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. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S .C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows: The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc. , 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/407377, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application No. 63/407377 does not teach a scintillator material comprising a composition having one of Formula (IV) or (V) . Thus this application does not provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for claims 32-43 and 45-49 and the embodiment in claims 1, 44 and 50-52 when the scintillator material comprising a composition having Formula (IV) . It is noted that Application No. 63/407377 , filed 16 September 2022, provides adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for claims 2-31 and the embodiments in claims 1, 44 and 50-52 when the scintillator material comprising a composition having one of Formula s (I)-(III) . The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/ 451687 filed 13 March 2023 , provides adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for claims 32-43 and 45-49 and the embodiment in claims 1, 44 and 50-52 when the scintillator material comprising a composition having Formula (IV). Therefore, the effective filing date for claims 2-31 and the embodiments in claims 1, 44 and 50-52 when the scintillator material comprising a composition having one of Formulas (I)-(III) is 16 September 2022 and the effective filing date for claims 32-43 and 45-49 and the embodiment in claims 1, 44 and 50-52 when the scintillator material comprising a composition having Formula (IV) is 13 March 2023. Information Disclosure Statement The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 3-6 , 8-10, 12, 15-18, 20-22, 24, 27-29, 33-36, 38-40 and 52 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 claims 3-6 , 10, 12, 15-18, 22, 24, 27-29, 33-36, and 40 ; the term "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 8 and 9, which depend from claim 2, refer to variables A’, A”, B’ and B”. These variables do not appear in formula (I) which is set forth in claim 2. Variables B’ and B’’ are disclosed in claims 3 and 6 and variables A’ and A” are disclosed in claims 4 and 6. Claims 20 and 21 , which depend from claim 14 , refer to variables A’, A”, B’ and B”. These variables do not appear in formula (I I ) which is set forth in claim 14 . Variables B’ and B’’ are disclosed in claims 15 and 18 and variables A’ and A” are disclosed in claims 16 and 18 . Claims 38 and 389 , which depend from claim 3 2, refer to variables A’, A”, B’ and B”. These variables do not appear in formula (I) which is set forth in claim 3 2. Variables B’ and B’’ are disclosed in claims 3 3 and 3 6 and variables A’ and A” are disclosed in claims 3 4 and 3 6. Claim 52 recites the limitation "the vertical Bridgman technique". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Interpretation The narrow limitation after the term “optionally” in the claims have been given no patentable weight. This is because the limitations after the term “optionally” are examples of the broad term or range and claims are given their broadest interpretation. Applicants may add dependent or independent claims directed to the above narrow limitations. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, 32-36, 38-40, 42 and 44-51 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 19 of copending Application No. 17/240,344 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the copending application teach and suggest the scintillator material, radiation detector and method of detecting gamma rays, X-rays, cosmic rays and/or particles having an energy of 1 keV or greater claimed in this application. Claim 12 of the copending application teaches Cs 3 ZnI 5 and Cs 3 ZnBr 5 , which falls within the formula (V) of claims 45-47; and Cs 3 ZnI 5 :0.5 mol% Cu, which corresponds to Cs 3 Zn 0.995 I 5 :0.005Cu and falls within formula (IV) of claims 1, 32, 38 and 39. Claims 1 and 11 of the copending application teaches a scintillator material comprising A 3 M’X 5 , wherein M can be one or more of Li, Na, Rb, Cs and Tl or comprises Cs; M’ can be one o r more of Zn, Hg and Cd, or comprises Zn, and X is one or more halogens , which are known to include F, Cl, Br and I . Thus these claims suggest A 3 M’X 5 , wherein M is one or more of Li, Na, Rb, Cs and Tl ; M’ is one o r more of Zn, Hg and Cd , Zn , X is one o r more of F, Cl, Br and I; and Cs 3 Zn X 5 , wherein X is one or more of F, Cl, Br and I . The suggested scintillators include Cs 3 Zn Cl 5 . Claims 1 and 11 of the copending application suggest the scintillator of claims 45-49. Claims 1, 4, 5 and 19 of the copending application teaches a scintillator material comprising A 2 M’X 4 or A 3 M’X 5 , wherein M can be one or more of Li, Na, Rb, Cs and Tl; M’ can be one o r more of Zn, Hg and Cd , and X is one or more halogens, which are known to include F, Cl, Br and I ; wherein M’ is at least partially replaced by L, which can be Cu. The taught partially replacement amounts of greater than 0 mol% up to less than 100 mol%, 0.0001 mol% to less than 100 mol% or 0.5 mol%. Thus, these claims suggest a scintillator material comprising A 2 M’ 1-x X 4 :xCu or A 3 M ’ 1-x X 5 :xCu , wherein M is one or more of Li, Na, Rb, Cs and Tl; M’ is one o r more of Zn, Hg and Cd ; X is one or more of F, Cl, Br and I and x is 0<x<1, 0.005 or 0.000001 < x<1. These suggested compositions fall within and overlap formulas (I) and (IV) of claims 1, 2, 8-10, 12, 52, 38-40 and 42 , when A, M’ or X are a single element. When more than one A, more than one M’ and/or more than one X is used in the suggested formulas, the resulting suggested formulas fall within and overlaps formulas (Ia)-(Id) of claims 3-6 and formulas (IVa)-(IVd) of claims 33-36. Since the suggested scintillators falls within and overlaps the formulas (I) and (IV) , one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the suggested scintillators to have the properties of claim 44, absent any showing to the contrary. Copending claims 15 and 16 teach radiation detector comprising the scintillator of copending claim 1 and method of detecting gamma rays, X-rays, cosmic rays and/or particles having an energy of 1 keV or greater using the radiation detector of copending claim 15. One of ordinary skill in the art in the art would realize that any of the scintillators of copending claim 1, including those discussed above, can be used in the detector of copending claim 15 and the method of copending claim 16. The resulting radiation detector and method suggest detector of claim 50 and the metho d of claim 51 in this application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. It is noted that a Notice or Allowance was mailed in copending Application No. 17/240,344 o n 2 March 2026. Claims 1, 26, 27 , 30, 44 and 50-52 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 , 8, 11-13 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/852,173 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims teach and suggest the scintillator material, radiation detector , method of detecting gamma rays, X-rays, cosmic rays and/or particles having an energy of 1 keV or greater and the method for producing the material claimed in this application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Copending claims 3 and 8, which depends from claim 1, teaches a scintillator having the formula Cs 1-y- z Na y X z I, where y is 0.0005-0.5, z is 0.00005-0.1 or 0.0001-0.001 (clm 8) and X can be Zn. X in this formula corresponds with D and z corresponds with i in formulas (III) and (IIIa) of this application. The broad range of z overlaps the value for i in claims 1 and the narrow range of z falls within the i range of claims 1, 26 and 27. The amount of sodium falls within the y range of claim 27. The suggested formulaCs 1-y-z Na y Zn z I, where y is 0.0005-0.5 and z is 0.00005-0.1 or 0.0001-0.001 suggests the scintillator of claims 1, 26 and 27 of this application. The calculated weight percentage of zinc in this suggested scintillator is less than 0.5 wt%. Copending claim 11 teaches the scintillator material of claim 1, which include those of claim 3, have a decreased afterglow, or in other words, shorter decay time, when compared to the undoped CsI. Thus the suggested scintillator material meets the requirement of claim 44 of this application. Copending claim 15 teaches the material of copending claim 1, which includes those of copending claim 15, is prepared via the vertical Bridgman technique. Thus the copending claims suggest producing the suggested scintillator material that suggests the claimed scintillator of this application via the vertical Bridgman technique. This is the process of claim 52 of this application. Finally, copending claims 12 and 13 teach adiation detector comprising the scintillator of copending claim 1 , which includes those of claim 3 and method of detecting gamma rays, X-rays, cosmic rays and/or particles having an energy of 1 keV or greater using the radiation detector of copending claim 15. One of ordinary skill in the art in the art would realize that any of the scintillators of copending claim 3 , including those discussed above, can be used in the detector of copending claim 15 and the method of copending claim 16. The resulting radiation detector and method suggest detector of claim 50 and the method of claim 51 in this application. 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, 14, 21, 22 , 24 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. patent 2,806,002 . This reference teaches manganese doped fluoride phosphors of the formula MMgF 3 :xMn, where M is Na or K; M Zn F 3 :xMn, where M is Na or K; KCaF 3 :xMn and KCdF 3 :xMn, wherein x is 0.001-0.1 or 0.02. These formulas all fall within formula (II) and therefore must also be scintillating. When x is 0.02, these composition falls within the range of claim 24. Since the taught phosphor falls within formulas (I II ) , one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the taught fluorides to have inherently the properties of claim 44, absent any showing to the contrary. The reference clearly anticipates the claimed scintillators. Claim s 45-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. patent 5,632,254 . This reference teaches phosphors having the formula Cs 3 ZnCl 5 , Cs 3 ZnCl 5 , Cs 3 ZnCl x Br 5 -x where 0<x<5 or Cs 3-a Rb a ZnCl 5 or Cs 3-a Rb a Zn Br 5 where a is 0-3. All of these phosphor fall within the formula (V) and therefore must also be scintillating. The reference clearly anticipates the claimed scintillators. Claim s 1, 14, 20-22, 24, 44 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by WO 2012/036570 . This reference teaches a radiation detector comprising a fluoroperovskite scintillator material and a photon detector. The fluoroperovskite scintillator has the formula NaMgF 3 :0.2% Mn +2 , RbCd F 3 : 1 % Mn +2 , or CsCdF 3 :0.2% Mn +2 . These formulas can be rewritten as NaMg 0.998 F 3 :0.002 Mn, RbCd 0.99 F 3 :0.0 1 Mn, and CsCd 0.998 F 3 :0.002 Mn . These formulas fall within formula (III) of claims 1, 14, and 20-22. RbCd 0.99 F 3 :0.01 Mn falls within the formula of claim 24. Since the taught phosphor falls within formulas (III), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the taught fluorides to have inherently the properties of claim 44, absent any showing to the contrary. The reference clearly anticipates the claimed scintillators. Claim s 1, 2 , 8-10 and 44 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113831914 . This reference teaches a copper activated alkali zinc halide luminescent material. The taught material has the formulas Cs 2 Zn 1-y X 4 :yCu and Rb 2 Zn 1-y X 4 :yCu , wherein X is Cl or Br and y is 0.001-0.01 (0.01-1 mol%). These materials fall within formula (II) and therefore must be scintillating and have the properties of claim 44. The reference clearly teaches the claimed material. Claim s 1, 32, 38-40, 42 and 44 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by CN 114479841 . This reference teaches a copper activated alkali zinc halide luminescent materia l of the formula Cs 3 Zn 1-x Cl 5 : x Cu , where x is 0.5-10 mol%, or 0.005-0.1. This material falls within formula (IV) and therefore must be scintillating and have the properties of claim 44. The preferred amount of copper dopant is 5 mol%, which means x is 0.05. This value falls within the range of claim 42. The reference clearly teaches the claimed material. Claims 1, 32, 3 7 -4 2 and 44 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by CN 114479841. This reference teaches a alkali zinc halide luminescent material doped with copper and a trivalent metal of aluminum or gallium. The reference teaches each amount of copper and the trivalent metal are equal and that the sum of the dopant is 1-10 mol%. The taught material has the formula Cs 3 Zn 1-x C l 5 : x/2 Cu ,x/2B +3 , where x is 0.01 -0.1 and B +3 is Al or Ga . Thus the reference teaches Cs 3 Zn 1-x Cl 5 :x/2Cu,x /2Ga , where x is 0.01-0.1 . This material falls within formula (IV) and therefore must be scintillating and have the properties of claim 44. This taught material meets the requirements of claim 37 and the taught total amount of dopants falls within the range of claim 42. The reference clearly teaches the claimed material. 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. Claim s 1, 14-16, 21, 22, 24 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent 2,806,002 . This reference teaches manganese doped fluoride phosphors of the formula xMF∙yM’F 2 :zMn, where x=y. Thus the formula can be rewritten as MM’F 3 :zMn. M is at least one of Na, K or Rb , M’ is at least one of Mg, Ca, Zn and Cd , z is 0.001-0.1, preferable 0.02 and wherein the combinations of NaCd and NaCa are excluded. While the reference does not state the Mn partially substitutes for M’, it is notoriously well known in the luminescent art, that the activator, such as manganese, partially substitutes for which ever element in the host, which would be MM’F 3 , has the same valance state as the activator. Here the Mn +2 clearly must substitute for M’. These formulas all fall within formula (II) and therefore must also be scintillating. The reference suggests that M and/or M’ can be mixtures of the listed metals and thus suggests the formulas (IIa) and (IIb). The taught amount of z overlaps that of claim 24. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. Since the taught phosphor falls within formulas (III), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the taught fluorides to have inherently the properties of claim 44, absent any showing to the contrary. The reference suggests the claimed scintillators. Claim s 1, 26-29, 44, 50 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2021/0124064 . This reference teaches a scintillator material comprising a cesium halide doped with thallium and a codopant. The taught cesium halide has the formula CsX:Tl,Me, wherein X is I or I 1-q Br q where q is 0.01-0.5 (para 13) and Me can be Mn and/or Cd. The amount of Tl can be 0.01-10 mol% (para 14) and the amount of Me is 10 -7 to 0.1 mol% (para 15). This formula can be rewritten as Cs 1-x-y Tl x X:yMe, wherein x is 0.0001-0.1, y is 10 - 9 to 0.001, Me can be Mn and/or Cd and X is I or I 1-q Br q where q is 0.01-0.5 . This formula corresponds with formula (III) wherein the amount of y overlaps the claimed i range. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. This formula corresponds with formula s (III a ) , (IIIb) and (IIIc) wherein the amount of y overlaps the claimed i range , the taught x range falls within the claimed y range and the taught q range falls within the claimed w range . Thus the reference suggests the scintillator of claims 1 and 26-29. Paragraphs [0018] and [0019] teach the taught scintillator has increased light yield and reduced afterglow, or shorter decay time than CsX:Tl scintillators. Thus the taught scintillator meets the requirements of claim 44. The reference teaches the taught scintillator can be used to detect gamma rays and X-rays and that it is used in a radiation detector in combination with a photon detector. Thus the reference suggests detector and process of claims 50 and 51. Claim s 1, 14, 16, 17, 20 -22, 24, 44 and 50-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2023/0183569 . This reference teaches a scintillator material having the formula TlCaX 3 , where X is Cl and/or Br or Tl MgI 3 . Paragraph [0025] teaches that up to 50 mol% of Tl can be substituted by Na. Li, K, Rb or Cs. Paragraphs [0031 ] and [0032] teaches the scintillator can contain 0.01-20 mol% of a dopant, such as Cd and that the dopant can improve time resolution . Thus the reference suggests scintillators having the formula (Tl 1-x R x )Ca 1-y (Cl 3-q Br q ):yCd, where x is 0-0.5, R is Na. Li, K, Rb or Cs , y is 0.0001-0.2 and q is 0-3 or the formula (Tl 1-x R x ) Mg 1-y I 3 :yCd, where x is 0-0.5, R is Na. Li, K, Rb or Cs, and y is 0.0001-0.2 . These suggested formulas fall within formulas (II), (IIb) and (IIc). The taught amount of Cd overlaps the range of claim 24. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. The reference teaches the taught scintillator can be used to detect gamma rays and X-rays and that it is used in a radiation detector in combination with a photon detector. Thus the reference suggests detector and process of claims 50 and 51 . Paragraph [0035] teaches the taught scintillator can be prepared by the Bridgman-Stockbarger method which is vertical Bridgman technique. The reference suggest the claimed processes, scintillator material and radiation detector. Claim s 4, 5, and 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over CN 113831914. As stated above, t his reference teaches a copper activated alkali zinc halide luminescent material having the formula s Cs 2 Zn 1-y X 4 :yCu and Rb 2 Zn 1-y X 4 :yCu, wherein X is Cl or Br and y is 0.001-0.01 (0.01-1 mol%). This amount of copper overlaps the amount in claim 12. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. Thus the reference suggests the material of claim 12. This reference also teaches the material can have the formula A 2 Zn 1-y X 4 :yCu wherein A is one or two of Cs and Rb and X is one or two of Cl and Br. This teaching suggests materials having the formulas (Cs 2-z Rb z ) Zn 1-y X 4 :yCu , wherein X is Cl, Br and combination thereof, 0<x<2 and y is 0.001-0.01; and A 2 Zn 1-y (Cl 4-q Br q ), wherein A is C s , Rb and combination thereof, 0< q < 4 and y is 0.001-0.01 . These formulas suggests those of claims 4 and 5. Claim 42 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over CN 114479841. This reference teaches a copper activated alkali zinc halide luminescent material of the formula Cs 3 Zn 1-x Cl 5 :xCu, where x is 0.5-10 mol%, or 0.005-0.1. This amount of copper overlaps the amount in claim 4 2. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. Thus the reference suggests the material of claim 4 2. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7, 11, 13, 19, 23, 25, 31 and 43 are 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. Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. There is no teaching or suggestion in the cited art of record of scintillator materials comprising compositions having the formulas set forth in claims 13, 25, 31 and 43. There is no teaching or suggestion in the cite art of record of a scintillator material comprising a composition having the formula A 2 B 1-i X 4 :D i , wherein i is 0.0001-0.9999, A is at least one of Tl, In, Li, Na, K, Rb and Cs, B is at least one of Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, Cd and Hg, X is at least one of F, Cl, Br and I, and D is at least two of Zn, Cd, Hg, Cu, Mn and Ga, subject to the proviso that B and D are not the same. There is no teaching or suggestion in the cite art of record of a scintillator material comprising a composition having the formula A 2 B 1-i X 4 :D i , wherein i is 0.0001-0.9999, A is at least one of Tl, In, Li, Na, K, Rb and Cs, B is at least one of Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, Cd and Hg, X is at least one of F, Cl, Br and I, and D is at least one of Zn, Cd, Hg, Cu, Mn and Ga, subject to the proviso that B and D are not the same and D must comprise Zn, Ga or Cd . There is no teaching or suggestion in the cite art of record of a scintillator material comprising a composition having the formula AB 1-i X 3 :D i , wherein i is 0.0001-0.9999, A is at least one of Tl, In, Li, Na, K, Rb and Cs, B is at least one of Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, Cd and Hg, X is at least one of F, Cl, Br and I, and D is at least two of Zn, Cd, Hg, Cu, Mn and Ga, subject to the proviso that B and D are not the same. There is no teaching or suggestion in the cite art of record of a scintillator material comprising a composition having the formula A 2 B 1-i X 4 :D i , wherein i is 0.0001-0.9999, A is at least one of Tl, In, Li, Na, K, Rb and Cs, B is at least one of Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, Cd and Hg, X is at least one of F, Cl, Br and I, and D is at least one of Zn, Cd, Hg, Cu, Mn and Ga, subject to the proviso that B and D are not the same and D must comprise Zn . There is no teaching or suggestion in the cite art of record of a scintillator material comprising a composition having the formula A ’ 1-y B ’ 1-i -j X ’ 4 -w :D i , wherein i is 0.0001-0.9999, j is 0.0001-0.9999, 0<y<1, 0<w<3, A ’ and A” are each at least one of Tl, In, Li, Na, K, Rb and Cs, B ’ and B” are each at least one of Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, Cd and Hg, X ’ and X” are each at least one of F, Cl, Br and I, and D is at least one of Zn, Cd, Hg, Cu, Mn and Ga, subject to the proviso that B ’, B” and D are all not the same , A’ and A” are not the same, and X’ and X” are not the same. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1371 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST . 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. /C Melissa Koslow/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734 FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT cmk 3/13/26