Information Disclosure Statement
JP 2007-332324 and JP 2019-186537 cited in the information disclosure statement of 4 March 2024 have been considered with respect to the explanation of these references given in the provided Written Opinion of the ISA.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The disclosed general formula for the CASN-based fluorescent substance is missing the critical limitation of x+y+z=1. In CASN-based fluorescent substances, it is notoriously well known in the art, as shown by the art of record, that the total amount of Ca, Sr and Eu in these substances is 1. The formula as written allows for x+y+z to be in the range of greater than 0 up to less than 3. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
The claimed general formula for the CASN-based fluorescent substance is missing the critical limitation of x+y+z=1. In CASN-based fluorescent substances, it is notoriously well known in the art, as shown by the art of record, that the total amount of Ca, Sr and Eu in these substances is 1. The formula as written allows for x+y+z to be in the range of greater than 0 up to less than 3. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
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 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP 2018-6499 or JP 2018-200997.
Both of these references teach a light-emitting device comprising a light emitting element that emits primary light and a wavelength convertor comprising phosphor particles that absorb at least part of the primary light and emits a secondary light having a wavelength longer than the primary light. The reference teaches the taught phosphor particles have a particle size of 3-30 microns and to have a spherical shape. The references teach the phosphor particles, which are also known as fluorescent substance particles, can be CASN or SCASN particles, which are known to have the same structure as in a CaAlSiN3 crystal phase. Spherical particles are known to have a aspect ratio of 1 and a circularity of 0.8 or greater, which overlaps the claimed range. Since all the taught particles are spheres, the standard deviation of circularity must be 0, which falls within the claimed range. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. The taught CASN or SCASN particles suggest the claimed powder and the suggested light-emitting device comprising a light emitting element that emits primary light and a wavelength convertor comprising CASN or SCASN phosphor particles that absorb at least part of the primary light and emits a secondary light having a wavelength longer than the primary light suggest the claimed light-emitting device.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. patent application publication 2009/0194781.
This reference teaches a light-emitting device comprising a light emitting element that emits primary light of 390-420 nm and a wavelength convertor comprising Eu activated CaAlSiN3 phosphor particles that absorb at least part of the primary light and emits a secondary light having a wavelength of 600-700 nm, which is longer than the primary light. The taught wavelength range overlaps that of claim 5. These particles, which are also known as fluorescent substance particles, are also known as CASN particles, have a CaAlSiN3 crystal phase and are known to have the formula (Ca1-xEux)AlSiN3, where 0<x<1. Paragraphs [0070] and [0071] teaches the phosphor particles used in the taught device have 5-30 microns and are spherical. The taught size range falls within the claimed size range. Spherical particles are known to have an aspect ratio of 1 and a circularity of 0.8 or greater, which overlaps the claimed range. Since all the taught particles are spheres, the standard deviation of circularity must be 0, which falls within the claimed range. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. The taught Eu activated CaAlSiN3 particles suggest the claimed powder and the suggested light-emitting device suggest the claimed light-emitting device.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. patent application publication 2013/0193836.
This reference teaches phosphor, or fluorescent substance, particles, or powder, having the formula (Ca1-x-ySrx Euy)AlSiN3, where 0<x<1 and 0<y<1 (para 81). Paragraph [0083] teaches the particles can be spherical and have a size of 2-25 microns. The taught formula is the same as that in claim 4, the taught size range falls within the claimed size range. Spherical particles are known to have an aspect ratio of 1 and a circularity of 0.8 or greater, which overlaps the claimed range. Since all the taught particles are spheres, the standard deviation of circularity must be 0, which falls within the claimed range. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. The taught particles are also known in the art as CASN and have a CaAlSiN3 crystal phase. The reference teaches the particles have a wavelength emission of 610-640 nm (para 16), which falls within the range of claim 5. The reference suggests the claimed powder.
The reference also teaches a light-emitting device comprising a light emitting element that emits primary light of 380-475 nm and a wavelength convertor comprising the phosphor particles discussed above, that absorb at least part of the primary light and emits a secondary light having a wavelength of 610-640 nm, which is longer than the primary light. This device suggests the device of claim 6.
Conclusion
U.S. patent 5,304,241 and U.S. patent application publications 2011/0020624 and 2014/0295376 are cited as of interest since they teach spherical particles have a circularity of 0.8 or more, preferably 0.9 or more (‘241:col. 2, lines 50-52; ‘624: para 25; ‘376: para 36).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
6/15/26
Prosecution Insights