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 .
The amendment filed 4/23/26 has been considered and entered. Claims 8 and 9 have been canceled. Claims 1-6,10-13 and 16-19 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed toward a non-elected invention detailed in paper filed 10/28/24. Claims 7,14 and 15 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Considering the amendment filed 4/23/26, the 35 USC 112 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
New Matter
The amendment filed 4/23/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: A pre-synthesized thallium-doped low dimensional perovskite structured compound is placed into a first evaporation boat”. A thallium-doped low dimensional perovskite structured compound is formed by melting, mixing and cooling to synthesize and hence the material is not “pre-synthesized” as argued.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) in combination with Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) further in combination with Isa et al. (2015/0021484) or Shoji et al. (7,482,602) further in combination with CN 109991649.
Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) teaches a scintillator and radiation detector whereby a crystal structure of Cs3Ch2I5 if formed on a substrate (abstract and col 2, lines 1-21). Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) teaches a vapor deposition method by a heating a raw powder of a scintillator and thereby vaporizing the raw powder of the scintillator to form a scintillator film in a vacuum chamber. The method of heating includes resistance heating and electron beam heating of a metal boat or crucible with the material therein. The raw powder includes halides of Cs (CsI) and Cu (CuI) in a single or multiple containers(crucibles) (col. 6, lines 7-43). The process includes using an activator of thallium halides such as thallium iodide as a raw powder (claimed bead thallium halide) to produce the scintillator film (example – col. 7, line 49 – col. 8, line 12). The vacuum and temperature are controlled with the use of the vacuum chamber and temperature of the substrate and deposition temperature.
Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) fails to teach using a thallium perovskite including CsCuI compound instead of just the perovskite compound including CsCuI.
Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) teaches ternary transition metal halide scintillators whereby a thallium perovskite is utilized (Tl-CS3Cu2I5) [0005]-[0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) process to utilize a ternary metal halide scintillator including thallium as evidenced by Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) as it results in increased density of the scintillator films and lowers the melting point resulting in strong emission and good energy resolution.
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) in combination with Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) are incorporated here.
Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) in combination with Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) fail to teach the mass ratio of the thallium perovskite compound material to the thallium halide activator to be 99.99:0.01 to 90:10.
Isa et al. (2015/0021484) teaches a radiographic image detector in forming scintillator films whereby the scintillator layer is from 0.1-5 mol% to 100 mol% of the phosphor material which would suggest these amounts for the raw powder source material thereby producing the percentages in the produce film [0071].
Shoji et al. (7,482,602) teaches vacuum evaporation method whereby activators including thallium iodide or bromide (claimed thallium halide) can be 0.01-10 mol% (abstract and col. 3, lines 30-67)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) in combination with Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) process to include the claimed mole ratio of raw source powders as evidenced by Isa et al. (2015/0021484) with the expectation of producing the claimed scintillator films.
Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) in combination with Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) further in combination with Isa et al. (2015/0021484) or Shoji et al. (7,482,602) fails to teach molar ratios of the precursor materials to form the pervoskite.
CN 109991649 teaches preparing scintillator films with AxByXz whereby the raw materials are prepared to meet the ratios 1:1:2, 1:2:3, 2:1:3 or 3:2:5 (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) in combination with Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) further in combination with Isa et al. (2015/0021484) or Shoji et al. (7,482,602) process to prepare the pre-synthesized perovskite compound with molar ratios as evidenced by CN 109991649 with the expectation of controlling the perovskite compound structure.
Regarding claim 7, Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) fails to teach using a thallium perovskite including CsCuI compound instead of just the perovskite compound including CsCuI which meets the claimed three cation species A,B and Tl as A and B are Cu and Cs. CN 109991649 teaches using molar ratios of the raw materials to control the perovskite compound film structure.
Regarding Claim 14, the vacuum pressure is 10-5 or more and the substrate temperature is between 50-250C (col. 6, lines 44-55 and col. 7, lines 24-26).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) in combination with Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) further in combination with Isa et al. (2015/0021484) or Shoji et al. (7,482,602) further in combination with CN 109991649 further in combination with Oike et al. (11/073,626).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) in combination with Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) further in combination with Isa et al. (2015/0021484) or Shoji et al. (7,482,602) further in combination with CN 109991649 are incorporated here.
Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) in combination with Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) further in combination with Isa et al. (2015/0021484) or Shoji et al. (7,482,602) further in combination with CN 109991649 fails to specifically teach the coating material heated to a molten metal for evaporation.
Oike et al. (11/073,626) teaches a scintillator and method of forming the same whereby the evaporation of the CsI and the CuI in a crucible is performed by heating the source material to a temperature higher than the melting point in vapor deposition processing which would melt the source material (col. 4, lines 50-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) in combination with Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) further in combination with Isa et al. (2015/0021484) or Shoji et al. (7,482,602) further in combination with CN 109991649 process to heating the source raw powder to molten metal prior to vaporization as evidenced by Oike et al. (11/073,626) with the expectation of similar success of vaporizing the raw source materials.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7,14 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) fails to teach the “pre-synthesized” thallium perovskite precursor while Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) fails to how to obtain ternary transition metal halide scintillators films through vacuum thermal evaporation.
As argued by Applicant, a “pre-synthesized” compound includes thallium in the lattice (arguments – pg. 2, last paragraph and pg. 3, second to last paragraph). Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) teaching thallium perovskite precursors in forming scintillator films and these would include the thallium in the lattice which would meet the claimed limitation of “pre-synthesized”. Furthermore, as noted above, a New Matter rejection is applied as no support for the claimed “pre-synthesized” is found in noted paragraphs [0030],[0094] or [0095]. The Examiner did find the term “synthesize” in [0028] of the specification but this is clearly formed after placing the materials in the boats, melting, mixing and cooling which would not support the Applicant’s arguments presented that the “A pre-synthesized thallium-doped low dimensional perovskite structured compound is placed into a first evaporation boat”.
Applicant argued teaches the mass ratio of the thallium doped perovskite and thallium halide of the final product and not of the raw materials.
The Examiner agrees and support for this was found in [0028]. Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) teaches ternary transition metal halide scintillators whereby a thallium perovskite is utilized (Tl-CS3Cu2I5) [0005]-[0029]. The Examiner takes the position that the molar or mass ratio of the ternary transition metal precursor would have inherently been “performed” to provide the precursor and hence would meet the claimed limitation is combination with Shoji et al. (7,482,602) which teaches the activator (thallium hydride) to be included at 0.01-10 mol% as detailed above.
Applicant argued the importance of separate evaporation boats for the thallium precursor and the thallium doped perovskite compound as the thallium halide reaches the substrate first thereby suppressing decomposition of the multi-cation precursor and stabilizing Tl incorporation during film formation.
Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) teaches a scintillator and radiation detector whereby a crystal structure of Cs3Ch2I5 if formed on a substrate (abstract and col 2, lines 1-21). Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) teaches a vapor deposition method by a heating a raw powder of a scintillator and thereby vaporizing the raw powder of the scintillator to form a scintillator film in a vacuum chamber. The method of heating includes resistance heating and electron beam heating of a metal boat or crucible with the material therein. The raw powder includes halides of Cs (CsI) and Cu (CuI) in a single or multiple containers (crucibles) (col. 6, lines 7-43).
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 BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached on 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights