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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 1/20/26. Claims 5 and 9 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong USPA_20030236388_A1 in view of Yoshida TW_201518391_A (see machine English translation).
1. Regarding Claims 1-9, Armstrong discloses a layer of light-scattering epoxy resin (corresponds to claimed reflective layer of resin corresponds to instant Claim 2) that is casted over an array (paragraphs 0049, 0050) wherein said array is a composed of a plurality of scinitillator bars (corresponds to claimed plurality of cells) 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. Also, Armstrong discloses that said resin can be 3,4-epoxycyclohexylmethyl-3,4-epoxycyclohexane carboxylate (paragraph 0026), as is being claimed in instant Claim 6.
2. However, Armstrong does not disclose the claimed bi-7-oxabicyclo heptane.
3. 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 resin, of Armstrong, by also using 3,2-epoxy-4-(2-oxiranyl)cyclohexane (3-vinyl-7-oxabicyclo [4.1.0]heptane, of Yoshida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain mechanical strength and heat resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants state: “The Examiner asserts that Armstrong discloses a layer of light-scattering epoxy resin "casted over an array composed of a plurality of scintillator bars (corresponds to claimed plurality of cells) that are separated by light-scattering material (corresponds to claimed phosphor) and a resin." (See Office Action, pages 2 and 3). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Armstrong teaches resin compositions for use in forming reflector elements 30 and a periphery layer 40, not cells. (See Armstrong, FIG. 1 and paras. [0006] and [0049]).”
The Examiner respectfully submits that the word “cells” has not been defined by Applicants in their Specification. As such, it is within reason to interpret the plurality of scinitillator bars, of Armstrong, as meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “cells”.
Applicants state: “However, Armstrong never describes the scintillator elements 20 as containing a resin and a phosphor as recited in claims 1 and 6 of the present application. (See Armstrong, para. [0049]).”
The Examiner respectfully submits that said plurality of scinitillator bars (corresponds to claimed plurality of cells) are separated by light-scattering material (corresponds to claimed phosphor) and a resin (paragraph 0050).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 April 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights