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 Objections Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim appears to contain a typographical error in ln 2. The term “ sufonate ” is treated as sulfonate. Appropriate correction is required. 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 , 6-15 , 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0028217 A1 to Zaitseva et al. (hereinafter Zaitseva). Regarding claim 1 , Zaitseva discloses a lithium (Li)-containing compound, wherein the Li-containing compound is a lipophilic Li salt, wherein each molecule of the lipophilic Li salt has at least one lipophilic endgroup , selected from butylsalicylate , phenylsalicylate , acetylsalicylic acid, and combinations thereof para [0017]). Regarding claim 6 , Zaitseva discloses a scintillator material (para [0006]) comprising an organic liquid and the Li-containing compound of claim 1, wherein the Li-containing compound is solubilized in the organic liquid (solvent, para [0120]) . Regarding claim 7 , Zaitseva discloses the scintillator material as recited in claim 6, wherein a solubilizing agent is not present in the scintillator material. The reference recites that the Li salt is soluble in the solvent and/or in fluors (para [0087] and [0120]) but does not teach or suggest the presence of solubilizing agents. Regarding claim 8 , Zaitseva discloses the scintillator material as recited in claim 6, wherein the organic liquid includes an aromatic compound (para [0087]) . Regarding claim 9 , Zaitseva discloses the scintillator material as recited in claim 6, wherein the organic liquid is configured to be cured (polymerized) into a plastic matrix material (para [0121]). Regarding claim 10 , Zaitseva discloses a scintillator material, comprising a plastic matrix material constructed, at least in part, of a cured organic liquid and the Li-containing compound of claim 1 (para [0128]-[0137]) . Regarding claim 11 , Zaitseva discloses a scintillator material (para [0160]-[0169]) , comprising: an organic liquid (EJ-301 or EJ-309, para [0166]) ; and a lipophilic lithium (Li) salt, wherein the lipophilic Li salt is solubilized in the organic liquid (para [0163]) , wherein the scintillator material includes at least one fluorescent dye (PPO, para [0164]) , the dye being effective to provide scintillation upon exposure to radiation (para [0096]) , wherein the scintillator material exhibits an optical response signature for thermal neutrons that is different than an optical response signature for fast neutrons (para [0126]) . Regarding claim 12 , Zaitseva discloses a scintillator material as recited in claim 11, wherein a solubilizing agent is not present in the scintillator material. The reference recites every component in the scintillator (para [0160]-[0160]) and does not teach or suggest the presence of solubilizing agents. Regarding claim 13 , Zaitseva discloses a scintillator material as recited in claim 11, wherein a polar liquid is not present in the scintillator material. Para [0160]- [0168] doe not teach or suggest the presence of a polar liquid. Regarding claim 14 , Zaitseva discloses a scintillator material as recited in claim 11, wherein the organic liquid is selected from the group consisting of: xylene, toluene, , alk yl benzene, 2,6 diisopropylnaphthalene (para [0087]), styrene (para [0121] and [0172], and EJ-309 (para [0166]). Regarding claim 15 , Zaitseva discloses a scintillator material as recited in claim 11, wherein the organic liquid is a scintillator (para [0166]) . Regarding claim 17 , Zaitseva discloses a scintillator material as recited in claim 11, wherein the scintillator material is a liquid scintillator (para [016 0 ]). Regarding claim 18 , Zaitseva discloses a scintillator material as recited in claim 11, wherein only a single fluorescent d ye (one fluor) is present in the scintillator material (para [0120] and para [0039], single dye PPO) . Regarding claim 20 , Zaitseva discloses a plastic scintillator, comprising: a polymer matrix; and a lipophilic lithium (Li) salt (para [0143]) , wherein the lipophilic lithium salt is solubilized in the polymer matri x (para [0139]- [0148]) , wherein the plastic scintillator includes at least one fluorescent dye (fluor) , the dye being effective to provide scintillation upon exposure to radiation (para [0141]-[0142]) , wherein the plastic scintillator exhibits an optical response signature for thermal neutrons that is different than an optical response signature for fast neutrons (PSD, para [0139] and [0180]) . 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0134386 A1 to Tojo et al. (hereinafter Tojo ). Regarding claim s 1 and 2 ,Tojo discloses a lithium (Li)-containing compound, wherein the Li-containing compound is a lipophilic Li salt, wherein each molecule of the lipophilic Li salt has at least one lipophilic endgroup , selected from a group that includes alkylsulfosuccinate salts (para [0074]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select lipophilic salts, particularly Li alkylsulfosuccinate , to provide anionic surfactants to efficiently manufacture nonwoven structures with the desired densities (para [0081]). Regarding claim 3 ,Tojo discloses the Li-containing compound as recited in claim 1, but is silent regarding the limitation “wherein the lipophilic Li salt is soluble in an organic liquid in a range of greater than 1 gram of the lipophilic Li salt per 100 milliliters of the organic liquid up to 100 grams of the lipophilic Li salt per 100 milliliters of the organic liquid”. However, the salt is present in an organic solvent as a cleaning liquid (para [0092]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Li salt to be soluble in a range that at least overlaps a range of greater than 1 gram of the salt per 100 ml of the organic liquid to provide a cleaning agent with improved efficiency (para [0091]). See MPEP 2144.05(I), which states that ‘I n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists ’ . Regarding claim 4 ,Tojo discloses the Li-containing compound as recited in claim 1, wherein the lipophilic Li salt is a surfactant (0074]). Claims 3, 4, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaitseva . Regarding claim 3 , Zaitseva discloses the Li-containing compound as recited in claim 1, wherein the lipophilic Li salt is soluble in an organic liquid (solvent) and/or at least one fluor (para [0120]) but is silent regarding the Li salt soluble in a range of greater than 1 gram of the lipophilic Li salt per 100 milliliters of the organic liquid up to 100 grams of the lipophilic Li salt per 100 milliliters of the organic liquid. However, Zaitseva anticipates the Li-salt and is disclosed as soluble in the organic liquid. Therefore , one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Zaitseva Li salt to be soluble in a range that at least overlaps the instantly claimed range of greater than 1 gram of the lipophilic Li salt per 100 milliliters of the organic liquid, absent evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.05(I), cited above. Regarding claim 4 , Zaitseva discloses the Li-containing compound as recited in claim 1, but is silent regarding the lipophilic Li salt as a surfactant. However, the reference does anticipate the instantly claimed Li salt. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Li salt to be capable of serving as a surfactant, absent evidence to the contrary. Regarding claim 16 , Zaitseva discloses a scintillator material as recited in claim 11, but is silent regarding the lipophilic Li salt as a surfactant, wherein a second surfactant is not present in the scintillator material. However, the reference does anticipate the instantly claimed Li salt in the instantly claimed scintillator and states that a single Li salt may be present (para [0017]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the Zaitseva Li salt to be capable of serving as a single surfactant, wherein a second surfactant is not present in the scintillator material absent evidence to the contrary. Regarding claim 19 , Zaitseva discloses a scintillator material as recited in claim 11, but is silent regarding the limitation “ wherein the scintillator material is configured to have a relative light output upon scintillation that is at least 85 % of the light output of the scintillator material without the Li-containing compound ” . However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the scintillator material to provide a relative light output that at least overlaps the instantly claimed range of at least 85 % and thereby provide a high efficiency scintillator for applications in which high light yield and/or pulse shape discrimination between gammas, fast and thermal neutrons, charged particles, etc. is useful (para [0182] and [0188]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2678 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jonathan Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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