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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on October 30, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on October 30, 2025.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 to 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houzvicka et al (2018/0284300).
The Houzvicka et al reference teaches a method of growing single crystal method of producing a crystal for a scintillation crystal detector. The detector consisting in producing a crystal with the general composition of CexGdyY1-x-yA103. The variables x and y overlap the claimed ranges para 0025. The raw materials are placed in molybdenum crucible, note para 0057. This is done after the raw materials are heat treated, note para 0057. The crucible is placed in a seed puller or czochralski apparatus and melted, note para 0057. The growth is performed under a reducing atmosphere which can be a mix of argon and hydrogen, note para 0057. The a seed contacts the melt and is withdrawn to grow the single crystal detector, note examples. The difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the use of fluoride ions during heating and reducing atmosphere flow rates. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable heat treating atmosphere and reducing atmosphere flow rates in the Houzvicka et al reference in order to remove impurities using a highly reactive ion like fluorides and have a rate of the reducing atmosphere ranges from 1.67x10 7 m3/s to 1.39x10-5 m3/s to further remove any vapor impurities from the czochralski chamber increase the quality of the grown crystal.
With regards to claim 2, the Houzvicka et al reference teaches a argon/hydrogen mixture on the reducing atmosphere of 70/30 precent which is in the claimed range, note para 0057.
With regards to claim 3, the Houzvicka et al reference teaches using Gd2O3, Y2O3, AlsO3 and CeOz as starting materials, note para 0054.
With regards to claim 8, the Houzvicka et al reference teaches the Gd2O3 to Y2O3 ratio in the raw materials to be in the range claimed, note para 0028.
Claims 4 to 7 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.
The prior art does not teach nor render obvious an after heat treatment, claims 4 and 5 of the grown crystal in a reducing atmosphere as is claimed. Further, the use of the claimed fluoride compound is also not taught by the prior art, claims 6 and 7.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in GYAP growth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714