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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/18/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 5/28/26. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended. Claims 1-9 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto USPA_20180188387_A1 in view of Kuriwada WO_2020189284_A1 (see English equivalent: USPA_2022002617_A1) and Yoshida TW_201518391_A (see machine English translation).
1. Regarding Claim 1, Morimoto discloses a scintillator array (corresponds to claimed scintillator structure) including a plurality of scintillator segments (corresponds to claimed scintillators) wherein each scintillator segment comprises a phosphor and a reflective layer is applied to said scintillator segment (Abstract and paragraph 0036, Fig. 1)
2. However, Morimoto does not disclose using a resin in its scintillator segment.
3. Kuriwada discloses using both a resin and phosphor in its scintillators (Title) and further discloses that in doing so its scintillator exhibits an effect of having a brightness of an equivalent level with less afterglow as compared to a ceramic scintillator (paragraph 0031). Kuriwada further discloses that said resin can comprise a curing initiator (corresponds to claimed curing agent) (Claim 3). Furthermore, Yoshida discloses a curable epoxy resin composition such as 3,2-epoxy-4-(2-oxiranyl)cyclohexane (3-vinyl-7-oxabicyclo [4.1.0]heptane (Page 7) offers heat resistance and superior mechanical properties (Pages 7-8).
4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the scintillator segment, of Morimoto, by also using a resin with a curing agent alongside its phosphor, as disclosed by Kuriwada, and in particular, to use a 3,2-epoxy-4-(2-oxiranyl)cyclohexane (3-vinyl-7-oxabicyclo [4.1.0]heptane resin, of Yoshida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain the afore-described brightness, mechanical strength, and heat resistance.
5. Regarding Claim 2, Morimoto in view of Kuriwada and Yoshida suggests using a resin in its reflective layer (Morimoto: Abstract).
Claim(s) 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto USPA_20180188387_A1 in view of Kuriwada WO_2020189284_A1 (see English equivalent: USPA_2022002617_A1) and Yoshida TW_201518391_A (see machine English translation), as applied to Claims 1 and 2, and in view of Armstrong USPA_20030236388_A1.
6. Regarding Claims 3-9, Morimoto in view of Kuriwada and Yoshida does not disclose the claimed resin.
7. Armstrong discloses a layer of light-scattering epoxy resin that is casted over an array (paragraphs 0049, 0050) wherein said array is a composed of a plurality of scinitillator bars that are separated by light-scattering material (corresponds to claimed phosphor) and a resin (paragraph 0050). Armstrong discloses that said resin can include a curing agent such as phthalic anhydrides (Abstract and paragraph 0034) (corresponds to instant Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8). Armstrong also discloses using a hexfluorophosphate curing catalyst (paragraph 0037) (corresponds to instant Claims 5 and 9). Alternatively, Armstrong further discloses the use of organophosphorus compounds as thermal stabilizers (corresponds to claimed curing catalyst) (paragraph 0039), as is being claimed in instant Claim 9. Additionally, Armstrong discloses that said resin can be 3,4-epoxycyclohexylmethyl-3,4-epoxycyclohexane carboxylate (paragraph 0026), as is being claimed in instant Claim 6. Finally, Armstrong discloses that its invention forms polymeric bonding materials that are more resistant to damage by high-energy radiation, whose light transparency does not substantially change upon being exposed to high-energy radiation over an extended period of time, that are also easily processed and applied in the manufacture of scintillator arrays (paragraph 0005).
8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention, of Morimoto in view of Kuriwada and Yoshida, by using the afore-described ingredients, of Armstrong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain the aforementioned benefits from Armstrong.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 July 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights