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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17 – 29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4/10/2026.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 – 16 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.
Independent claim 9 is a “use” claim without specific steps. Therefore, claim 9 and its dependent claims 10 – 16 is indefinite.
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 – 4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 111348675 A; cited in the IDS filed on 6/26/24; see provided a translation copy).
With respect to independent claim 1, Zhang teaches A charged-particle scintillation unit in paragraph [0001], the scintillation unit comprising a perovskite-analogue luminescent substance with a luminescent peak of a general chemical formula of either AxB3-xCu2XyY5-y Cs3Cu2X5 where X=Cl, Br, I in paragraph [0002] with 0≤x≤3, 0≤y≤5 or AxB1-xCu2XyY3-y with 0≤x<1,0≤y≤3, wherein any of A and B is a monovalent alkali metal cation, and any of X and Y is a monovalent halogen element anion or a pseudohalide, arranged on a substrate glass slide in paragraph [0010] as polycrystalline thin-film in paragraph [0010] having a given film-thickness, the substrate being transparent at least in a wavelength range of the luminescent peak of the luminescent substance.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Zhang teaches wherein the monovalent alkali metal cation is selected from a group consisting of caesium Cs in paragraph [0010] and rubidium.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Zhang teaches in paragraph [0002] wherein the monovalent halogen element anion is selected from a group consisting of chlorine, bromine and iodine.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Zhang teaches wherein the substrate is made of a material selected from a group consisting of glass in paragraph [0010], quartz, and plastics.
With respect to dependent claim 8, Zhang teaches Cs3Cu2X5 where X=Cl, Br, I in paragraph [0002] (when x=0, y=0) wherein the general chemical formula is AxB3-xCu2XyY5-y in which x≠3 and y≠5.
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.
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) 5 – 7, 9 – 16, and 30 – 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang.
The teaching of Zhang has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Zhang is silent with wherein a film- thickness of the thin-film of the luminescent substance is sufficient to substantially stop charged particles incident upon the thin-film with a kinetic energy ranging from about 298 keV to about 110 MeV.
However, in paragraph [0006] Zhang teaches the thicker the scintillation film, the more severe the self-absorption phenomenon. Therefore, through an optimization process readily available within the ordinary skilled art, ordinary artisan can determine optimum thickness of thin film of the scintillator in order to stop charged particles with desired energy. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to independent claim 9, as discussed above in the rejection justification to claim 1, Zhang teaches AxB3-xCu2XyY5-y with 0≤x≤3, 0≤y≤5 or AxB1-xCu2XyY3-y with 0≤x<1,0≤y≤3,wherein any of A and B is a monovalent alkali metal cation, and any of X and Y is a monovalent halogen element anion or a pseudohalide, arranged on a substrate as polycrystalline thin-film having a given film-thickness to detect charged particles and therefore, teaches A use of a charged-particle scintillation unit comprising a perovskite-analogue luminescent substance with a luminescent peak of a general chemical formula of either AxB3-xCu2XyY5-y with 0≤x≤3, 0≤y≤5 or AxB1-xCu2XyY3-y with 0≤x<1,0≤y≤3,wherein any of A and B is a monovalent alkali metal cation, and any of X and Y is a monovalent halogen element anion or a pseudohalide, arranged on a substrate as polycrystalline thin-film having a given film-thickness, the substrate being transparent at least in a wavelength range of the luminescent peak of the luminescent substance to detect charged particles but is silent with kinetic energy ranging from about 298 keV to about 110 MeV by stopping said charged particles within the thin-film of the luminescent substance.
However, as discussed above Zhang teaches in paragraph [0006] Zhang teaches the thicker the scintillation film, the more severe the self-absorption phenomenon. Therefore, through an optimization process readily available within the ordinary skilled art, ordinary artisan can determine optimum thickness of thin film of the scintillator in order to stop charged particles with desired energy. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 6, as discussed above, Zhang teaches the thicker film the harder to extract the light. In view of this, the limitation of “wherein the film- thickness of the thin-film of the luminescent substance is 1-100 µm” would be obvious with an optimization process in order to stop charge particles and to enhance an S/N ratio. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 7, the limitation of “wherein the charged particles are selected from a group consisting of electrons, protons, alpha particles, ionic species of chemical elements of Periodic Table of Elements, ionic species of molecules and fission fragments, all with a unified atomic mass unit of at most 150” is intended use to detect such charged particles listed in claim 7. The limitation of claim 7 cannot carry patentability unless the limitation is invented. Since Zhang teaches the same scintillator, scintillator of Zhang can detect such charged particles listed in claim 7.
With respect to dependent claim 10, Zhang teaches wherein the monovalent alkali metal is selected from a group consisting of caesium Cs in paragraph [0010] and rubidium.
With respect to dependent claim 11, as discussed above Zhang teaches wherein the monovalent halogen element is selected from a group consisting of chlorine, bromine and iodine.
With respect to dependent claim 12, as discussed above Zhang teaches wherein the substrate is made of a material selected from a group consisting of glass, fluorine- doped tin oxide coated glass, quartz, and plastics.
With respect to dependent claim 13, as discussed above the limitation of “wherein a film-thickness of the thin-film of the luminescent substance is chosen to substantially stop charged particles incident upon the thin-film with a kinetic energy ranging from about 298 keV to about 110 MeV” would be within the ordinary skilled art.
With respect to dependent claim 14, as discussed above the limitation of “wherein the film-thickness of the thin-film of the luminescent substance is 1-100 µm” would be obvious choice.
With respect to dependent claim 15, since Zhang teaches the same scintillator as in claim 9, Zhang, therefore teaches for energy resolved detection of charged particles.
With respect to dependent claim 16, as discussed above the limitation of “wherein the charged particles are selected from a group consisting of electrons, protons, alpha particles, ionic species of chemical elements of Periodic Table of Elements, ionic species of molecules and fission fragments, all with a unified atomic mass unit of at most 150” would be within the ordinary skilled art. The charged particles listed in claim 16 cannot carry any patentability.
With respect to dependent claim 30, as discussed above Zhang teaches a charged particle detection device, comprising: at least one charged-particle scintillator unit (110; 210a, 210b) according to claim 1 as discussed above, at least one detector (130; 230a, 230b) in paragraph [0004] coupled optically with a respective one of the at least one scintillator unit (110; 210a, 210b) and configured to measure scintillation events created within the respective one of the at least one scintillator unit (110; 210a, 210b) as a consequence of an incoming charged particle (135; 235, 235') into the respective one of the at least one scintillator unit (110; 210a, 210b) and output an electric signal representative of the incoming charged particle (135; 235, 235'), at least one signal digitizing unit (160; 260) this element is well-known at the time of the claimed invention was filed. coupled electrically with the at least one detector (130; 230a, 230b), the at least one signal digitizing unit (160; 260) is configured to
digitize the electric signal of the at least one detector (130; 230a, 230b) to create a
digitized electric signal, and a data acquisition unit (170; 270) this element is well-known at the time of the claimed invention was filed. coupled electrically with the at least one signal digitizing unit (160; 260), the data acquisition unit (170; 270) is configured to record and process the digitized electric signals received from the at least one signal digitizing
unit (160; 260).
With respect to dependent claim 31, Zhang teaches wherein the at least one detector (130; 230a, 230b) is chosen from a group consisting of photomultiplier tubes in paragraph [0004], silicon-based photomultipliers in paragraph [0004] and hybrid photomultipliers.
With respect to dependent claim 32, the limitation of “wherein the charged particle detection device comprises two charged-particle scintillation units (210a, 210b) with respective ones of the at least one detector (230a, 230b) arranged around a spatial position capable of receiving a radiation source to be investigated by the charged particle
detection device, wherein the respective ones of the at least one detector (230a, 230b) form a
coincidence circuit to detect coincidental emission events of the radiation source” is well-known in positron emission scanner at the time of the claimed invention was filed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 109991649 A teaches the scintillator in the same kind as in claim 1..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 EST.
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, David Makiya can be reached at (571)272-2273. 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.
KIHO KIM, Ph. D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights