DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on June 26th, 2026. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18, 20-23, and 25-26 are pending, with claims 25-26 being new.
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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 10, 15, 17, 19, 21-23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0323792 (Felici et al.). US 2013/0231516 (Loo et al.) is relied upon to show inherency of exit window. “The power of attraction: magnets in particle accelerators” (Pinson) is relied upon to show that electromagnetic quadrupoles inherently have field strengths differently tunable from each other.
that groups of two or more quadrupole magnets naturally have field strengths differently tunable from each other.
Regarding claim 1, Felici et al. discloses a radiotherapy treatment system, comprising:
a source of an electron beam (“electron beam”);
a linear accelerator coupled to the source, the linear accelerator configured to accelerate electrons in the electron beam (“a medical radiofrequency accelerator,”); and
a beam transport subsystem coupled to the linear accelerator, the beam transport subsystem including
a plurality of magnetic elements including at least two quadrupole magnets having field strengths differently tunable from each other (“a set (two or three) of defocusing electromagnetic quadrupoles,” see analysis below for inherency of field strengths being differently tunable) downstream of the linear accelerator (“optical system (a quadrupole is used, for example), positioned downstream of the system.”),
wherein the plurality of magnetic elements are configured to defocus the electron beam, and change a cross-sectional shape and size of the electron beam by varying field strengths of the plurality of magnetic elements before the electron beam exits the beam transport subsystem (“On the basis of the control of the values of said absorbed dose and of said energy of the charged particle beam, said magnetic field and said optical system (20) are set so as to determine the geometry of said charged particle beam.”).
Felici et al. does not specifically disclose an exit window downstream of the plurality of magnetic elements. Such exit windows are an inherent feature of electron beam radiotherapy systems, as disclosed by Loo et al. (“a vacuum window is necessary to separate the vacuum of the accelerator beam line from the open air and the patient,”). Therefore, the exit window is present in Felici et al., even if not explicitly disclosed. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to place the quadrupoles between the linear accelerator and the exit window so that the electron beam is exposed to non-vacuum for the minimal distance possible.
Regarding the field strengths being differently tunable, as disclosed in Pinson, electromagnetic quadrupoles form a magnetic field when current is passed through wires (“By passing an electrical current through a coiled wire, accelerator experts produce a temporary magnet with a north and south pole. These coiled wires form the poles of the electromagnets used in accelerators. They can be arranged not only into two-pole electromagnets, but magnets with four, six or even more poles.”). The strength of the magnetic field is dependent on the strength of the current, hence the field strength is tuned by selecting the excitation current sent through the wires. Every electromagnetic quadrupole has its own set of wires, and there is no intrinsic requirement that the same current be set to every quadrupole. The same currents could be applied to each, but this would be entirely at the discretion of the operator. There is nothing in Felici that would prevent the operator from tuning the quadrupoles differently, hence the quadrupoles have “field strengths differently tunable from each other”.
An example of a set of quadrupoles with different tuning is discussed in Pinson (“A single quadrupole focuses a beam in one plane. … The solution is to string multiple quadrupoles together with alternating orientations. The beam passes through one and is squeezed in the horizontal direction. Then it passes through the next and is squeezed in the vertical direction. … By the same token, quadrupoles can also defocus beams. … As beams pass through quadrupoles of weaker magnetic strength, they are allowed to spread out first in the up-down direction, then in the left-right direction and so on until they’re suitably defocused.”). Pinson discusses tuning the quadrupoles differently in field direction rather than field strength, but the same principle applies to different strengths. The field strengths and directions are both chosen by selecting the appropriate current or voltage settings, and both can be changed at any time and be set in any combination desired.
Regarding claim 4, Felici et al. discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of magnetic elements is further configured to shape the electron beam before the electron beam exits the beam transport subsystem (“On the basis of the control of the values of said absorbed dose and of said energy of the charged particle beam, said magnetic field and said optical system (20) are set so as to determine the geometry of said charged particle beam.”).
Regarding claim 8, Felici et al. discloses a radiotherapy treatment method, comprising:
generating an electron beam (“electron beam”);
accelerating electrons in the electron beam (“a medical radiofrequency accelerator,”);
guiding the electron beam inside a waveguide (“accelerating guide”);
defocusing the electron beam using a plurality of magnetic elements including at least two quadrupole magnets having field strengths differently tunable from each other (“a set (two or three) of defocusing electromagnetic quadrupoles,” see analysis below for inherency of field strengths being differently tunable); and
changing a cross-sectional shape and size of the electron beam by varying field strengths of the plurality of magnetic elements (“On the basis of the control of the values of said absorbed dose and of said energy of the charged particle beam, said magnetic field and said optical system (20) are set so as to determine the geometry of said charged particle beam.”).
Felici et al. does not explicitly disclose an exit window that separates an inside of the waveguide from outside air. Such exit windows are an inherent feature of electron beam radiotherapy systems, as disclosed by Loo et al. (“a vacuum window is necessary to separate the vacuum of the accelerator beam line from the open air and the patient,”). Therefore, the exit window is present in Felici et al., even if not explicitly disclosed. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to defocus the electron beam before the beam reaches the exit window because the magnetic lens works best on an electron beam in a straight line along the axis, and exposure to air causes the electron beam to scatter in random directions.
Regarding the field strengths being differently tunable, as disclosed in Pinson, electromagnetic quadrupoles form a magnetic field when current is passed through wires (“By passing an electrical current through a coiled wire, accelerator experts produce a temporary magnet with a north and south pole. These coiled wires form the poles of the electromagnets used in accelerators. They can be arranged not only into two-pole electromagnets, but magnets with four, six or even more poles.”). The strength of the magnetic field is dependent on the strength of the current, hence the field strength is tuned by selecting the excitation current sent through the wires. Every electromagnetic quadrupole has its own set of wires, and there is no intrinsic requirement that the same current be set to every quadrupole. The same currents could be applied to each, but this would be entirely at the discretion of the operator. There is nothing in Felici that would prevent the operator from tuning the quadrupoles differently, hence the quadrupoles have “field strengths differently tunable from each other”.
An example of a set of quadrupoles with different tuning is discussed in Pinson (“A single quadrupole focuses a beam in one plane. … The solution is to string multiple quadrupoles together with alternating orientations. The beam passes through one and is squeezed in the horizontal direction. Then it passes through the next and is squeezed in the vertical direction. … By the same token, quadrupoles can also defocus beams. … As beams pass through quadrupoles of weaker magnetic strength, they are allowed to spread out first in the up-down direction, then in the left-right direction and so on until they’re suitably defocused.”). Pinson discusses tuning the quadrupoles differently in field direction rather than field strength, but the same principle applies to different strengths. The field strengths and directions are both chosen by selecting the appropriate current or voltage settings, and both can be changed at any time and be set in any combination desired.
Regarding claim 10, Felici et al. discloses the method of Claim 8, further comprising shaping the electron beam using the plurality of magnetic elements (“On the basis of the control of the values of said absorbed dose and of said energy of the charged particle beam, said magnetic field and said optical system (20) are set so as to determine the geometry of said charged particle beam.”).
Regarding claim 15, Felici et al. discloses a radiotherapy treatment method, comprising:
generating an electron beam (“electron beam”);
accelerating electrons in the electron beam (“a medical radiofrequency accelerator,”);
guiding the electron beam inside a waveguide (“accelerating guide”); and
changing a cross-sectional shape and size of the beam during treatment of a patient by varying field strengths of a plurality of magnetic elements (“On the basis of the control of the values of said absorbed dose and of said energy of the charged particle beam, said magnetic field and said optical system (20) are set so as to determine the geometry of said charged particle beam.”) including at least two quadrupole magnets having field strengths differently tunable from each other (“a set (two or three) of defocusing electromagnetic quadrupoles,” see analysis below for inherency of field strengths being differently tunable).
Felici et al. does not explicitly disclose an exit window that separates an inside of the waveguide from outside air. Such exit windows are an inherent feature of electron beam radiotherapy systems, as disclosed by Loo et al. (“a vacuum window is necessary to separate the vacuum of the accelerator beam line from the open air and the patient,”). Therefore, the exit window is present in Felici et al., even if not explicitly disclosed. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to defocus the electron beam before the beam reaches the exit window because the magnetic lens works best on an electron beam in a straight line along the axis, and exposure to air causes the electron beam to scatter in random directions.
Regarding the field strengths being differently tunable, as disclosed in Pinson, electromagnetic quadrupoles form a magnetic field when current is passed through wires (“By passing an electrical current through a coiled wire, accelerator experts produce a temporary magnet with a north and south pole. These coiled wires form the poles of the electromagnets used in accelerators. They can be arranged not only into two-pole electromagnets, but magnets with four, six or even more poles.”). The strength of the magnetic field is dependent on the strength of the current, hence the field strength is tuned by selecting the excitation current sent through the wires. Every electromagnetic quadrupole has its own set of wires, and there is no intrinsic requirement that the same current be set to every quadrupole. The same currents could be applied to each, but this would be entirely at the discretion of the operator. There is nothing in Felici that would prevent the operator from tuning the quadrupoles differently, hence the quadrupoles have “field strengths differently tunable from each other”.
An example of a set of quadrupoles with different tuning is discussed in Pinson (“A single quadrupole focuses a beam in one plane. … The solution is to string multiple quadrupoles together with alternating orientations. The beam passes through one and is squeezed in the horizontal direction. Then it passes through the next and is squeezed in the vertical direction. … By the same token, quadrupoles can also defocus beams. … As beams pass through quadrupoles of weaker magnetic strength, they are allowed to spread out first in the up-down direction, then in the left-right direction and so on until they’re suitably defocused.”). Pinson discusses tuning the quadrupoles differently in field direction rather than field strength, but the same principle applies to different strengths. The field strengths and directions are both chosen by selecting the appropriate current or voltage settings, and both can be changed at any time and be set in any combination desired.
Regarding claim 17, Felici et al. discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising defocusing the electron beam using the plurality of magnetic elements (“a set (two or three) of defocusing electromagnetic quadrupoles,”).
Regarding claim 21, Felici et al. discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the beam transport subsystem does not include a component between the plurality of magnetic elements and the exit window (“(a quadrupole is used, for example), positioned downstream of the system.”, also fig. 6 shows the magnetic optical system is the final element).
Regarding claim 22, Felici et al. discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of magnetic elements are configured to defocus the electron beam by broadening the electron beam in transverse directions relative to a longitudinal axis of the electron beam and shaping the broadened electron beam before the electron beam exits the beam transport subsystem (intended use, only requires the plurality of magnetic elements to have at least 4 poles and accept varying field, also “a set (two or three) of defocusing electromagnetic quadrupoles,” see also fig. 5).
Regarding claim 23, Felici et al. discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of magnetic elements are configured to change the cross-sectional shape and size of the electron beam by broadening the electron beam in a first transverse direction relative to a longitudinal axis of the electron beam by a first amount and broadening the electron beam in a second transverse direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the electron beam by a second amount, wherein the second amount is different from the first amount (intended use, only requires the plurality of magnetic elements to have at least 4 poles and accept varying field, also “On the basis of the control of the values of said absorbed dose and of said energy of the charged particle beam, said magnetic field and said optical system (20) are set so as to determine the geometry of said charged particle beam.”).
Regarding claim 25, Felici et al. discloses the method of Claim 8, wherein the defocusing the electron beam defocuses the electron beam by broadening the electron beam in transverse directions relative to a longitudinal axis of the electron beam (“a set (two or three) of defocusing electromagnetic quadrupoles,” see also fig. 5), and shaping the broadened electron beam (“On the basis of the control of the values of said absorbed dose and of said energy of the charged particle beam, said magnetic field and said optical system (20) are set so as to determine the geometry of said charged particle beam.”).
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(s) 3, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felici et al. as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US 2013/0231516 (Loo et al.).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 18, Felici et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of bending magnets, and wherein the plurality of magnetic elements are between the plurality of bending magnets and the exit window. Loo et al. disclose a radiotherapy treatment system with a beam transport system comprising a plurality of bending magnets (fig. 8, elements 14, 16, and 18). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the invention of Felici et al. to include the bending magnets of Loo et al. so that the beam could be steered as needed. It would be obvious to place plurality of magnetic elements between the plurality of bending magnets and the exit window so that the beam would be straight as it moves through the monitors in the guide.
Claim(s) 7, 14, 20, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0323792 (Felici et al.) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of “The power of attraction: Magnets in Particle Accelerators” (Pinson)
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Felici et al. discloses the claimed invention except for at least one of solenoids; sextupole magnets; or octupole magnets. Pinson discloses both sextupole and octupole magnets (“Dipole magnets bend the beam, quadrupoles focus the beam, sextupoles correct the imperfect focusing of quadrupoles, and octupoles can help increase the stability of stored particle beams.”), and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Felici to include a sextupole magnet to correct chromaticity and/or to include an octupole magnet to increase stability, as disclosed in Pinson (“In many cases, to see the physics we want, we have to correct the chromaticity, and we do this using sextupoles,” and “To stabilize the situation, eight-poled magnets, called octupoles, can be used to mix up the particles’ frequencies. Scientists call the resulting stabilization ‘Landau damping,’ and it provides a particle beam with a bit of natural immunity against some unstable behaviors.”).
Regarding claim 26, Felici et al. discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the defocusing the electron beam defocuses the electron beam by broadening the electron beam in a first transverse direction relative to a longitudinal axis of the electron beam by a first amount (“a set (two or three) of defocusing electromagnetic quadrupoles,” see also fig. 5).
Felici et al. does not specify if the second quadrupole defocuses in a second transverse direction or the same transverse direction, and also does not specify whether the amount of broadening differs. Pinson discloses defocusing a particle beam by broadening the beam in first and second transverse directions (“As beams pass through quadrupoles of weaker magnetic strength, they are allowed to spread out first in the up-down direction, then in the left-right direction”) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to do the same with the defocusing quadrupoles of Felici et al. so that the final beam is suitably defocused, as discussed in Pinson (“As beams pass through quadrupoles of weaker magnetic strength, they are allowed to spread out first in the up-down direction, then in the left-right direction and so on until they’re suitably defocused.”). It would further have been obvious to broaden by different amounts in each direction if a non-circular beam geometry was desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Jun 26th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Felici is completely silent on the set of defocusing electromagnetic quadrupoles being differently tunable from one another, and disagrees with examiner that this is inherent, noting that the Office provides no support for this assertation of inherency. In response, examiner has cited Pinson above to show inherency and added a more detailed discussion of the inherency. In short, each electromagnetic quadrupole is a separate entity and separately tunable.
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 ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights