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 . The application is a continuation of Appl. # 16/658217, filed 10/21/2019 which is a continuation of Appl. # 14/329415, filed 07/11/2014, which claims the benefit of provisional Appl. # 61/845151, filed 07/11/2013. The earliest possible effective filing date of the examined claims is 07/11/2013, and each reference relied upon below is available as prior art as of a date before 07/11/2013.
Status of Claims
Claims 1and 2 are independent. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the phrase “LiMg2Cl” which, based on support in the specification, should probably read --LiMg2Cl5 --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-9 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.
Claims 7, 8, and 9 each depend from claim 1 and recite the phrase “the dopant”. However, claim 1 does not recite “a dopant”. Accordingly the claims lack antecedent basis.
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.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN LOEF (US 20100268074 A1) in view of SRIVASTAVA (US 20130193329 A1).
Regarding claim 1, VANLOEF discloses a scintillator material composition comprising:
an alkaline earth metal selected from the group consisting of Ca, Sr, Mg, and Ba (strontium (alkaline earth metal) halide scintillator composition that can further include a dopant such as europium (e.g. SrI2:Eu); [0011]); and
a halide selected from the group consisting of Cl, I and F (iodine; [0011]).
VAN LOEF does not disclose the composition comprises lithium. SRITASTAVA discloses a lithium-containing alkaline earth halide scintillator with the formula LiyMgBry+2 where y=2, 4, or 6 and may further comprise cerium as a scintillator activator (abstract; col. 4, ll. 41-55), with the benefit of lithium having a large cross-section for thermal neutron capture and enabling a dual-mode gamma/neutron scintillator (col. 4, ll. 17-24). In light of the teachings of SRIVASTANA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of VAN LOEF.
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses the claimed scintillator material composition comprising lithium (Li), an alkaline earth metal of the group (Ca, Mg, Ba), a halide of the group (Cl, Br, and I) and a dopant, which are obvious to combine for the reasons detailed in claim 1. SRIVASTANA discloses lithium together with an alkaline earth metal (Mg), a halide (Br) and a dopant (Ce)(col. 4, ll. 41-42, 51-55). VAN LOEF discloses the alkaline earth halide scintillator with europium as a dopant ([0011]). As to the formula Li(AE)2X5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the lithium alkaline earth halide of the combination with the Li(AE)2X5 formula, this being an art-recognized alkaline earth halide scintillator stoichiometry, and a matter of optimizing the proportions of the known constituents to obtain a congruently-melting, high-light-yield composition (see MPEP 2144(I); see also Ex Parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) establishes reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning (e.g. stoichiometry)).
Regarding claim 3, the art combination discloses the alkaline earth metal and halide selected from the recited combinations. VAN LOEF discloses Sr and I, and wherein the halide can be selected a mixture of two or more halides ([0011, 0048]). Selecting other members of that family such as Ca or Mg with Cl, I, or F would have been obvious as a selecting among art-recognized alkaline earth halide scintillators, with a reasonable expectation of obtaining a working scintillator.
Regarding claim 4, the art combination discloses the composition selected from the recited group. The combination of VAN LOEF (SrI2 alkaline earth halide) and SRIVASTAVA (lithium incorporation) provides a lithium strontium iodide forming that composition in the recited Li(AE)2X5 stoichiometry (i.e. LiSr2I5), or substituting Ca or Mg for Sr and Cl or F for I among the art-recognized options, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing based on the rationale above (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses the alkaline earth metal and halide of claim 2 selected from the recited combinations for the reasons given for claim 3; SRIVASTAVA discloses Mg with Br, and the remaining combinations (Ca or Ba with Cl, Br, or I) would have been obvious as art-recognized alkaline earth halide selections.
Regarding claim 6, the combined art discloses the composition of claim 2 selected from the recited group, for the reasons given in claim 4, forming the lithium alkaline earth halide of the combination as LiCa2Br5 or the like in the M(AE)2S5 stoichiometry would have been obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses the dopant selected from the recited group. VAN LOEF discloses europium (Eu) as the dopant ([0049]) and SRIVASTANA discloses cerium (Ce) as the scintillation activator (col. 4, ll. 41-42), each of which is a member of the recited group; it would have been obvious to selected Eu and/or Ce as the dopants.
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses the dopant present in an amount within the recited range ([0049]). Adjusting the dopant concentration to obtain the desired luminescence is a result-effective optimization of a known scintillation activator, and would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time of filing (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, VAN LOEF discloses a first type of dopant and a second type of dopant ([0049]).
Regarding claim 10, SRIVASTANA discloses wherein the lithium is enriched with 6Li (col. 4, ll. 17-20).
Regarding claim 11, the combination discloses the composition comprising Li, Sr, and I. VAN LOEF discloses Sr and I ([0011]). SRIVASTANA discloses the incorporation of lithium (col. 4, ll. 17-20).
Regarding claim 12, the combination discloses the composition comprising Li, Sr, and I. VAN LOEF discloses Si, I, and Eu ([0011, 0049]). SRIVASTANA discloses the incorporation of lithium (col. 4, ll. 17-20).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the composition (see above in claim 12), and the formula LiSr2I5:Eu. Forming the composition in the art-recognized M(AE)2X5 stoichiometry (LiSr2I5:Eu) would have been a matter of obvious design optimizing the proportions of the known constituents (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, VAN LOEF discloses system for detecting radiation, comprising: a detector comprising a scintillator material; a light detector assembly coupled to the scintillator material composition to detect a light pulse luminescence from the scintillator material composition (FIG 1; [0056]). The combination discloses the scintillator composition of claim 1 as detailed above.
Regarding claim 15, VAN LOEF discloses a method of radiation detection, comprising: providing a detection system comprising: a detector comprising a scintillator material composition; and a light detection assembly coupled to the scintillator material composition to detect a light pulse luminescence from the scintillator material composition a measure of a scintillation event; positioning the system such that a radiation source is within a field of view of the system so as to detect emissions from the source; and measuring a scintillation event luminescence signal from the scintillator material composition with the detection assembly (FIG 1; [0056-0057]). The combination discloses the scintillator composition of claim 1 as detailed above.
Regarding claim 16, VAN LOEF discloses a system for detecting radiation, comprising: a detector comprising a scintillator material composition; a light detector assembly coupled to the scintillator material composition to detect a light pulse luminescence from the scintillator material composition ([0056]). The combination discloses the scintillator composition of claim 2 as detailed above.
Regarding claim 17, VAN LOEF discloses method of radiation detection, comprising: providing a detection system comprising: a detector comprising a scintillator material composition; and a light detection assembly coupled to the scintillator material composition to detect a light pulse luminescence from the scintillator material composition a measure of a scintillation event; positioning the system such that a radiation source is within a field of view of the system so as to detect emissions from the source; and measuring a scintillation event luminescence signal from the scintillator material composition with the detection assembly. ([0056-0057]). The combination discloses the scintillator composition of claim 2 as detailed above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12163076. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are broader (a selection of alkaline earth metals and halides). See the example below.
US Patent 12163076
US Appl. 18/974423
A scintillator material composition, comprising:
lithium;
strontium;
iodine; and
a dopant, wherein the composition comprises the formula LiSr2I5, and wherein the dopant is present in an amount between about 0.01% to about 20%, by molar weight.
A scintillator material composition, comprising:
lithium;
an alkaline earth metal selected from the group consisting of Ca, Sr, Mg, and Ba; and
a halide selected from the group consisting of Cl, I and F.
The balance of claims are rejected based on obviousness in view of the patented dependent claims, or further in view of the teachings of VAN LOEF (US 20100268074 A1) or SRIVASTAVA (US 20130193329 A1) as detailed above in the rejection under 35 USC § 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P 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, UZMA ALAM can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights