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 .
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 instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0221884 A1 to Hoppe et al. (hereinafter Hoppe).
Regarding claim 1, Hoppe discloses a greenhouse system (covering, para [0068]), wherein at least one component of the greenhouse system comprises 0.1 to 50% by weight luminescent material (para [0349]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.01 wt% to 10 wt% of a surface-modified phosphor material (para [0293]-[0294]) and 99.9 wt% to 50 wt% matrix material (remainder after introducing 0.1 to 50 wt% luminescent material into the polymer matrix, para [0349]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 99.99 wt% to 90 wt% of a matrix material, based on the total weight of the surface-modified phosphor material and the matrix material, wherein the surface-modified phosphor material comprises a sulfide phosphor (para [0294]-[0308]) bonded to a silane (para [0293]). See MPEP 2144.05(I), which states that ‘In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists’. The reference discloses the phosphor bonded to the silane but does not expressly recite a covalent bond. However, the sulfides are the same, modified by silanes and are present in similar matrixes in overlapping amounts. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the sulfides and silanes to be covalently bonded, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 2, Hoppe discloses the greenhouse system of claim 1, wherein the component comprises a sheet (screen, para [0070]), a film (para [0068]), or a panel (tunnel cover, para [0070]) and the surface-modified phosphor material is dispersed (incorporated) throughout the matrix material (para [0394]).
Regarding claim 3, Hoppe discloses the greenhouse system of claim 1, wherein the matrix material comprises polymers selected from a group that includes polyethylene, polyacrylate, polystyrene, polycarbonate, and combinations thereof (para [0362] and [0365]).
Regarding claim 4, Hoppe discloses the greenhouse system of claim 1, wherein the matrix material comprises polyethylene (para [0342]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Hoppe discloses the greenhouse system of claim 1, wherein the sulfide phosphor material has a particle size of 1 to 50 nm (para [0294]), which overlaps the instantly claimed ranges of 1 nm to 1000 nm and 5 nm to 300 nm. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above.
Regarding claim 7, Hoppe discloses the greenhouse system of claim 1, wherein the sulfide phosphor comprises sulfur and a metal selected from calcium, strontium (para [0308]), cadmium, zinc (para [0295]), and combinations thereof (para [0295] and [0308]).
Regarding claim 8, Hoppe discloses the greenhouse system of claim 1, wherein the sulfide phosphor further comprises a rare earth element (para [0296]) selected from Tb (para [0309]), Eu, Ce (para [0306]), and combinations thereof (para [0296]).
Regarding claim 9, Hoppe discloses the greenhouse system of claim 1, wherein the sulfide phosphor is selected from a group that includes (Ca, Sr)S:Eu, CaS:Eu (para [0306]-[0308]), (Zn, Cd)S:Ag (para [0296]), and combinations thereof (para [0295]).
Regarding claims 10-19, Hoppe discloses the greenhouse system of claim 1. Claims 10-19 are product by process claims. It is noted that Hoppe does not explicitly teach the claimed process as written, however, MPEP 2113 states “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
MPEP 2113 also states “The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979)”. In the instant case, it is found that the instantly claimed process of making the surface modified phosphor does not impart any structural or functional characteristics to the claimed product. Hoppe teaches 3-mercaptopropyl trimethoxysilane (para [0293]) in the system without the instantly claimed process. Therefore, the claimed process is not expected to significantly alter the final greenhouse product absent evidence to the contrary.
The limitations directed to the method for producing the claimed composition are not considered to add patentable weight to the examination of the product claims. It is well settled that if the examiner can find a product in the prior art that is the same or so similar as to have been obvious, the burden can be shifted to the applicant to demonstrate that the process for producing the composition somehow imparts a patentable distinction to the composition under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 10/29/25, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The most recent amendment to the claims resolves the issues.
The 112(b) rejection of claims 8 and 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 10/29/25, with respect to Chen in view of Bratkova have been fully considered and are persuasive. The newly amended claims require the surface modified sulfide phosphors to be modified with a silane. Neither Chen nor Bratkova teach or suggest silane as set forth in the newly amended claims. It is noted that claims 10-19 are product by process claims. Chen in view of Bratkova does not teach the product of claims 1-9 and thus does not teach the product by process claims of 10-19.
Therefore, the 103 rejection of claims 1-19 as obvious over Chen in view of Bratkova has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2678. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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.
/L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734