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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/14/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a light modulation device configured to in claims 10-11 (fig. 1: specifically devices 4R, 4G, and 4B & ¶¶0024-0029 of the specification serves as sufficient art-recognized structure for performing the claimed function of light modulation); and
a projection optical device configured to in claims 10-11 (fig. 1: specifically device 6 & ¶0030 of the specification serves as sufficient art-recognized structure for performing the claimed function of light modulation).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikmet et al. (US 20230229068 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20250084308 A1).
Concerning claim 1, Hikmet et al. (hereinafter Hikmet) teaches a phosphor comprising:
a phosphor phase made of A3B5O12:Ce having a garnet structure (fig. 2A: 210; ¶0013; ¶0015; ¶0151); wherein
a ratio of Ce to A in terms of number of atoms is 0.0002 or more and 0.005 or less (¶0110: The content of Ce may be at least 0.2% (0.002) to 1.5% (0.015) of A, especially 0.4% (0.004) to 1.0% (0.010), wherein the values of 0.002 and/or 0.004 are more than the claimed 0.0002 and less than 0.005 ),
A is at least one selected from the group consisting of Lu, Gd, Tb, Ga, and Y, and B is Al (¶0015: “…the luminescent material comprises a luminescent material of the type A.sub.3B.sub.5O.sub.12:Ce, wherein A in embodiments comprises one or more of Y, La, Gd, Tb and Lu, especially (at least) one or more of Y, Gd, Tb and Lu, and wherein B in embodiments comprises one or more of Al, Ga, In and Sc.”). Not explicitly taught is a matrix phase having a refractive index higher than a refractive index of the phosphor phase.
Li et al. (hereinafter Li), in the same field of endeavor, teaches a matrix phase having a refractive index higher than a refractive index of the phosphor phase (¶0035: aluminum nitride matrix phase). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Hikmet and Li and have a matrix phase having a refractive index higher than a refractive index of the phosphor phase. Having a matrix phase composed of material having a higher refractive index allows for more efficiently confined light generated in the matrix phase, thereby enhancing light-guiding properties.
Concerning claim 2, Hikmet further teaches the phosphor according to claim 1, wherein A is Y (¶0015).
Concerning claim 3, Hikmet further teaches the phosphor according to claim 1, wherein the ratio is 0.003 or less (¶0110: The content of Ce may be at least 0.2% (0.002) to 1.5% (0.015) of A, wherein the value of 0.002 is less than the claimed 0.003).
Concerning claim 4, Hikmet further teaches the phosphor according to claim 1, wherein the ratio is 0.001 or more (¶0110: The content of Ce may be at least 0.2% (0.002) to 1.5% (0.015) of A, especially 0.4% (0.004) to 1.0% (0.010), wherein the values of 0.002 and 0.004 are more than the claimed 0.001).
Concerning claim 5, Li further teaches the phosphor according to claim 1, wherein the matrix phase is AlN (¶0035).
Concerning claim 6, Hikmet in view of Li further teaches a wavelength conversion device (Hikmet, figs. 1A-3B: assembly 2000; ¶¶0012-0013) comprising:
a substrate (Hikmet, ¶0071; ¶0073; figs. 1A-3B: element 400);
the phosphor according to claim 1 provided on the substrate and configured to convert an incident excitation light into fluorescence (The rejection of claim 1 applies. See also, Hikmet, figs. 1A-3B: luminescent body 200; ¶0004; ¶0009; ¶0013); and
a reflective layer provided at an opposite side of a light incident side of the phosphor (Hikmet, figs. 1A-3B: coating layer 500 comprises reflective layer 510 positioned under luminescent body 200; ¶0071).
Concerning claim 7, Hikmet in view of Li further teaches a wavelength conversion device (Hikmet, Hikmet, figs. 1A-3B: assembly 2000; ¶¶0012-0013) comprising:
a substrate (Hikmet, ¶0071; ¶0073; figs. 1A-3B: element 400);
the phosphor according to claim 1 provided on the substrate and configured to convert an incident excitation light into fluorescence (The rejection of claim 1 applies. See also, Hikmet, figs. 1A-3B: luminescent body 200; ¶0004; ¶0009; ¶0013); and
an optical layer provided on a light incident side of the phosphor and configured to transmit the excitation light and reflect the fluorescence (Hikmet, ¶¶0089-0091: “In embodiments, also one or more optics, like a lens, a reflector, an optical filter, may be configured in the optical path between light generating element and item or material”).
Concerning claim 8, Hikmet in view of Li further teaches an illumination device (Hikmet, figs. 1A-4: light generating device 1000, ¶0165) comprising:
a light source configured to emit the excitation light (figs. 1A-3B: light source 100); and
the wavelength conversion device according to claim 6, on which the excitation light is incident (The rejection of claims 1 and 6 apply. See also, Hikmet, figs. 1A-3B where light source 100 emits the excitation light on assembly 2000).
Concerning claim 9, Hikmet in view of Li further teaches an illumination device (Hikmet, figs. 1A-4: light generating device 1000, ¶0165) comprising:
a light source configured to emit the excitation light (figs. 1A-3B: light source 100); and
the wavelength conversion device according to claim 7, on which the excitation light is incident (The rejection of claims 1 and 7 apply. See also, Hikmet, figs. 1A-3B where light source 100 emits the excitation light on assembly 2000).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikmet et al. (US 20230229068 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20250084308 A1) and Chiou (US 20230069926 A1).
Concerning claim 10, Hikmet in view of Li teaches the illumination device according to claim 8. Hikmet further teaches a projector (Hikmet, fig. 4: projector 3; ¶0165) comprising:
the illumination device (Hikmet, figs. 1A-4: light generating device 1000, ¶0133; ¶0165). Not explicitly taught is the projector comprising: a light modulation device configured to modulate a light emitted from the illumination device; and a projection optical device configured to project the light modulated by the light modulation device.
Chiou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a projector, comprising:
a light modulation device configured to modulate a light emitted from the illumination device (fig. 1: light valve 14, which may be a spatial light modulator (SLM) (see, ¶0034)); and
a projection optical device configured to project the light modulated by the light modulation device (fig. 1: projection lens 16; ¶0034). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add these commonly known features into the projector of the Hikmet in view of Li invention in order to convert the light from the illumination device and project a color image on a projection target (Chiou, ¶0034).
Concerning claim 11, Hikmet in view of Li teaches the illumination device according to claim 9. Hikmet further teaches a projector (Hikmet, fig. 4: projector 3; ¶0165) comprising:
the illumination device (Hikmet, figs. 1A-4: light generating device 1000, ¶0133; ¶0165). Not explicitly taught is the projector comprising: a light modulation device configured to modulate a light emitted from the illumination device; and a projection optical device configured to project the light modulated by the light modulation device.
Chiou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a projector, comprising:
a light modulation device configured to modulate a light emitted from the illumination device (fig. 1: light valve 14, which may be a spatial light modulator (SLM) (see, ¶0034)); and
a projection optical device configured to project the light modulated by the light modulation device (fig. 1: projection lens 16; ¶0034). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add these commonly known features into the projector of the Hikmet in view of Li invention in order to convert the light from the illumination device and project a color image on a projection target (Chiou, ¶0034).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, BRIAN PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/James M Anderson II/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425