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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 also recites “wherein the halide element comprises one or more group 17 elements”, which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear whether this halide element is drawn to an additional group 17 element or is drawn to the Cl and/or Br of parent claim 1.
While not a suggestion of claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation is treated as follows:
‘wherein X further comprises one or more additional group 17 elements’.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the fourth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Parent claim 1, requires Ca, Cl and/or Br. However, dependent claim 9 does not recite any of these elements. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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, 3, 4, 7, 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0199818 A1 to Fukuda et al. (hereinafter Fukuda).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 7, Fukuda discloses a scintillator material comprising a perovskite (para [0030]), halide-based composition, wherein the composition has the general formula ABX3, wherein A comprises Tl, B comprises Ca and X comprises Cl and/or B, particularly TlCaCl3 (Example 2, Table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Fukuda discloses a scintillator material as in claim 1, wherein the halide-based composition further comprises TI (para [0014]).
Regarding claim 10, Fukuda discloses a scintillator material as in claim 1, further comprising a dopant (luminescent center, para [0034]).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Fukuda discloses a scintillator material as in claim 1, further comprising one or more of the dopants Ce, Pr, Yb (para [0034]), preferably Ce (para [0034]).
Regarding claim 13, Fukuda discloses a detection system (Fig. 9) comprising: a scintillator comprising the halide-based composition of claim 1; and a detector assembly (102) coupled to the scintillator (101) and configured to detect a light pulse luminescence (L) from the scintillator as a measure of a scintillation event (para [0080]-[0083]).
Regarding claim 15, Fukuda discloses a method of radiation detection, comprising: providing a detection system including a scintillator (101) comprising the halide-based composition of claim 1 (Fig. 9) and a detector assembly (102) coupled to the scintillator and configured to detect a light pulse luminescence (L) from the scintillator as a measure of a scintillation event (para [0080]-[0086]); 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 with the detection assembly (Fig. 9 and para [0081]-[0086]).
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 instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. See MPEP 2111.03,cited above. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claims 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda.
Regarding claim 5, Fukuda discloses a scintillator material as in claim 1, wherein in an alternate embodiment, the halide-based composition further comprises one or more group 2 elements (para [0015]).
Regarding claim 6, Fukuda discloses a scintillator material as in claim 1, wherein in an alternate embodiment, the halide element X further comprises one or more additional group 17 elements (para [0017]).
This rejection is based on the interpretation set forth in para #3, above.
Regarding claim 8, Fukuda discloses a scintillator material as in claim 1, wherein the halide-based composition has the formula TlMX3 (para [0014]) where M is selected from a group that includes Ca and X is selected from a group that includes Br and therefore encompasses the general formula: TlCaBr3.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda in view of US 2017/0038483 A1 to Payne et al. (hereinafter Payne).
Regarding claim 14, Fukuda discloses the detection system as in claim 13, wherein the detection system can be used as a PET or X-ray detection system (para [0003]) but fails to expressly disclose a fast-neutron detection system.
However, Payne does teach a halide based perovskite scintillator composite (para [0008]) comprising Tl (para [0045]) as part of a detection system for detecting X-rays and/or neutrons (para [0033]) including fast neutrons (para [0073]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a scintillator detection system that can be used as an x-ray detection system can also be used a fast neutron detection system as they are considered equivalent in the art (Payne, para [0033] and [0073]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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: The closest prior art, Fukuda, teaches a similar scintillator material but does not teach or suggest the presence of iodine.
Conclusion
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 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.
/L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights