting lighting system will produce a light of white color. Cols. 13-14 specify that the provided phosphor serves as the red component (Col. 13 lines 43-45) and is employed in an LED lighting device producing white light (Col. 13 lines 60-63). Col. 14 line 1 discloses that “the material [phosphor] can be used for LEDs intended for liquid crystal display backlighting”. Thus, Murphy discloses that the provided phosphor is used as a red component of an LED that produces white light and serves as a display backlighting or backlight source. Furthermore, in Col 13 lines 55-67, Murphy teaches tunability of color rendering and contrast of such an LED source and display, thus providing “high color rendering” and “high contrast”. In Col 11 lines 42-47, Murphy explains that such devices emit white light by combining the phosphor with one or more other light emitting materials. The phosphor is combined with a blue or UV LED emitting radiation in the range of 250-550nm (blue component). Other phosphors or quantum dots materials such as green, blue, yellow red, orange, or other colors may be used in a blend to customize the color of resulting light. Throughout Col 13, Murphy describes combination of the red phosphor, a green emitting material, and a blue LED lighting component to produce white light whereby the white light LED device serves as a backlight source for a display device (Col 13 lines 55-68 through Col 14 lines 1-9). Therefore, Murphy and Kato teach the claimed “A white light LED device serving as a display backlight source and a high color rendering and high contrast lighting source, wherein the white light LED device comprises a red component, a green component, and a blue component; and the red component is the wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor according to claim 1”.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al in view of Kato et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Butts et al (US PGPub 20200369956).
Regarding claim 2, Murphy and Kato teach the wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor of claim 1. Murphy is silent on the molar ratio between the provided shell (KMgF3) and core (K2SiF6:Mn). Butts similarly teaches a coated or shelled phosphor material whereby the core is of identical structure to Murphy (paragraph [0017]). The coating can comprise a metal fluoride whereby the coating improves quantum efficiency of the provided phosphor upon exposure to liquid water or water vapor (paragraphs [0064-65]), thus wet-resistant and analogous to Murphy and the invention as claimed. In examples 77-86, Butts teaches coating 3.5g (~0.016mol core, ~220.27 MW) K2SiF6:Mn in 15mL of 0.39M (~0.0059 mol maximum of shell) K2HPO4 (forms K2SiF6 metal fluoride shell) and thus provides a shell:core ratio of 0.37 or ~0.4. In ex 89, Butts provides 1.2g of the core (0.0054mol) to 3.6mL of 0.39M K2HPO4 (0.0014mol), thus a shell:core molar ratio at most of 0.26. In example 97, Butts provides 5g of the phosphor (0.0227 mol) to 0.05g MgF2 (metal fluoride shell of 62.3g/mol MW, 0.000802 mol), thus providing a shell:core molar ratio of 0.035. In examples 99-100, Butts provides a shell:core ratio of 0.177 following the materials provided in example 97. Thus, Butts provides relevant shell:core molar ratios capable of stabilizing or improving quantum efficiencies post-exposure to water (thus imparts wet-resistance) as detailed in Tables 7-9. Each provided shell:core ratio fall within the range as claimed (0.005-1.0). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to provide the shell within disclosed amounts as informed by Butts in the composition of Murphy and Kato as known shell:core (KMgF3:K2SiF6 Mn) ratios capable of stabilizing quantum efficiencies after exposure to water or moisture and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Murphy, Kato, and Butts teach the claimed “The wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor according to claim 1, wherein the molar ratio of the shell to the core is 0.005-1.0.”.
Regarding claim 4, Murphy and Kato teach the wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor of claim 1. Murphy is silent on the molar ratio between the provided shell (KMgF3) and core (K2SiF6:Mn). Butts similarly teaches a coated or shelled phosphor material whereby the core is of identical structure to Murphy (paragraph [0017]). The coating can comprise a metal fluoride whereby the coating improves quantum efficiency of the provided phosphor upon exposure to liquid water or water vapor (paragraphs [0064-65]), thus wet-resistant and analogous to Murphy and the invention as claimed. In examples 77-86, Butts teaches coating 3.5g (~0.016mol core, ~220.27 MW) K2SiF6:Mn in 15mL of 0.39M (~0.0059 mol maximum of shell) K2HPO4 (forms K2SiF6 metal fluoride shell) and thus provides a shell:core ratio of 0.37 or ~0.4. In example 97, Butts provides 5g of the phosphor (0.0227 mol) to 0.05g MgF2 (metal fluoride shell of 62.3g/mol MW, 0.000802 mol), thus providing a shell:core molar ratio of 0.035. In examples 99-100, Butts provides a shell:core ratio of 0.177 (or ~0.2) following the materials provided in example 97. From Table 9, Butts shows that the examples of 99-100 provide remarkably more stable quantum efficiencies after water exposure compared to the example of 97 (ratio of 0.177 vs 0.035). Thus, the shell:core molar ratio represents a result-effective variable (see MPEP2144.05IIb). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the shell:core ratios from the insight of Butts in the composition of Murphy and Kato whereby ratios of 0.177 and 0.37 provide remarkably improved stability to water or moisture and thus would motivate arrival to nearby values of 0.2 or 0.4 as such a molar ratio represents an optimization of a result-effective variable for use in coated phosphors. Therefore, Murphy, Kato, and Butts teach the claimed “The wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor according to claim 1, wherein the molar ratio of the shell to the core is 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, or 1.0”.
Regarding claim 5, Murphy and Kato teach the wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor of claim 1. Murphy is silent on the molar ratio between the provided shell (KMgF3) and core (K2SiF6:Mn). Although Murphy teaches use of Si as opposed to Ti in example 19, Murphy discloses that Ti is an alternative component for Si (see rejection 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 substitute Si for Ti as a known alternative element in producing a coated phosphor. Murphy also does not specify the amount of Mn present in this example but discloses that Mn can be present in molar amount of 0.012-0.21 (see rejection of claim 1). Further, in Table 1, Murphy provides wt% of Mn included in several uncoated examples 1-17. According to Murphy, a 1.2mol% corresponds to a 0.3 wt% and a 21mol% to about 5.1 wt% (see Col. 3 lines 14-25). A 2 mol % (0.02 Mn or x = 0.02 from instant claim 1) corresponds to 0.5wt%. 5.5mol% is around 1.4 wt% and 12.2mol% is around 3 wt%. The provided wt% in examples 1-17 of Table 1 range from 1.76 wt% to 3.31 wt%, thus mol% just under 5.5 and up to 13 mol% or inclusion of Mn whereby x is between 0.055 to 0.13 which includes the case whereby Mn can be included specifically at 8mol% or x =0.08 as claimed. 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. Murphy is silent on a shell:core molar ratio provided in example 19. In examples 99-100, Butts provides a shell:core ratio of 0.177 (or ~0.2) following the materials provided in example 97. From Table 9, Butts shows that the examples of 99-100 provide remarkably more stable quantum efficiencies after water exposure compared to the example of 97 (ratio of 0.177 vs 0.035). Thus, the shell:core molar ratio represents a result-effective variable (see MPEP2144.05IIb). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the shell:core ratios from the insight of Butts in the composition of Murphy and Kato whereby ratio of 0.177 provide remarkably improved stability to water or moisture and thus would motivate arrival to nearby values of 0.2 as such a molar ratio represents an optimization of a result-effective variable for use in coated phosphors. Thus, Murphy, Kato, and Butts teach the claimed “The wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor according to claim 1, wherein the fluoride red phosphor is K2TiF6: 0.08Mn4+ @KMgF3, the molar ratio of the shell to the core is 0.2”.
Regarding claim 6, Murphy and Kato teach the wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor of claim 1. Murphy does not specify the amount of Mn present in example 19 but discloses that Mn can be present in molar amount of 0.012-0.21 (see rejection of claim 1). Further, in Table 1, Murphy provides wt% of Mn included in several uncoated examples 1-17. According to Murphy, a 1.2mol% corresponds to a 0.3 wt% and a 21mol% to about 5.1 wt% (see Col. 3 lines 14-25). A 2 mol % (0.02 Mn or x = 0.02 from instant claim 1) corresponds to 0.5wt%. 5.5mol% is around 1.4 wt% and 12.2mol% is around 3 wt%. The provided wt% in examples 1-17 of Table 1 range from 1.76 wt% to 3.31 wt%, thus mol% just under 5.5 and up to 13 mol% or inclusion of Mn whereby x is between 0.055 to 0.13 which includes the case whereby Mn can be included specifically at 8mol% or x =0.08 as claimed. 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. Murphy is silent on a shell:core molar ratio provided in example 19. In examples 99-100, Butts provides a shell:core ratio of 0.177 (or ~0.2) following the materials provided in example 97. From Table 9, Butts shows that the examples of 99-100 provide remarkably more stable quantum efficiencies after water exposure compared to the example of 97 (ratio of 0.177 vs 0.035). Thus, the shell:core molar ratio represents a result-effective variable (see MPEP2144.05IIb). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the shell:core ratios from the insight of Butts in the composition of Murphy and Kato whereby ratio of 0.177 provide remarkably improved stability to water or moisture and thus would motivate arrival to nearby values of 0.2 as such a molar ratio represents an optimization of a result-effective variable for use in coated phosphors. Thus, Murphy, Kato, and Butts teach the claimed “The wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor according to claim 1, wherein the fluoride red phosphor is K2SiF6: 0.08Mn4+@ KMgF3, the molar ratio of the shell to the core is 0.2”.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al in view of Kato et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Butts et al (US PGPub 202003699569) and Zhou et al (CN113337279A).
Murphy and Kato teach the wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor of claim 1. Murphy and Kato are silent on a shell:core molar ratio, but Butts provides relevant molar ratios (see rejections of claims 2 and 4-6 above). Murphy does not specify the amount of Mn present in example 19 but discloses that Mn can be present in molar amount of 0.012-0.21 (see rejection of claim 1). Further, in Table 1, Murphy provides wt% of Mn included in several uncoated examples 1-17. According to Murphy, a 1.2mol% corresponds to a 0.3 wt% and a 21mol% to about 5.1 wt% (see Col. 3 lines 14-25). A 2 mol % (0.02 Mn or x = 0.02 from instant claim 1) corresponds to 0.5wt%. 5.5mol% is around 1.4 wt% and 12.2mol% is around 3 wt%. The provided wt% in examples 1-17 of Table 1 range from 1.76 wt% to 3.31 wt%, thus mol% just under 5.5 and up to 13 mol% or inclusion of Mn whereby x is between 0.055 to 0.13 which includes the case whereby Mn can be included specifically at 8mol% or x =0.08 as claimed. 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. Butts similarly teaches a coated or shelled phosphor material whereby the core is of identical structure to Murphy (paragraph [0017]). The coating can comprise a metal fluoride whereby the coating improves quantum efficiency of the provided phosphor upon exposure to liquid water or water vapor (paragraphs [0064-65]), thus wet-resistant and analogous to Murphy and the invention as claimed. In examples 99-100, Butts provides a shell:core ratio of 0.177 (or ~0.2) following the materials provided in example 97. From Table 9, Butts shows that the examples of 99-100 provide remarkably more stable quantum efficiencies after water exposure compared to the example of 97 (ratio of 0.177 vs 0.035). Thus, the shell:core molar ratio represents a result-effective variable (see MPEP2144.05IIb). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the shell:core ratios from the insight of Butts in the composition of Murphy and Kato whereby ratio of 0.177 provide remarkably improved stability to water or moisture and thus would motivate arrival to nearby values of 0.2 as such a molar ratio represents an optimization of a result-effective variable for use in coated phosphors. Murphy teaches that metal fluorides can serve as the shell or coating for the phosphors but does not disclose the identity of such fluorides outside of the used KMgF3 and thus does not teach away from other metal fluorides nor discourage the use of other metal fluorides. Zhou et al teach an analogous wet-resistant coated red fluoride phosphor doped by Mn. Zhou teaches a core composed of a fluoride substrate doped with Mn4+ and a fluoride shell. Zhou teaches that the structure can be expressed as A2MF6:Mn4+@A2MF6 (core@shell) or more broadly that the fluoride core and shell is one of “AHF2, ABF3, ANF4, BNF5, A2MF6, A3NF6, ABNF6, A3MF7, A2LF7, BMF7, B2MF8 and A5B3F14; wherein A is Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, NH4 or N (CH3) 4; B is Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba or Zn; N is In, Ga or Al; R is La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb or Lu; M is Si, Ti, Ge, Sn, Zr or Hf; L is Ta or Nb.”. Thus, Zhou discloses a known metal fluoride shell that can be of formula “NaMgF3” whereby the shell “can significantly improve the moisture resistance of the KSFM phosphor” where KSFM is K2SiF6:Mn based phosphor. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the metal fluoride shell of KMgF3 in the phosphor of Murphy (in view of Kato and Butts described above) with a known alternative metal fluoride of NaMgF3, as informed by Zhou, that can improve moisture resistance of KSFM phosphors and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Murphy, Kato, Butts, and Zhou teach the claimed “The wet-resistant fluoride red phosphor according to claim 1, wherein the fluoride red phosphor is K2TiF6: 0.08Mn4+ @NaMgF3, the molar ratio of the shell to the core is 0.2”.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al in view of Kato et al as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Park et al (US PGPub 20170170370).
Murphy and Kato teach the white light LED device of claim 16. Murphy describes combination of blue, red, and green components to form a white light LED device whereby the KSFM phosphor forms the red component. Murphy discloses the blue component as a nitride compound semiconductor represented by the formula “IniGajAlkN (where 0≤i; 0≤j; 0≤k, and i+j+k=1)” (Col. 9 lines 14-16), thus making an InGaN blue-emitting chip a possible component when k = 0 and i=j=1. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use an InGaN nitride compound semiconductor as a known blue light source for use in a white light LED device. Murphy is silent on the photoluminescent properties of the green components but discloses several possibilities on the identity of green phosphors or quantum dot materials that can be utilized in Cols 11-12. Park also discloses a white light emitting device which includes a blue light emitting diode, a green phosphor, and a red phosphor. In paragraph [0036], Park discloses the phosphors capable of emitting green light in their white LED device which overlaps with disclosed possible phosphors of Murphy. Park further discloses in paragraph [0035] that when the green phosphor is excited by blue LED light, the green phosphor emits a peak wavelength in a range of 510-535 nm (thus overlaps with “a peak emission wavelength of 520-560 nm”) and has a full width at half maximum of 35 nm or less (thus “a half peak width of less than 35nm”). 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. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement a disclosed green phosphor of Park in a white LED device that overlap with the disclosed green phosphors of Murphy in the device of Murphy in view of Kato as a known green phosphor suitable for use in making an LED device that emits white light and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Murphy, Kato, and Park teach the claimed “The white light LED device according to claim 16, wherein the green component is a green phosphor with a peak emission wavelength of 520-560 nm and a half peak width of less than 35 nm; and the blue component is an InGaN blue-emitting chip”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al (CN112251219A) provide examples whereby Mn is doped at 0.07 molar amount (relevant to claims 5-7) and provides a wet-resistant fluoride red-phosphor in white LED with InGaN blue chip.
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