Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference symbols and the lines made up of these symbols in figures 1-4 where z=0.003 and z=0.005 are too light to be seen.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Gpa” should be “GPa”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed recitation of an application, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966) and MPEP 2173.05(q)
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 5-7 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.
Claim 7 is indefinite since it provides for the application of the scintillator material of claim 1 but claim 7 does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process. Thus claim 7 is unclear what method/process applicants are intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites an application without any active, positive steps delimiting how this application is actually practiced. See MPEP 2173.05(q). It is noted that manner in which scintillators are used in each of the listed application is different.
Claims 5 and 6 are indefinite since they claim three separate and distinct processes with no linkage between the three process in that there is no limitation in claim 5 that the material can be in the form of a polycrystal, a ceramic or a single crystal.
The claimed processes require the presence of D, but the formula of the material produced by the process set forth in claim 5, and implicitly in claim 6, teaches D can be 0, which means D need not be present. In addition, the formula teaches that A can be present, but the claimed process steps do not teach that an oxide for A can be an optional component. These discrepancies between the claimed formula for the material and the required oxides used to produce the material makes also claims 5 and 6 indefinite.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 5 and 6 are being interpreted as requiring the presence of D and does not contain A due to the teaching that the mixing in step (1) in each claimed process teaches the presence of an oxide of D and does not indicate an oxide of A as being an optional component.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. patent 9,580,650.
Examples 2 and 3 of this reference teaches a polycrystal Mn or Cr doped garnet-type aluminate phosphor material having the formulas (Y0.69Tb0.3Ce0.01)3(Al0.998Mn0.002)5O12 and (Y0.685Tb0.3Ce0.015)3(Al0.999Cr0.001)5O12. These formulas can be rewritten as Y2.07Tb0.9Ce0.03
Al4.99Mn0.01O12 and Y2.055Tb0.9Ce0.045Al4.995Cr0.005O12. The taught amounts of Ce fall within the x ranges of clams 1 and 3 and the taught amounts of Mn and Cr each fall within the z ranges of claims 1 and 2. Since the taught phosphors have the compositions that fall within the claimed formula, they must inherently also be scintillator material, absent any showing to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01 I and II. The reference anticipates the claimed material.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2008/0197320.
Paragraph [0041] teaches a phosphor having the formula (Tb0.95Ce0.05)3(Al0.9Fe0.1)5O12. This formula can be rewritten as Tb2.85Ce0.15Al4.5Fe0.5O12, which falls within the formula of claim 1. It is clear from the taught process and the X-ray diffraction pattern that the taught phosphors are polycrystals. Since the taught phosphors have the compositions that fall within the claimed formula, they must inherently also be scintillator material, absent any showing to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01 I and II. The reference anticipates the claimed material.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by WO 2012/159556.
The examples of this reference teaches phosphor powders having the formulas Ce0.06Y2.94Al4.98Cr0.02O12, Ce0.1Tb2.9Al4.97Cr0.03O12, Ce0.07GdY1.93Al4.99Cr0.01O12, Ce0.06Gd0.6 Y2.34Al3.99GaCr0.01O12, and Ce0.06Tb0.01Y2.93Al3.99GaCr0.01O12. These formulas fall within the formula of claims 1 and 2. The taught phosphor are produced by a solid phase reaction, which means the taught phosphors are polycrystals. Since the taught phosphors have the compositions that fall within the claimed formula, they must inherently also be scintillator material, absent any showing to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01 I and II. The reference anticipates the claimed material.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by CN 115650725.
This reference teaches a fluorescent ceramic having the formula (Gd1-xCex)3(Al0.5-yGa0.5Mny)5O12, wherein x is 0.001-0.005 and y is 0.001-0.004. This formula can be rewritten as Gd3-3xCe3xAl2.5-5yGa2.5Mn5yO12, wherein x is 0.003-0.015 and y is 0.005-0.02. This formula falls within that of claims 1-3. Since the taught phosphors have the compositions that fall within the claimed formula, they must inherently also be scintillator material, absent any showing to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01 I and II. The reference anticipates the claimed material.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by CN 110256076.
This reference teaches a fluorescent ceramic having the formula Y3-xCe3xAl5-yCryO12, wherein x is 0.001-0.06 and 0<y<4. Examples 1, 2 and 5 teaches ceramics where x is 0.03 and y is 0.03 or 0.1. The taught x value and the taught y value of 0.3 which falls within the falls within the x and z range of claims 1 and 3. The taught y value of 0.1 falls within the range of z for claim 1. Since the taught phosphors have the compositions that fall within the claimed formula, they must inherently also be scintillator material, absent any showing to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01 I and II. The reference anticipates the claimed material.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by CN 103409805.
This reference teaches a luminescent single crystal having the formula Y3-a-bNdaCebAl5-cCrcO12, where a is 1-1.3% or 0.01-0.013, b is 0.3-0.4% or 0.003-0.004 and c is 0.1-0.2% or 0.001-0.002. This formula falls within that of claims 1-3. Since the taught phosphors have the compositions that fall within the claimed formula, they must inherently also be scintillator material, absent any showing to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01 I and II. The reference anticipates the claimed material.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by CN 103059860.
This reference teaches, in examples 1-4, a fluorescent single crystal having the formula Y3-xCexAl5-yMnyO12, where x is 0.048, 0.04, 0.08 and 0.12 and y is 0.036, 0.06, 0.06 and 0.06. The x and y values of example 1 falls within the formula of claims 1-3. The y values of examples 2-4 fall within the formula of claim 1. The x value of example 2 falls within the values of claims 1 and 3 and the x value of example 4 falls within the formula of claim 1. Since the taught phosphors have the compositions that fall within the claimed formula, they must inherently also be scintillator material, absent any showing to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01 I and II. The reference anticipates 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2008/0197320.
This reference teaches a phosphor having the formula (Tb1-xCex)3(Al1-yFey)5O12, where x is 0.01-0.4 and y is 0.01-0.02 (para 10-11). This formula can be rewritten as Tb3-3xCe3xAl5-5yFe5yO12, where 3x is 0.03-1.2 and y is 0.05-0.1. The taught amount of iron falls within the z range of claim 1 and overlaps that of claim 2. The amount of cerium overlaps the x ranges in claims 1 and 3. 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. It is clear from the taught process and the X-ray diffraction pattern that the taught phosphors are polycrystals. Since the taught phosphors have the compositions that overlap the claimed formula, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the taught phosphors to also be a scintillator material, absent any showing to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01 I and II. The reference suggests the claimed material.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/159556.
This reference teaches a phosphor powder having the formula CexREyY3-x-yAl5-z-mCrzTmO12, where 0<x+y<3, 0<x<0.3, 0<y<3, 0<z+m<5, 0<z<0.3 and 0<m<5, T can be gallium or indium, and RE is any rare earth other than Ce, such as Tb, Gd, La and Eu. The taught amount of chromium and cerium overlap the amounts in claims 1-3. 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 composition of T and the combination Y and RE suggest RE and D of claims 1 and 5. Since the taught phosphors have the compositions that overlap the claimed formula, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the taught phosphors to also be a scintillator material, absent any showing to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01 I and II.
The reference teaches producing the phosphor powder by a solid phase reaction of weighting and mixing the oxides for Al, Y, Cr and Ce and the oxides of RE and T, if present; and heating this mixture at 1200-1600oC for 2-6 hours. The taught temperature range falls within the claimed range and the heating time overlaps the claimed time. It is notoriously well known in the art that the oxides for Al and Ce are Al2O3 and CeO2. Thus the reference suggests the claimed process and material.
Claim 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110256076.
This reference teaches a fluorescent ceramic having the formula Y3-xCe3xAl5-yCryO12, wherein x is 0.001-0.06 and 0<y<4. The taught amount of cerium falls within that of claim 1 and overlaps that of claim 3 and the amount of chromium overlaps that of claims 1 and 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. Since the taught phosphors have the compositions that overlap the claimed formula, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the taught phosphors to also be a scintillator material, absent any showing to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01 I and II.
Claim 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103059860.
This reference teaches a fluorescent single crystal having the formula Y3-xCe3xAl5-yMnyO12, wherein x is 0.01-0.12 and y is 0-0.1 The taught amount of cerium falls within that of claim 1 and overlaps that of claim 3 and the amount of manganese overlaps that of claims 1 and 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. Since the taught phosphors have the compositions that overlap the claimed formula, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the taught phosphors to also be a scintillator material, absent any showing to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01 I and II.
Claim 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102173773.
This reference teaches a fluorescent ceramic having the formula Y3-x-y-zCexLiyRzAl5-nMnO12, wherein M can be at least one of Cr or Mn, R can be at least one of La, Cd, Rb or Dy, x is 0.003-0.06, y is 0.002-0.06, z is 0-0.75 and n is 0-0.75. The taught x and y value falls within the ranges of claims x and a in claim 1. The taught x values overlaps the range of claim 3. The taught n values overlaps the z ranges in claimed 1 and 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. Since the taught phosphors have the compositions that overlap the claimed formula, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the taught phosphors to also be a scintillator material, absent any showing to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01 I and II.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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 to prefire the taught raw materials at 1100oC for 20 hours.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 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
cmk
7/23/26
Prosecution Insights