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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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, 6 – 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (CN 1254747 A; see provided a translation copy).
With respect to independent claims 1 – 2, Liu teaches in paragraph [0005] An optical material comprising a composition of the formula:
(RE1-yXy)3(Al1-zGaz)5O12 (Y1-x-y-xTbxCeyRx)3 (Al1-a-bGaaScb)5O12 when b=0 because 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.01,
wherein: 0 ≤ y≤ 0.1 when y=0; the above formula of Liu anticipates claim 1;
0≤z≤1 0 ≤ a ≤ 0.01 (this satisfies claim 2 of this present application);
RE is a combination of ions of three or more rare-earth elements selected from the group consisting of Y, Sc, Lu, Yb, Tm, Er, Ho, Dy, Tb, Gd, Eu, Sm, Nd, Pr, and La see paragraph [0006]; and X is one or more activator ions selected from the group consisting of a Ce ion, a Tb ion, a Dy ion, a Eu ion, an Yb ion, and a Pr ion Tbx;
Wherein the activator, X, is distinct from the one or more rare-earth elements, RE see paragraphs [0005 – 0006].
With respect to dependent claim 3, Liu teaches in paragraph [0006] where RE is a combination of ions of three, four, five or six elements selected from the group consisting of Y, Sc, Lu, Yb, Tm, Er, Ho, Dy, Tb, Gd, Eu, Sm, Nd, Pr, and La.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Liu teaches in paragraph [0006] wherein RE is a combination of ions of at least three elements selected from the group consisting of Y, Lu, Tb, and Gd.
With respect to dependent claims 6 – 7, Liu teaches in paragraph [0006] wherein 0.001<y<0.1 and wherein 0.005<y<0.05; optionally wherein y is 0.005, 0.02, or 0.05.
With respect to dependent claim 8, Liu teaches in paragraph [0005] wherein X is a Ce ion, a Pr ion, or a mixture thereof, optionally wherein X is Ce3+.
With respect to dependent claim 12, Liu teaches in the formula above wherein the optical material provides light emission from an optically active RE ion upon stimulation of the optical material with high energy radiation because Liu teaches the same material, this limitation is anticipated, optionally wherein said optically active RE ion is a Tb ion.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, and further in view of Pianassola2 (Physical Review Materials, 2021; cited in the IDS).
The teaching of Liu has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Liu is silent with wherein y is 0.
Pianassola2, a pertinent art, teaches in Title (Lu0.25Yb0.25Y0.25Cd0.25) 3A15O12. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Liu in order to have desired material with a known component. 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, and further in view of Pianassola (Crystal Growth & Design, 2020; cited in the IDS).
The teaching of Liu has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 9, Liu is silent with wherein the optical material comprises a composition selected from the group consisting of:
(Y0.2Gd0.2Tb0.2Y0.2Lu0.2)3A15O12;
(Y0.25Gd0.25Er0.25Lu0.25)3A15O12;
(Y0.25Gd0.25Ho0.25Lu0.25)3Al5O12;
(Y0.2Gd0.2Tb0.2Dy0.2Lu0.2)3A15O12;
(Y0.25Gd0.25Tb0.25Lu0.25)3Al5O12;
(Y0.2Eu0.2Gd0.2Yb0.2Lu0.2) 3A15O12;
(Y0.1667Eu0.1667Gd0.1667Tb0.1667Yb0.1667) 3A15O12;
(Y0.25Gd0.25Tb0.25Lu0.25) 3A15O12;
(Y0.25Nd0.25Gd0.25Lu0.25) 3A15O12; (Y0.25Pr0.25Gd0.25Lu0.25) 3A15O12; and
(Y0.25La0.25Gd0.25Lu0.25) 3A15O12.
In Title, Pianassola, a pertinent art, teaches similar to (Y0.1667Eu0.1667Gd0.1667Tb0.1667Yb0.1667) 3A15O12. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Liu in order to make optical material as an design choice. 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.
Claim(s) 10 – 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, and further in view of Pianassola2 and Pianassola.
The teaching of Liu has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claims 10 and 11, Liu is silent with wherein the optical material comprises a composition selected from the group consisting of:
(Y0.199Gd0.199Tb0.199Yb0.199Lu0.199Ce0.005) 3A15O12; (Y0.24875Gd0.24875Er0.24875Lu0.24875Ce0.005) 3A15O12; (Y0.24875Gd0.24875Ho0.24875Lu0.24875Ce0.005) 3A15O12;
(Y0.199Gd0.199Tb0.199Dy0.199Lu0.199Ce0.005) 3A15O12;
(Y0.24875Gd0.24875Tb0.24875Lu0.24875Ce0.005) 3A15O12;
(Y0.199Eu0.199Gd0.199Yb0.199Lu0.199Ce0.005) 3A15O12;
(Y0.16583Eu0.16583Gd0.16583Tb0.16583Yb0.16583Lu0.16583Ce0.005) 3A15O12;
(Y0.24875Sm0.24875Gd0.24875Lu0.24875Ce0.005) 3A15O12 (Y0.24875Nd0.24875Gd0.24875Lu0.24875Ce0.005) 3A15O12;
(Y0.24875Pr0.24875Gd0.24875Lu0.24875Ce0.005) 3A15O12;
(Y0.24875La0.24875Gd0.24875Lu0.24875Ce0.005) 3A15O12;
(Y0.245Gd0.245Tb0.245Lu0.245Ce0.005) 3A15O12;
(Y0.2375Gd0.2375Tb0.2375Lu0.2375Ce0.005) 3A15O12;
(Y0.2375Gd0.2375Tb0.2375Lu0.2375Ce0.005) 3A15O12; and
(Y0.294Gd0.294Tb0.294Lu0.294Ce0.005) 3A15O12.
However, Liu, Pianassola and Pianassola teaches the same components as in claim 10. In view of these, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Liu in order to have desired material in desired compositions through an optimization process available within the ordinary skilled art in order to enhance light generation. 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 11, Liu is silent with wherein the optical material comprises a composition selected from the group consisting of:
(Y0.33167Tb0.33167Gd0.33167Ce0.005) 3A15O12;
(Lu0.33167Y0.33167Gd0.33167Ce0.005) 3A15O12;
(Lu0.33167Y0.33167Tb0.33167Ce0.005) 3A15O12;
(Lu0.24875Y0.24875Tb0.24875Gd0.24875Ce0.005) 3A15O12; and
(Lu0.245Y0.245Tb0.245Gd0.245Ce0.02) 3A15O12.
However, Liu, Pianassola and Pianassola teaches the same components as in claim 11. In view of these, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Liu in order to have desired material in desired compositions through an optimization process available within the ordinary skilled art in order to enhance light generation. 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 17, the limitation of “a method of preparing an optical material of claim 1,wherein the method comprises preparing a powder of the optical material by:(i) preparing a foam by heating an aqueous solution comprising a polymer, optionally polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) or polyethylene glycol (PEG), and a mixture of metal nitrates, wherein the metal nitrates comprise ions of elements that correspond to elements of the optical material, and crushing said foam to provide the powder; or (ii) coprecipitating powder by adding an aqueous solution comprising a mixture of metal nitrates and ammonium sulfate to an aqueous solution of ammonium carbonate, wherein the metal nitrates comprise ions of elements that correspond to elements of the optical material” is known method for forming garnets that at obviously suitable for preparing garnets in view of Liu, Pianassola and Pianassola.
Claim(s) 13 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu.
The teaching of Liu has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 13, Liu is silent with a radiation detector comprising an optical material of claim 1 and a photon detector, optionally wherein the optical material is an optical material selected from the group consisting of:
(Y0.33167Tb0.33167Gd0.33167Ce0.005) 3A15O12;
(Lu0.33167Y0.33167Gd0.33167Ce0.005) 3A15O12;
(Lu0.33167Y0.33167Tb0.33167Ce0.005) 3A15O12;
(Lu0.24875Y0.24875Tb0.24875Gd0.24875Ce0.005) 3A15O12; and
(Lu0.245Y0.245Tb0.245Gd0.245Ce0.02) 3A15O12.
However, Liu teaches an optical material of claim 1, which is phosphor which generates light. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Liu in order to have such a material of Liu as a radiation detector with a photon detector. 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 14, as discussed above the limitation of “ a method of detecting gamma rays, X-rays, cosmic rays, and/or particles having an energy of 1 keV or greater, the method comprising using the radiation detector of claim 13” would be obvious because Liu teaches a phosphor material which can be used as a radiation detector.
With respect to dependent claim 15, Liu is silent with use of a radiation detector of claim 13 in medical imaging, homeland security, or high energy physics research. However, Liu teaches phosphor optical material that can be used for medical imaging, homeland security, or high energy physics research.
With respect to dependent claim 16, Liu is silent with wherein the method comprises preparing a single crystal of the optical material from a melt. However, at the time of the claimed invention was filed, fabricating a single crystal form a melt is well-known in order to enhance light generating efficiencies. 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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, and further in view of Fukuta (US 2012/0146962 A1).
The teaching of Liu has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 18, Liu is silent with a method of preparing an optical material of claim 1, wherein the method comprises preparing a ceramic of the optical material by a technique selected from the group consisting of sintering, hot pressing, hot isotactic pressing, and spark plasma synthesis, optionally using binary oxides as starting materials.
In paragraph [0006], Fukuta, a pertinent art, teaches fabricating rare earth oxysulfide ceramics using sintering in paragraph [0030]. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Liu in order to fabricate desired scintillator with a known method. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 – 21 are/is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to dependent claim 19, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the combination of ions of the three or more rare-earth elements are not equimolar.
With respect to dependent claim 20, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the optical material is (Y0.294Gd0.294Tb0.098Lu0.294Ce0.02)3A15O12
With respect to dependent claim 21, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein RE is a combination of four, five or six elements including at least Y, Gd, Tb, and Lu.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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