Notice of 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
SPECIES I: Claims 1-6, 11 and 19-27 are drawn to a substrate having at least 20% reflectivity e.g., Fig. 1.
SPECIES II: Claims 7-10, 12, 28-30 are drawn to a reflective layer located between the substrate and the color conversion layer; e.g., Fig. 2.
SPECIES III: Claims 13-18 are drawn to a back reflective layer located on the second side of the substrate; e.g., Fig. 5.
The species are independent or distinct because the limitations are all mutually exclusive. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, there are no generic claims.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: different search strategies are required in order to effectively search the claimed limitations; the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Tarek Fahmi on 07/20/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of claims 7-12 and 28-30.
Claims 7-12 and 28-30 will be examined.
Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claims 1-6, 11 and 13-27 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 28-30 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 28 recites the limitation "wherein the LED light source is optically coupled and/or radiationally connected to at least the first side of the color conversion layer " in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purpose of examination, claim 28 will treated as stating:
28. An automotive tail-light including: an LED light source; … the LED light source located remotely from the color conversion layer, wherein the LED light source is optically coupled and/or radiationally connected to at least the first side of the color conversion layer.
This is consistent with the drawings showing an LED light source (106, 208, 308, …).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 7-10, 12 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno (US 2021/0325022 A1) in view of Eom (US 2021/0242376 A1).
Regarding independent claim 7: Okuno teaches (e.g., Fig. 1) a device comprising:
a color conversion layer ([0005]-[0006], [0017]: 2) comprising luminescent material ([0017]: 2 comprises a phosphor material), the color conversion layer having a first side and a second side (upper side and lower side respectively);
a substrate ([0017]: 1) having a first side (an upper side);
the second side (bottom side) of the color conversion layer (2) located on the first side of the substrate (upper side of substrate 1);
an LED light source ([0052]: 20) located remotely from the color conversion layer (2), wherein the LED light source is optically coupled and/or radiationally connected to at least the first side (upper side) of the color conversion layer (2); and
Okuno does not expressly teach that the device comprises a reflective layer located between the substrate and the color conversion layer.
Eom teaches (e.g., Figs.1-2) a device comprising a substrate ([0025]-[0026]: 100) and a color conversion layer ([0025] and [0037]: 410);
Eom further teaches that a reflective layer ([0028]: 120) is located between the substrate (100) and the color conversion layer ([0025] and [0037]: 410).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the device of Okuno, the reflective layer located between the substrate and the color conversion layer, as taught by Eom, for the benefits of increasing the light flux emitted outward, and thus improve the device optical efficiency.
Regarding claim 8: Okuno and Eom teach the claim limitation of the device according to claim 7, on which this claim depends,
wherein the color conversion layer comprises one film or at least two films having different refractive indices (Okuno: [0005]-[0006], [0017]: 2 comprises at least one film).
Regarding claim 9: Okuno and Eom teach the claim limitation of the device according to claim 8, on which this claim depends,
wherein the luminescent material comprises phosphor material selected from yttrium aluminum garnet, beta-SiAlON,
a Mn4+ doped phosphor having formula I, a uranium-based phosphor, and blends thereof, wherein the uranium-based phosphor has formula II, III, IV, V or VI:
Ax[MFy]:Mn4+ (I)
wherein A is Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, or a combination thereof; M is Si, Ge, Sn, Ti, Zr, Al, Ga, In, Sc, Y, La, Nb, Ta, Bi, Gd, or a combination thereof; x is the absolute value of the charge of the [MFy] ion; and y is 5, 6 or 7;
[Ba1-a-bSraCab]x[Mg,Zn]y(UO2)z([P,V]O4)2(x+y+z)/3 II
[Ba1-a-bSraCab]p(UO2)q[P,V]rO(2p+2q+5r)/2 III
A2UO2[P,V]2O7 IV
A4UO2([P,V]O4)2 V
AUO2([P,V]O3)3 VI
wherein 0≤a≤1, 0≤b≤1, 0.75≤x≤1.25, 0.75≤y≤1.25, 0.75≤z≤1.25, 2.5≤p≤3.5, 1.75≤q≤2.25, 3.5≤r≤4.5 and A is Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs or a combination thereof (Okuno: [0084]: yttrium aluminum garnet).
Regarding claim 10: Okuno and Eom teach the claim limitation of the device according to claim 9, on which this claim depends,
Okuno does not expressly teach that the Mn4+ phosphor of formula I is K2SiF6:Mn4+ or Na2[SiF6]:Mn4+.
Eom teaches (e.g., Fig. 2) a device comprising a Mn4+ phosphor ([0035]);
Eom further teaches that Mn4+ phosphor of formula I is K2SiF6:Mn4+ or Na2[SiF6]:Mn4+ ([0035]: K2SiF6:Mn4+).
K2SiF6:Mn4+ is an art known material for its suitability as a phosphor.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.
"Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment); MPEP 2144.07.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the device of Okuno, the phosphor formula being K2SiF6:Mn4+, as taught by Eom, for the benefits of achieving the desired optical characteristics of the display device.
Regarding claim 12: Okuno and Eom teach the claim limitation of an article comprising the device the device according to claim 7, on which this depends.
Okuno as modified by Eom teaches that when light from the LED light source (Okuno: 20) travels through the color conversion layer (Okuno: 2), a first portion of light is absorbed by the color conversion layer (Okuno: [0006]-[0008], [0017]-[0018] and [0025]: 2), and a second portion of light exits the second side of the color conversion layer (Okuno: Fig. 1; [0017]-[0018] and [0025]) and contacts the reflective layer (Eom: [0028]: 120) which reflects a portion of the second portion of light toward the color conversion layer (Okuno: 2).
Regarding independent claim 28: Okuno teaches (e.g., Fig. 1) an automotive tail-light (intended use; the preamble does not give any structure of an automotive device; Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ) including:
an LED light source ([0052]: 20);
a color conversion layer ([0005]-[0006], [0017]: 2) comprising luminescent material ([0017]: 2 comprises a phosphor material), the color conversion layer having a first side and a second side (upper side and lower side respectively);
a substrate ([0017]: 1) having a first side (upper surface); and
the second side of the color conversion layer (2) located on the first side of the substrate (upper surface of substrate 1),
the LED light source (20) located remotely from the color conversion layer (2),
wherein the LED light source is (20) optically coupled and/or radiationally connected to at least the first side (upper surface) of the color conversion layer (2).
Okuno does not expressly teach that the automotive tail-light comprises at least a reflective layer is located between the substrate and the color conversion layer.
Eom teaches (e.g., Figs.1-2) a device comprising a substrate ([0025]-[0026]: 100) and a color conversion layer ([0025] and [0037]: 410);
Eom further teaches that a reflective layer ([0028]: 120) is located between the substrate ([0025]-[0026]: 100) and the color conversion layer ([0025] and [0037]: 410).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the device of Okuno, the reflective layer located between the substrate and the color conversion layer, as taught by Eom, for the benefits of increasing the light flux emitted outward, and thus improve the device optical efficiency.
Regarding claim 29: Okuno and Eom teach the claim limitation of the automotive tail-light of claim 28, on which this claim depends,
wherein the color conversion layer comprises one film or at least two films having different refractive indices (Okuno: [0005]-[0006], [0017]: 2 comprises at least one film).
Regarding claim 30: Okuno and Eom teach the claim limitation of the automotive tail-light of claim 28, on which this claim depends,
wherein the luminescent material comprises phosphor material selected from yttrium aluminum garnet, beta-SiAlON, a Mn4+ doped phosphor having formula I, a uranium-based phosphor, and blends thereof, wherein the uranium-based phosphor has formula II, III, IV, V or VI:
Ax[MFy]:Mn4+ (I)
wherein A is Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, or a combination thereof; M is Si, Ge, Sn, Ti, Zr, Al, Ga, In, Sc, Y, La, Nb, Ta, Bi, Gd, or a combination thereof; x is the absolute value of the charge of the [MFy] ion; and y is 5, 6 or 7;
[Ba1-a-bSraCab]x[Mg,Zn]y(UO2)z([P,V]O4)2(x+y+z)/3 II
[Ba1-a-bSraCab]p(UO2)q[P,V]rO(2p+2q+5r)/2 III
A2UO2[P,V]2O7 IV
A4UO2([P,V]O4)2 V
AUO2([P,V]O3)3 VI
wherein 0≤a≤1, 0≤b≤1, 0.75≤x≤1.25, 0.75≤y≤1.25, 0.75≤y≤1.25, 2.5≤p≤3.5, 1.75≤q≤2.25, 3.5≤r≤4.5 and A is Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs or a combination thereof (Okuno: [0084]: yttrium aluminum garnet).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HERVE-LOUIS Y ASSOUMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2606. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 08:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, DAVIENNE MONBLEAU can be reached at 571-272-1945. 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.
/HERVE-LOUIS Y ASSOUMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights