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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/20/25 has been entered.
The amendment filed 11/20/25 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 Claims 1-6,10-13 and 16-19 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed toward a non-elected invention detailed in paper filed 10/28/24.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.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7, the term “bead-like” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “the thallium-doped low dimensional perovskite structured compound” lacks antecedent basis as the phrase “pre-synthesized” is not recited.
The term “the vacuum degree” lacks antecedent basis and should be recited as “a vacuum degree” as it has not been introduced prior to the recitation thereof and therefore should be prefaced by the term “a” and not “the”.
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).
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 methods of heating include 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 like) to produce the scintillator film (example – col. 7, line 49 – col8, 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 goon 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.
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.
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 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) 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) 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) 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 not found persuasive.
Applicant argued Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) fails to teach the thallium perovskite precursor while Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) fails to how to obtain ternary transition metal halide scintillators films through vacuum thermal evaporation.
The Examiner agrees in part. Additionally, pointing out the differences between the reference and each individual reference is not sufficient to overcome a rejection based on a combination of the references. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test of obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all references but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them. In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d 847, 146 USPQ 183 (CCPA 1965); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038. In this case, Shibutani et al. (9,315,919) is relied upon for teaching forming scintillator films using vacuum evaporation and Stracuzzi et al. (2022/0025257) is relied upon for teaching thallium perovskite precursors in forming scintillator films and hence the combination would teach the claimed limitations.
Applicant argued Oike et al. (11/073,626) 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 in part. While the Examiner agrees with Applicant’s summary of the references, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the arguments as the claim is not limited to the precursor mass ratio and can be interpreted as the final compound product ratio as the claims recite mass ratio of thallium compound to thallium halide and it’s not limited as argued to the raw materials and could be interpreted to include the post deposition mass ratio and hence meets the claimed limitations.
Furthermore, Shoji et al. (7,482,602) teaches the activator (thallium hydride) to be included at 0.01-10 mol% as detailed above.
Finally, the claimed limitation recites “wherein the mass ratio of the thallium-doped low dimensional perovskite compound to thallium halide” does not require the compound to be “pre-synthesized” and therefore the mass ratio can be interpreted as the final product and not the precursors as argued.
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.
The claims are not commensurate in scope with this argument as the claims does not recite the thallium halide to be in a “separate or second” boat but recites evaporation boat which could be construed as the same boat as the thallium doped perovskite compound. Furthermore, no recitation of the thallium halide precursor being applied to the substrate first prior to the thallium doped perovskite compound reaching the substrate is claimed or recited.
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 Mon-Thurs 6:30-5PM - Fri OFF.
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 1715