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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/26/25 has been entered.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todorov in US20160115384.
Regarding Claim 1-4 and 20-22: Todorov teaches phosphor compositions comprising a crystalline phase (See Figures 3-5) represented by a formula Sr1-x-yEuxRy[Li1-zAz]Al3-aMaN4]. In the formula of Todorov x is from 0.001-0.02, y and z both range from 0 to 0.5, and ‘a’ ranges from 0 to 1. The element R is chosen from Ba and Ca, A is chosen from Na and K, and M is chosen from B, Ga, Si, Ge and C (See Paragraph 32). The composition of Todorov may be represented as Sr1-xEuxLiAl2.99Ga0.01N4 as an example, when y=z=0, a=.01, M=Ga, 0.001<x<0.02 (MA=Sr, MB=Li, MC=Al and Ga; MC’=Ga, D=N, Re=Eu, a=1-x, x=0.001-0.002, b=1, c=3, d=4, e=0, y=0.01). Such a composition falls within the scope of formula [1] and [2] in claims 1-2. Todorov thus teaches an overlapping ranges of phosphor. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill would only be required to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed.
Todorov is silent in terms of the presence of an additive element Z such as Mo or W in a concentration from greater than 0 ppm to less than 700 ppm (or any of the claimed ranges: >1-700 ppm, >0-600 ppm, >0-500 ppm)
However, the instant disclosure sets forth that element Z may be added to the phosphor composition by employing a reaction vessel (crucible) made from or coated with element Z (See Originally filed disclosure Paragraph 44 and 79). The firing step, which necessarily contributes to the diffusion of element Z from the crucible to the phosphor is performed at a temperature between 500-1200C (See Original Disclosure Paragraph 80) for a period from 10 minutes to 200 hours (See Original Disclosure Paragraph 83). Applicant shows Mo doping within the claimed range by using an Mo or Mo-coated crucible at firing temperatures of 845C for a period of 5 hours (See Original Disclosure Examples). Particularly Example 4 in applicant’s disclosure is noted as showing the use of a conventional molybdenum crucible (without the inventive coating) with firing at 845 C for a period of 5 hours. Todorov also teaches the use of Mo or W crucibles (See paragraph 38) The phosphor reagents are added to said crucible and are then fired at a temperature from 800-1300C for a period from 1 minute to 1 week (See Paragraph 58), particularly from 2 to 5 hours or from 1 to 8 hours (See Paragraph 39 and 58). Those of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the addition of Mo or W is due to diffusion from said crucible. Those of ordinary skill in the art would expect that diffusion of the same element at overlapping times and temperatures would provide for the same concentration of the diffused element in the phosphor material. Thus, those of ordinary skill would have expected the phosphors of Todorov to contain an overlapping range of Mo or W with the claimed compositions, when a tungsten or molybdenum crucible is used in the phosphor creation of Todorov. This amount of Mo or W overlaps the scope of claims 1-2 and 20-22 based on the evidence of record, which shows that conventional phosphor making processes are expected to have contents of Mo or W derived from diffusion from the crucible in the range from at least 420 ppm to 1200 ppm (See Example 4 and Comparative Example 2 and 5). The use of such a crucible, which gives rise to this content of Mo or W is obviated expressly by Todorov.
Regarding Claim 5: Todorov teaches a composition of formula Sr1-x-yEuxRy[Li1-zAzAl3-aMaN4]. In the formula of Todorov x is from 0.001-0.02, y and z both range from 0 to 0.5, and a ranges from 0 to 1. The element R is chosen from Ba and Ca, A is chosen from Na and K, and M is chosen from B, Ga, Si, Ge and C (See Paragraph 32).
In the formula of Todorov, y may be 0 and the claimed element MA may be 100% Sr.
Regarding Claim 6: Todorov teaches a composition of formula Sr1-x-yEuxRy[Li1-zAzAl3-aMaN4]. In the formula of Todorov x is from 0.001-0.02, y and z both range from 0 to 0.5, and a ranges from 0 to 1. The element R is chosen from Ba and Ca, A is chosen from Na and K, and M is chosen from B, Ga, Si, Ge and C (See Paragraph 32).
In the formula of Todorov, z may be 0 and the claimed element MB may be 100% Li.
Regarding Claim 7-8: Todorov teaches a composition of formula Sr1-x-yEuxRy[Li1-zAzAl3-aMaN4]. In the formula of Todorov x is from 0.001-0.02, y and z both range from 0 to 0.5, and a ranges from 0 to 1. The element R is chosen from Ba and Ca, A is chosen from Na and K, and M is chosen from B, Ga, Si, Ge and C (See Paragraph 32).
In the formula of Todorov, ‘a’ may be 0 and the claimed element MC may be 100% Al.
Regarding Claim 9: Todorov teaches a composition of formula Sr1-x-yEuxRy[Li1-zAzAl3-aMaN4]. In the formula of Todorov x is from 0.001-0.02, y and z both range from 0 to 0.5, and a ranges from 0 to 1. The element R is chosen from Ba and Ca, A is chosen from Na and K, and M is chosen from B, Ga, Si, Ge and C (See Paragraph 32).
In the formula of Todorov, a may be from greater than 0 to 1 and may be chosen to be Ga alone. The claimed element MC’ may be 100% Ga.
Regarding Claim 10: Todorov teaches a composition of formula Sr1-x-yEuxRy[Li1-zAzAl3-aMaN4]. In the formula of Todorov x is from 0.001-0.02, y and z both range from 0 to 0.5, and a ranges from 0 to 1. The element R is chosen from Ba and Ca, A is chosen from Na and K, and M is chosen from B, Ga, Si, Ge and C (See Paragraph 32).
In the formula of Todorov, the claimed element Re is 100% Eu.
Regarding claim 11: The phosphors of Todorov are of the same composition and are fired at the same temperature as those materials claimed (See Examples-Firing at 845C). Materials of the same composition and processed in the same manner must necessarily have the same properties in terms of crystalline nature, including lattice parameters, space group, and structure. The XRD structures shown in Figures 3-5 are consistent with the P-1 space group in the triclinic system wherein the dominant peaks in the XRD pattern are at 2theta of ~38o, ~35o, and ~15o (See Figure 2 and preceding description in previously presented Evidentiary Document to Pust).
Regarding Claim 12: Todorov teaches that the phosphor has emission between 650-660 nm (See Paragraph 31).
Regarding Claim 13: Todorov teaches that the phosphor has a FWHM between 50 and 55 nm (See Paragraph 31).
Regarding Claim 14: Todorov teaches the creation of a light emitting diode (LED) device comprising a blue diode as a first light emitter, providing excitation light having a wavelength from 425-475 nm (See Paragraph 48). The light emitting device further comprises a second light emitter including one or more phosphors that emit visible light when irradiated by light from the diode. The phosphor may include the SrLiAl3N4:Eu (SLA) phosphor discussed above. Said phosphor may be excited by and thus emit light in response to incident light from the diode (See Figure 2 and Paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 15-16: Todorov teaches that the LED may comprise phosphors (second emitters) in addition to the SLA phosphor and may include green or yellow phosphor compositions (See Paragraph 49-50). Todorov teaches that known yellow emitting phosphors include Yttrium Aluminum Garnet doped with cerium (Y3-xCexAl-5O12), which is a yellow garnet based phosphor. The use of known yellow phosphors disclosed by Todorov would have been obvious to use as additional phosphors in their LED.
Regarding Claim 17: Todorov teaches devices that emit light from electrical energy (See Paragraph 2-5). The light emission from an LED necessarily provides a device that acts as an illumination device and as a light source.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todorov as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Schmidt in US20150123155.
Todorov obviates the creation of the phosphors according to claim 1 including a phosphor of formula SrLiAl3N4;Eu necessarily containing an overlapping content of Mo or W as is discussed above. Todorov teaches the creation of LED’s with such a phosphor.
Todorov is silent regarding the use of the LED in a display device as a light source.
However, Schmidt also teaches the creation of SrLiAl3N4:Eu red emitting phosphors (See Paragraph 10 and 141) and the incorporation of such phosphors in LED devices, having a first emission source such as a diode (See Paragraph 80-82) and a plurality of phosphors (See Paragraph 86-90). Schmidt teaches that such an LED may be used in a variety of applications including various lighting systems, display systems and particularly as a backlight unit in an LCD display (See Paragraph 96-97). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the phosphors and phosphor containing LED’s of Todorov in any of the applications taught by Schmidt, including but not limited to the use of the LED’s as a backlight in an LCD display. Those of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the LED’s in various display devices and other conventional applications in order to increase the industrial applicability and marketability of the phosphor materials.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todorov as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Ji in US20160356453.
Todorov obviates the creation of the phosphors according to claim 1 including a phosphor of formula SrLiAl3N4;Eu necessarily containing an overlapping content of Mo or W as is discussed above. Todorov teaches the creation of LED’s with such a phosphor.
Todorov is silent regarding the use of the LED in an indicator lamp for a vehicle.
However, Li also teaches the use of SrLiAl3N4:Eu red emitting phosphors (See Paragraph 61 and 73) in LED devices, having a first emission source such as a diode (See Paragraph 61) and a plurality of phosphors (See Paragraph 70-76). Schmidt teaches that such an LED may be used in variety of lighting devices within a vehicle including interior lighting, headlights, brake lights, indicator lights, fog lights, etc. The use of such an LED in turn signal and brake lights constitutes use as an indicator lamp in a vehicle as the on/off state indicates the intention of the operator. The use of the LED as a dashboard light source also is interpreted as an indicator lamp as the dashboard indicates the state of the vehicle. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the phosphors and phosphor containing LED’s of Todorov in any of the applications taught by Li, including but not limited to the use of the LED’s as a vehicle indicator lamp. Those of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the LED’s in various display devices and other conventional applications in order to increase the industrial applicability and marketability of the phosphor materials.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Based upon the evidence of record, those of ordinary skill in the art would not expect the claimed phosphor to comprise an element Z in the claimed range of less than 400 ppm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/7/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant sets forth argument against the rejection of the claims under USC 103 over Todorov. Applicant mischaracterizes the previous action stating that Todorov is silent as to the content of Mo or W of 0-700 ppm. The previous action sets forth that Todorov is silent as to concentrations of these elements from greater than 0 or 1 to 700 ppm. The claims as set forth must comprise element Z and thus the content of Z within the claimed phosphor cannot be 0. Applicant goes on to mischaracterize the action of record in terms of the scope of Todorov’s teachings in terms of the process. The instant disclosure teaches the use of temperatures from 500-1200C and time periods from 10 minutes to 200 hours and not Todorov. Todorov’s processing temperatures are limited to 800-1300C, a much narrower range.
Applicant argues that the office’s position has changed; however, the position of the office has remained consistent with the claimed language used by applicant. The prior art must be mapped to the specific language used in the claims and thus a change in claim language requires the office to address such a change.
Applicant goes on to point out that Comparative Examples 2 and 5 show the creation of phosphors of the claimed composition at temperatures and time periods within the teachings of Todorov. Both of these comparative examples are processed at 5hr @ 1000C and have a ppm of element Z of greater than 1000 ppm. Applicant contends that this evidence shows that Todorov does not necessarily meet the claim limitations as set forth.
Applicant argues that Example 4, which is heated at a temperature of 845C for 5 hours is not within the scope of Todorov’s teachings in terms of the process. It is noted that Todorov teaches the use of a temperature from 800-1300C, which includes 845C. Thus the conditions as set forth in Example 4 are within the teachings of Todorov’s process and those of ordinary skill would have expected the claimed content of element Z to necessarily be present in the phosphor created from the process as taught by Todorov, as evidenced by Example 4 of the instant disclosure. The examiner thus disagrees with applicant’s contention that a content of 700 ppm or less, 600 ppm or less, or 500 ppm or less would not be expected in the phosphors of Todorov since applicant’s example 4 specifically shows a process which is obvious over Todorov and has such a content. The examiner agrees that no evidence of record shows that a content of 400 ppm or less would be expected in the phosphor of Todorov based upon the evidence of record- as this is the case new claim 23 is considered as allowable over the prior art.
Applicant again cites their own ranges of temperature and time as that of Todorov. Again it is noted that Todorov teaches a range of temperatures from 800-1300C and not from 500 to 1200C.
Applicant shows evidence that the scope of Todorov’s teachings provide for phosphors having a range of element Z from at least 420 ppm to greater than 1000 ppm. While applicant shows evidence that the process of Todorov may create phosphors having a content of element Z greater than that which is claimed, applicant also provides evidence that the process obviated by Todorov may provide a content of element Z that is within the claimed range. Thus those of ordinary skill would expect the content of Element Z in the range of phosphors created by the process of Todorov to have an overlapping range of content with that which is claimed.
Applicant argues that in the absence of any disclosure of the presence of an additive element Z, such as Mo or W, there would have been no motivation to investigate conditions to provide the claimed result; however, as is noted in the rejection, the examiner contends that the claimed content of element Z necessarily follows from the use of an Mo or W crucible in the process as disclosed by Todorov. Thus the creation of the claimed phosphor stems from the motivation to create phosphors according to the process of Todorov. Creating phosphors by such a process would necessarily render phosphors having the claimed properties as is evidenced by applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant argues that the combination of variables to be selected from the disclosure of Todorov are ‘vast’ is not convincing. Todorov discloses 3 different crucible compositions, 2 of which would provide applicant’s claimed property. In terms of time and temperature those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any of the time/temperatures taught in Todorov that were capable of creating a crystalline phosphor. Those of ordinary skill in the art are capable of determining suitable heat treatments through the use of XRD and other test procedures. Applicant shows by way of example that the discussed temperature range from 800-850 (within the teachings of Todorov) is fully capable of creating such a phosphor within the time periods taught by Todorov (a few to several hours). As this is the case, such a heat treatment would have been obvious for creation of the claimed product and would have necessarily had the same properties.
Applicant contends that the disclosure of various contents of element Z is that of applicants and not of Todorov; however, as is discussed above applicant provides evidence that the phosphors created from the range of processing parameters of Todorov would necessarily possess the claimed amount of element Z.
Applicant notes the secondary references to Schmidt and Ji, which are relied upon for teaching devices. Applicant does not set forth any specific grounds of traverse based upon these secondary references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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 on 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734