DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 10/24/2024, in which claims 1-18 are currently pending. The Application filed 10/24/2024 is a Continuation of PCT/US23/25733, filed 06/20/2023. PCT/US23/25733 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63356131, filed 06/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 10/24/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5- 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 of this title, 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
6- Claims 1-7, 9-13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 101831708) in view of Schmidt et al. (PGPUB No. 2021/0098660), both cited by Applicants.
As to claim 1, Wang teaches a light emitting device (Abstract, Fig. 1) comprising: a first luminescent material having peak emission wavelengths in the range of 1600 - 1900 nm comprising a Cr3+ and Tm3+ co-doped garnet phosphor having the general formula (Gd3-u-yTmyREu)[Ga2-a-b-d-eLuaCrbScd Alc] {Ga3-cAlc}O12 with RE = La, Y, Yb, Nd, Ho, Er, Ce, Lu, Sc and 0< u< 2, 0<y< 1.5, 0< a< 1, 0<b< 0.3, 0< c< 3, 0< d< 0.5, 0< e< 1.8 (Abstract, ¶ 7-12; gadolinium gallium garnet material Crb:Tmy: Gd3Ga5O12 with u=0, y=0.02, a=0, b=substantially small, c=d=e=0. The material presents emission wavelength peaks in the 1700-2184 nm, which overlaps substantially with the claimed range, and obviates it since it has been held that In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wetheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990))); and one or more semiconductor light emitting diodes arranged to excite luminescence from the first luminescent material to provide short wavelength infrared emission over the range 1300 -2000 nm (Fig. 1; ¶ 3-6; pumping diode lasers are commonly used to excite the luminescent material).
Wang does not teach expressly the device comprising a second luminescent material having peak emission wavelengths in the range of 1400 - 1600 nm comprising a Cr3+ and Ni2+ co-doped garnet phosphor having the general formula (Gd3-u REu)[Ga2-a-b-d-e Nia Crb Ld Ale]{Ga3-c Alc}O12 with RE = La, Y, Yb, Nd, Ho, Er, Ce, Lu, Tm, Sc and L=Ti, Zr, Hf, Sn, Ge, Si and 0< u< 2, 0<a< 0.1, 0<b< 0.3, 0< c< 3, 0<d< 0.15, 0< e<2.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Schmidt teaches garnet type phosphors emitting in the 1000-1700 nm (Abstract and Figs. 1-23) wherein (¶ 104 for ex.) a first light emitting material is combined with a second luminescent material having peak emission wavelengths in the range of 1400 - 1600 nm comprising a Cr3+ and Ni2+ co-doped garnet phosphor having the general formula (Gd3-u REu)[Ga2-a-b-d-e Nia Crb Ld Ale]{Ga3-c Alc}O12 with RE = La, Y, Yb, Nd, Ho, Er, Ce, Lu, Tm, Sc and L=Ti, Zr, Hf, Sn, Ge, Si and 0< u< 2, 0<a< 0.1, 0<b< 0.3, 0< c< 3, 0<d< 0.15, 0< e<2 ( the material Gd3Ga3.82AlO12:Ni0.04,Zr0.04,Cr0.1; wherein L = Zr, a=0.04, b=0.1, c=1, d=0.04 and e=u=0, with a spectral emission, Fig. 15, ranging in the 1140-1600 nm, which also overlaps with the claimed range and obviates it. See rationale here above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the device of Wang in view of Schmidt’s suggestions so that the device comprises an additional second luminescent material having peak emission wavelengths in the range of 1400 - 1600 nm comprising a Cr3+ and Ni2+ co-doped garnet phosphor having the general formula (Gd3-u REu)[Ga2-a-b-d-e Nia Crb Ld Ale]{Ga3-c Alc}O12 with RE = La, Y, Yb, Nd, Ho, Er, Ce, Lu, Tm, Sc and L=Ti, Zr, Hf, Sn, Ge, Si and 0< u< 2, 0<a< 0.1, 0<b< 0.3, 0< c< 3, 0<d< 0.15, 0< e<2, to be excited by a pumping diode, with the advantage of effectively providing an emitting light diode with a spectral range from 1140 to 2000 nm.
As to claim 2, the combination of Wang and Schmidt teaches the light emitting device of claim 1.
Moreover, the combination suggests wherein the intensity of emission from the device at 1650 nm, 1720 nm, and 1820 nm varies by less than 5% over an ambient temperature range of 0- 1000C (since no means/method is explicitly claimed that differs the instant claimed invention from the prior art disclosure, the thermal stability if construed as a mere inherent result from the composition of the device materials).
As to claims 3-6, 9-13, the combination of Wang and Schmidt teaches the light emitting device of claim 1.
Wang does not teach expressly wherein the first luminescent material is in powder form dispersed in a binder; (claim 4) wherein the binder is or comprises a silicone material; (claim 5) wherein the binder is or comprises a methyl phenyl silicone; (claim 6) wherein the binder is or comprises a polymethylsiloxane; (claim 7) wherein the first luminescent material is in ceramic form; (claim 9) wherein the second luminescent material is in powder form dispersed in a binder; (claim 10) wherein the binder is or comprises a silicone material; (claim 11) wherein the binder is or comprises a methyl phenyl silicone; (claim 12) wherein the binder is or comprises a polymethylsiloxane; (claim 13) wherein the second luminescent material is in ceramic form.
However, Schmidt teaches mixing garnet type phosphors, i.e. powder, with PDMS type silicone or polydimethyl siloxane type silicone, as a binder (¶ 105-108). Moreover, methyl phenyl silicone is considered as an obvious species of the limited genus of methyl silicone encapsulants, and a suitable alternative to poly methyl siloxane silicone (See MPEP 2144.08 II A- 4(a). Sections 4 (c-e) can also be considered, and MPEP § 2144.07 for ex. for the suitable alternatives rationale). As to claims 7/13, one PHOSITA would find it obvious to use a ceramic form instead of the powder in silicone, as suggested by reference cited in the Conclusion merely as evidence, with the advantage of avoiding the time degradation of silicone based encapsulations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the device of Wang in view of Schmidt’s suggestions so that the first luminescent material is in powder form dispersed in a binder; wherein the binder is or comprises a silicone material; wherein the binder is or comprises a methyl phenyl silicone; wherein the binder is or comprises a polymethylsiloxane; wherein the first luminescent material is in ceramic form; wherein the second luminescent material is in powder form dispersed in a binder; wherein the binder is or comprises a silicone material; wherein the binder is or comprises a methyl phenyl silicone; wherein the binder is or comprises a polymethylsiloxane; wherein the second luminescent material is in ceramic form, with the advantage of efficiently encapsulate the phosphor luminescent materials.
7- Claim 14 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Schmidt and further in view of et Micheels al. (PGPUB No. 2016/0091367)
As to claims 14, the combination of Wang and Schmidt teaches the light emitting device of claim 1.
The combination does not teach expressly a spectrometer comprising: the light emitting device; and a short wavelength infrared detector arranged to detect the intensity of short wavelength infrared light emitted by the light emitting device and reflected by a sample.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Micheels teaches a light source to be used in spectrometric applications (Abstract, ¶ 60, Figs. 1-19), comprising a spectrometer (350) comprising: the light emitting device (phosphor type IR source in ¶ 9); and a short wavelength infrared detector (inside 350) arranged to detect the intensity of short wavelength infrared light emitted by the light emitting device (100) and reflected by a sample (320).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the device of Wang and Schmidt in view of Micheels’ suggestions in a spectrometer comprising: the light emitting device; and a short wavelength infrared detector arranged to detect the intensity of short wavelength infrared light emitted by the light emitting device and reflected by a sample, with the advantage of efficiently characterizing the midIR reflection/absorption of the samples.
8- Claims 15-18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Schmidt in view of Micheels, and further in view of Zimmermann et al. (PGPUB No. 2025/0146869)
As to claims 15-18, the combination of Wang, Schmidt and Micheels teaches the spectrometer of claim 14.
The combination does not teach expressly a smartphone comprising the spectrometer; (claim 16) a wearable device comprising the spectrometer; (claim 17) a handheld device comprising the spectrometer; (claim 18) a method of determining hydration and sebum levels in a skin sample comprising measuring reflection spectra from the skin sample at 1650 nm, 1720 nm, and 1820 nm using the spectrometer.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zimmermann teaches a spectrometer with phosphor based near IR sources (Abstract, ¶ 27, 67, Figs. 1-8), comprising a spectrometer (110) comprising: the light emitting device (114); and a short wavelength infrared detector (122) arranged inside a smartphone, i.e. wearable device, i.e. handheld device comprising the spectrometer (¶ 67) and to be used with a method to determine skin hydration and biological fluids, i.e. sebum for ex. (¶ 64, 106 for ex.) in the near infra red range, which comprises the claimed values (¶ 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the device of Wang, Schmidt and Micheels in view of Zimmermann’s suggestions so that a smartphone comprising the spectrometer; a wearable device comprising the spectrometer; a handheld device comprising the spectrometer; a method of determining hydration and sebum levels in a skin sample comprising measuring reflection spectra from the skin sample at 1650 nm, 1720 nm, and 1820 nm using the spectrometer., with the advantage of optimally and portably use the spectrometer.
Allowable Subject Matter
9- Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the possibly allowable matter:
As to claim 8, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious:
The light emitting device of claim 1 wherein the second luminescent material has the formula Gd3Ga4.7Al0.18Ni0.02Zr0.021Cr0.1O12.
The closest prior art found that pertains to the invention, with emphasis added, is Wang, Schmidt and Zimmermann. However, the prior art fail to teach, suggest or render obvious the entire invention as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure:
“Phosphor Ceramic Composite for Tunable Warm White Light”, to Osborne et al. Materials 2024, 17(13), 3187
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights