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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 2 March 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-19 of 2 December 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 2 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 and 12-19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Niwa et al. (US 2008/0049345 A1). Specifically, applicant amended the claims to specify that the blade is a separate component from the substrate that is not coupled to the substrate, whereas in Yang the blade is coupled to the substrate. However, Niwa teaches separate blades 32 that are not coupled to substrate 3, and asserts that this configuration causes an airflow that efficiently releases heat generated from both the substrate and the motor (Niwa paragraphs 43-44).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Zink makes no assertion that Yang's wavelength conversion layer 166 / phosphor layer includes a ceramic phosphor. Further, Yang fails to disclose or suggest a reflective film coating is formed on a portion of the ceramic phosphor. The examiner disagrees. Yang teaches that Yang’s wavelength conversion layer can include a ceramic phosphor, including garnet-based ceramic phosphors (paragraph 48). The reason Zink makes no assertion regarding Yang is undoubtably because Zink was written 8 years before Yang was published, but the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have access to both references, and be able to integrate the knowledge contained in both based on the combined teachings of the two references. Similarly, even if Yang does not teach a reflective film coating is formed on a portion of the ceramic phosphor, Ikeda teaches a reflective film 105 which is formed on a portion of the phosphor 110 for the purpose of reflecting a portion of the excitation light (Ikeda paragraph 23), thus teaching the reflective film and motivating it’s inclusion in a phosphor wheel.
Applicant argues that Yang does not teach a thermal conductivity of the phosphor is higher than a thermal conductivity of the titanium dioxide. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Zink suggests using YAG:Ce as a phosphor, which has a thermal conductivity of 13 W/m-K (paragraph 46). By applicant’s admission, the thermal conductivity of TiO2 is only 4.8 – 11.8 W/m-K (specification page 25 lines 19-22), thus the YAG phosphor taught by Zink has a thermal conductivity of the phosphor is higher than a thermal conductivity of the titanium dioxide.
Applicant argues that Yang does not teach after a shape of the ceramic phosphor is processed, the processed ceramic phosphor is bonded to upper part of the reflective luminous layer including printed titanium dioxide and then cured. The examiner disagrees. Yang’s ceramic phosphor layer 166 is bonded to the upper part of the reflective luminous layer 164 (see Fig. 1D), and is formed by curing (paragraph 45).
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, 3-10, 12-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0363709 A1) in view of Zink et al. (US 2013/0250544 A1), Ikeda (US 2019/0250489 A1), and Niwa et al. (US 2008/0049345 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Yang teaches “a phosphor wheel (160) comprising: a substrate (162); a reflective luminous layer (164) disposed on the substrate (see Fig. 1D); and a phosphor layer (166 or 167) disposed on the reflective luminous layer (see Figs. 1D, 4C, 4D); a motor to rotate the substrate (paragraph 41); a blade (‘heat dissipating plate’, paragraph 41) disposed between the motor and the substrate (paragraph 41), the blade is configured to rotate around a rotation axis (paragraph 41); wherein the phosphor layer comprises a yellow phosphor layer (paragraphs 54, 57), wherein a part of blue light incident on the phosphor layer is incident on the yellow phosphor layer for outputting the yellow light (see Fig. 1a, paragraph 57), wherein another part of the blue light transmitted through the phosphor layer is incident on a yellow phosphor (172; see paragraph 57) in the reflective luminous layer (see Fig. 1D) for outputting the yellow light; wherein the reflective luminous layer further comprises titanium dioxide (170; see paragraph 48), wherein after a shape of the ceramic phosphor is processed, the processed ceramic phosphor is bonded to upper part of the reflective luminous layer including printed titanium dioxide (see Fig. 1D) and then cured, wherein the reflective luminous layer comprises: a resin (168); and a phosphor (172)”.
Yang does not specifically teach that the yellow phosphor has a higher thermal conductivity than the resin and titanium oxide or that it is ceramic.
However, Zink teaches the use of silicone resin having a thermal conductivity of 0.17 W/m-K (paragraph 46), YAG:Ce yellow ceramic phosphor having a thermal conductivity of 13 W/m-K (paragraph 46), which is higher than the thermal conductivity of TiO2 (11-13 W/m-K, as evidenced by Zink paragraph 44; also admitted in the instant specification page 25 lines 19-22 to be lower than the thermal conductivity of YAG) and explains that the more of the higher-thermal conductivity YAG is present, the better the thermal conductivity the reflective luminous layer will have (paragraphs 45-46).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to select the high-thermal conductivity phosphor material taught by Zink for use in Yang’s phosphor wheel in order to improve the ability of the reflective luminous layer to conduct heat (Zink paragraph 8) as well as the art recognized suitability of YAG for the purpose of being a phosphor (Zink paragraph 21).
Yang does not specifically teach “a reflective film coating is formed on a portion of the ceramic phosphor”.
However, Ikeda teaches “a reflective film coating (105) is formed on a portion of the ceramic phosphor (110)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to coat a portion of the phosphor in the reflective film taught by Ikeda in order to return a portion of the blue excitation light from the phosphor wheel (Ikeda paragraph 23).
Yang does not specifically teach that the that the blade is separate from the substrate.
However, Niwa teaches separate blades 32 that are not coupled to substrate 3.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the separate blade configuration in order to cause an airflow that efficiently releases heat generated from both the substrate and the motor (Niwa paragraphs 43-44).
With respect to claim 3: Yang in view of Zink, Ikeda, and Niwa teaches “The phosphor wheel of claim 1 (see above)”.
Yang teaches “wherein a percentage of the phosphor in the reflective luminous layer is 3 to 10% (paragraph 52)”.
With respect to claim 5: Yang in view of Zink, Ikeda, and Niwa teaches “The phosphor wheel of claim 1 (see above)”.
Yang teaches “wherein the phosphor layer comprises: the yellow (paragraph 54) phosphor layer (166) disposed in a first area on the reflective luminous layer (see Fig. 4a); and a green (paragraph 65) phosphor layer (167) disposed in a second area on the reflective luminous layer (see Fig. 4a)”.
With respect to claim 6: Yang in view of Zink, Ikeda, and Niwa teaches “The phosphor wheel of claim 5 (see above)”.
Yang suggests “wherein the yellow phosphor is disposed in the reflective luminous layer corresponding to the first area (paragraph 54), and wherein a green phosphor is disposed in the reflective luminous layer corresponding to the second area (paragraphs 54, 65)”.
With respect to claim 7: Yang in view of Zink, Ikeda, and Niwa teaches “The phosphor wheel of claim 5 (see above)”.
Yang teaches “wherein a size of the first area is greater than a size of the second area (see Fig. 4a)”.
With respect to claim 8: Yang in view of Zink, Ikeda, and Niwa teaches “The phosphor wheel of claim 5 (see above)”.
Yang teaches “further comprising a red phosphor layer disposed in a third area on the reflective luminous layer (paragraph 66)”.
With respect to claim 9: Yang in view of Zink, Ikeda, and Niwa teaches “The phosphor wheel of claim 8 (see above)”.
Yang teaches “wherein a red phosphor is disposed in the reflective luminous layer corresponding to the third area (paragraph 66; see Fig. 4a)”.
With respect to claim 10: Yang in view of Zink, Ikeda, and Niwa teaches “The phosphor wheel of claim 1 (see above)”.
Yang does not specifically teach “further comprising an anti-reflective layer disposed on the phosphor layer”.
However, Ikeda teaches “further comprising an anti-reflective layer (112) disposed on the phosphor layer (110)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the phosphor wheel of Yang by adding an anti-reflection layer as taught by Ikeda in order to reduce surface reflection losses (Ikeda paragraph 25).
With respect to claim 12: Yang teaches “a phosphor wheel (160) comprising: a substrate (162); a reflective luminous layer disposed on the substrate (164); and a phosphor layer disposed on the reflective luminous layer (166 or 167) ); a motor to rotate the substrate (paragraph 41); a blade (‘heat dissipating plate’, paragraph 41) disposed between the motor and the substrate (paragraph 41), and wherein the blade is configured to rotate around a rotation axis (paragraph 41), wherein the phosphor layer comprises a yellow phosphor layer (paragraphs 54, 57), wherein a part of blue light incident on the phosphor layer is incident on the yellow phosphor layer for outputting the yellow light (see Fig. 1a, paragraph 57), wherein another part of the blue light transmitted through the phosphor layer is incident on a yellow phosphor (172; see paragraph 57) in the reflective luminous layer (see Fig. 1D) for outputting the yellow light; wherein the reflective luminous layer comprises a resin (168), a phosphor (172), and titanium dioxide (170), wherein after a shape of the ceramic phosphor is processed, the processed ceramic phosphor is bonded to upper part of the reflective luminous layer including printed titanium dioxide (see Fig. 1D) and then cured (paragraph 45)”.
Yang does not specifically teach that the yellow phosphor has a higher thermal conductivity than the resin and titanium oxide or that it is ceramic.
However, Zink teaches the use of silicone resin having a thermal conductivity of 0.17 W/m-K (paragraph 46), YAG:Ce yellow ceramic phosphor having a thermal conductivity of 13 W/m-K (paragraph 46), which is higher than the thermal conductivity of TiO2 (11-13 W/m-K, as evidenced by Zink paragraph 44; also admitted in the instant specification page 25 lines 19-22 to be lower than the thermal conductivity of YAG) and explains that the more of the higher-thermal conductivity YAG is present, the better the thermal conductivity the reflective luminous layer will have (paragraphs 45-46).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to select the high-thermal conductivity phosphor material taught by Zink for use in Yang’s phosphor wheel in order to improve the ability of the reflective luminous layer to conduct heat (Zink paragraph 8) as well as the art recognized suitability of YAG for the purpose of being a phosphor (Zink paragraph 21).
Yang does not specifically teach “a reflective film coating is formed on a portion of the ceramic phosphor”.
However, Ikeda teaches “a reflective film coating (105) is formed on a portion of the ceramic phosphor (110)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to coat a portion of the phosphor in the reflective film taught by Ikeda in order to return a portion of the blue excitation light from the phosphor wheel (Ikeda paragraph 23).
Yang does not specifically teach that the that the blade is separate from the substrate.
However, Niwa teaches separate blades 32 that are not coupled to substrate 3.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the separate blade configuration in order to cause an airflow that efficiently releases heat generated from both the substrate and the motor (Niwa paragraphs 43-44).
With respect to claim 13: Yang in view of Zink, Ikeda, and Niwa teaches “The phosphor wheel of claim 12 (see above)”.
Yang does not specifically teach that the phosphor has a higher thermal conductivity than the resin.
However, Zink teaches the use of silicone resin having a thermal conductivity of 0.17 W/m-K (paragraph 46), YAG:Ce phosphor having a thermal conductivity of 13 W/m-K (paragraph 46) and explains that the more of the higher-thermal conductivity YAG is present, the better the thermal conductivity the reflective luminous layer will have (paragraphs 45-46).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to select the high-thermal conductivity phosphor material taught by Zink for use in Yang’s phosphor wheel in order to improve the ability of the reflective luminous layer to conduct heat (Zink paragraph 8).
With respect to claim 15: Yang teaches “an image projection device (100) comprising: a light source (110) configured to output blue light (paragraph 47); and a phosphor wheel (160) configured to output light of a plurality of colors based on the incident blue light during rotation of the phosphor wheel (paragraphs 56-57) , wherein the phosphor wheel comprises; a substrate (162); a reflective luminous layer (164) disposed on the substrate (see Fig. 1D); and a phosphor layer (166 or 167) disposed on the reflective luminous layer (see Figs. 1D, 4C, 4D); a motor (‘motor’ see paragraph 41) to rotate the substrate (paragraph 41); a blade (‘heat dissipating plate’; see paragraph 41) disposed between the motor and the substrate (paragraph 41), wherein the blade is configured to rotate around a rotation axis (paragraph 41); wherein the phosphor layer comprises a yellow phosphor layer (paragraphs 54, 57), wherein a part of blue light incident on the phosphor layer is incident on the yellow phosphor layer for outputting the yellow light (see Fig. 1a, paragraph 57), wherein another part of the blue light transmitted through the phosphor layer is incident on a yellow phosphor (172; see paragraph 57) in the reflective luminous layer (see Fig. 1D) for outputting the yellow light, herein the reflective luminous layer further comprises titanium dioxide (70; see paragraph 46), wherein after a shape of the ceramic phosphor is processed, the processed ceramic phosphor is bonded to upper part of the reflective luminous layer including printed titanium dioxide (see Fig. 1D) and then cured (paragraph 45) wherein the reflective luminous layer comprises: a resin (168); and a phosphor (172)”.
Yang does not specifically teach that the yellow phosphor has a higher thermal conductivity than the resin and titanium oxide or that it is ceramic.
However, Zink teaches the use of silicone resin having a thermal conductivity of 0.17 W/m-K (paragraph 46), YAG:Ce yellow ceramic phosphor having a thermal conductivity of 13 W/m-K (paragraph 46), which is higher than the thermal conductivity of TiO2 (11-13 W/m-K, as evidenced by Zink paragraph 44; also admitted in the instant specification page 25 lines 19-22 to be lower than the thermal conductivity of YAG) and explains that the more of the higher-thermal conductivity YAG is present, the better the thermal conductivity the reflective luminous layer will have (paragraphs 45-46).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to select the high-thermal conductivity phosphor material taught by Zink for use in Yang’s phosphor wheel in order to improve the ability of the reflective luminous layer to conduct heat (Zink paragraph 8) as well as the art recognized suitability of YAG for the purpose of being a phosphor (Zink paragraph 21).
Yang does not specifically teach “a reflective film coating is formed on a portion of the ceramic phosphor”.
However, Ikeda teaches “a reflective film coating (105) is formed on a portion of the ceramic phosphor (110)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to coat a portion of the phosphor in the reflective film taught by Ikeda in order to return a portion of the blue excitation light from the phosphor wheel (Ikeda paragraph 23)
Yang does not specifically teach that the that the blade is separate from the substrate.
However, Niwa teaches separate blades 32 that are not coupled to substrate 3.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the separate blade configuration in order to cause an airflow that efficiently releases heat generated from both the substrate and the motor (Niwa paragraphs 43-44).
With respect to claim 16: Yang in view of Zink and Ikeda teaches “The image projection device of claim 15 (see above)”.
Yang does not specifically teach “further comprising a color filter placed after an output end of the phosphor wheel and configured to sequentially output yellow light, green light, and red light through rotation”.
However, Ikeda teaches “further comprising a color filter (3) placed after an output end of the phosphor wheel (1) and configured to sequentially output yellow light, green light, and red light through rotation (paragraphs 55, 56)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the projector of Yang with the color filter of Ikeda in order to sequentially obtain red, green, yellow and blue light while filtering out wavelengths that aren’t wanted at specific times in the sequence (Ikeda paragraphs 56-57).
With respect to claim 17: Yang in view of Zink, Ikeda, and Niwa teaches “The image projection device of claim 15 (see above)”.
Yang does not specifically teach “wherein the color filter is further configured to output blue light”.
However, Ikeda teaches “wherein the color filter is further configured to output blue light (paragraph 57)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the projector of Yang with the color filter of Ikeda in order to sequentially obtain red, green, yellow and blue light while filtering out wavelengths that aren’t wanted at specific times in the sequence (Ikeda paragraphs 56-57).
With respect to claim 18: Yang in view of Zink, Ikeda, and Niwa teaches “The image projection device of claim 15 (see above)”.
Yang does not specifically teach “wherein the color filter comprises: a yellow area for yellow light output; a green area for green light output; a red area for red light output; and a blue area for blue light output”.
However, Ikeda teaches “wherein the color filter comprises: a yellow area for yellow light output; a green area for green light output; a red area for red light output; and a blue area for blue light output (paragraph 57)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the projector of Yang with the color filter of Ikeda in order to sequentially obtain red, green, yellow and blue light while filtering out wavelengths that aren’t wanted at specific times in the sequence (Ikeda paragraphs 56-57).
With respect to claim 19: Yang in view of Zink, Ikeda, and Niwa teaches “The image projection device of claim 18 (see above)”.
Yang in view of Ikeda suggests “wherein a size of the yellow area or the blue area is less than a size of the red area or the green area (Ikeda teaches that the color filter is synchronized with the phosphor wheel (Ikeda paragraph 55), which necessitates the regions on the filter to have the same size as corresponding regions on the phosphor wheel. Since the red region 166 of Yang is substantially larger than the rest (see Yang Fig. 4a), a corresponding color filter would have to have that feature as well for the two wheels to be synchronized)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the projector of Yang with the color filter of Ikeda in order to sequentially obtain red, green, yellow and blue light while filtering out wavelengths that aren’t wanted at specific times in the sequence (Ikeda paragraphs 56-57).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamagishi et al. (US 2016/0077326 A1), which teaches a phosphor wheel and associated heat dissipation structure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights