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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/30/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng et al. (10,508,233).
Regarding claim 1, Feng discloses a scintillator material consisting essentially of a single organic glass (Feng, Col. 13, Lines 33 et seq., “The mixture of organic compounds may include one, two, or more than two compounds”; Col. 6, Lines 43-45, “The other glass compound in the mix need not necessarily be luminescent” contemplating a single organic glass scintillator material; Col. 6, Lines 46 et seq. “polymers with a Tg of 25C or higher may be used as one of the components” again contemplating a single organic glass scintillator, with polymer additive as considered in dependent claim 7 below) comprising one or more additives (Feng, Col. 13 Lines 65 et seq.), wherein the single organic glass is an organic glass scintillator material (Feng, Col. 6 Lines 38 et seq., “In an embodiment there is at least one luminescent glass compound in the mixture”) , wherein the one or more additives comprises one or more of tin, lead, boron, and lithium. (Feng, Col. 13, Lines 13-14, “a tin-loaded glass”)
Regarding claim 2, Feng further discloses the additive comprises a metal. (Feng, Col. 13 Lines 13-14 “a tin-loaded glass”)
Regarding claim 3, Feng further discloses the additive comprises tin. (Feng, Col. 13, Lines 13-14, “a tin-loaded glass”)
Regarding claim 6, Feng further discloses the additive comprises lithium. (Feng, Col. 18, Lines 37-38, “followed by addition of t-BuLi as 1.7 M solution in n-pentane”)
Regarding claim 7, Feng further discloses the organic glass scintillator material comprises a polymer organic glass scintillator material. (Feng, Col. 6 Lines 46 et seq.)
Regarding claim 8, Feng further discloses the polymer comprises polystyrene or polycarbonate. (Feng, Col. 6, Lines 55-56)
Regarding claim 9, Feng further discloses a system for detecting radiation comprising: a detector comprising the scintillator material of claim 1, a light detector assembly coupled to the scintillator material to detect a light pulse luminescence from the scintillator material. (Feng, Col. 17 Lines 43-51)
Regarding claim 10, Feng further discloses a method of radiation detection comprising: providing a detection system comprising: a scintillator material of claim 1; and a detection assembly coupled to the scintillator material to detect a light pulse luminescence from the scintillator as a measure of a scintillation event; positioning the system such that a radiation source is within a field of view of the system so as to detect emissions from the source; and measuring a scintillation event luminescence signal from the scintillator material with the detection assembly. (Feng, Col. 17 Lines 43-51, see also the results in the examples section beginning at the end of Col. 25 and continuing through Col. 26, as the measurement of light yields from scintillating materials necessarily involves the claimed method)
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng.
Regarding claim 4, Feng lacks explicit teaching of the additive comprises lead.
However, Feng teaches the incorporation of heavy-atom quenchers (Col. 14 lines 21-24), and lead is a suitable choice, being heavy and abundant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate lead into the scintillating glass as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for a given purpose. See MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 5, Feng lacks explicit teaching of the additive comprises boron.
Boron is a well-known neutron absorbing material, and its selection for inclusion in a neutron sensitive scintillator (as otherwise taught by Feng, See Col.28 Lines 55 et seq.) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. See also MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant continues to argue that Feng requires two or more organic glass scintillators in the mixture. The plain language of Feng recites “at least one luminescent glass” in the mixture. Therefore the possibility of one scintillating glass is disclosed, thereby anticipating the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C GUNBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights