DETAILED ACTION
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 filed on 12/23/25 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive.
Claim interpretation
The remarks argue “electron beam unit” is not subject to 112(f) interpretation because is a well-known class of physical apparatus, not an abstract functional placeholder or unspecified mechanism. However, the claim limitation has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and found to trigger 112(f) because (A) “unit” is a nonce term, (B) is modified by functional language, but (C) is not modified by further structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Based on the specification, the closest structure that could correspond to this unit is the electron source having a beam outlet, discussed generically in the specification (published app at e.g. [0015-56]). The remarks point to fig. 4, which shows a block labeled 70 corresponding to an electron source. It is noted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, in the absence of the 112(f) interpretation, the electron beam unit encompasses nearly any structure capable of producing or interacting with electron beams, including electron guns, sources by themselves or in combination with collimators, filters, reflectors, gratings, lenses, blankers, and/or debris on the walls of a tube. Accordingly, the specfication lacks support for each and every type of “electron beam unit”. That is, if “electron beam unit” were not subject to 112(f) interpretation, the application would lack written description under 112(a) for failing to demonstrate the broader genus of electron beam units. It is noted “an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention”. MPEP 2163.03(VI).
The remarks argue “field defining member” is not subject to 112(f) interpretation because it describes what it does to radiation “namely, defining the spatial extent of a radiation field”. This is not found persuasive. The remarks provide some examples of mechanical elements “members” that are stated to not trigger 112(f) interpretation. Putting aside the specifics of the applications in these mechanical examples, unlike the mechanical examples, electron beam systems can define spatial extent of their output fields through not just mechanical means but through alternately/additionally through manipulation of external electrical/magnetic fields, filters, etc. Non-interpretation of “field defining member” as 112(f) would cover any and all means of manipulating the electron beam. Additionally these defining mechanisms are not described in the specification, so the application lacks support for the full genus of all types of “field defining members”.
The remarks argue “light system” is not subject to 112(f) interpretation because it refers to a recognized category of physical apparatus that interacts with the physical world. The remarks point to the drawings and specification generally, without specifically pointing to any specific structure. However, the claim limitation has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and found to trigger 112(f) because (A) “system” is a nonce term, (B) is modified by functional language, but (C) is not modified by further structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
It is noted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, in the absence of the 112(f) interpretation, the light system encompasses nearly any structure capable of interacting with light. As an extreme example, an object not substantially covered in Vantablack would reflect light and thereby be encompassed by “light system”. Accordingly, the specfication lacks support for each and every type of “light system”. That is, if “light system” were not subject to 112(f) interpretation, the application would lack written description under 112(a) for failing to demonstrate the broader genus of light systems. It is noted “an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention”. MPEP 2163.03(VI).
The remarks argue “distance detection system” is not subject to 112(f) interpretation because it denotes a recognized category of physical system used to determine or sense distance between physical objects or between an apparatus and an object. However, the claim limitation has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and found to trigger 112(f) because (A) “system” is a nonce term, (B) is modified by functional language, but (C) is not modified by further structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
It is noted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, in the absence of the 112(f) interpretation, the distance detection system encompasses any system capable of determining distances. These can include distance finders using optical, ultrasonic, microwave, laser, UHV, Hall effect, etc sensors, in addition to the laser light detection systems later recited in the claims. They could also include any and all methods of determining distance (e.g. time of flight, interferometry, etc). Accordingly, the specfication lacks support for each and every type of “distance detection system”. That is, if “distance detection system” were not subject to 112(f) interpretation, the application would lack written description under 112(a) for failing to demonstrate the broader genus of distance detection systems. It is noted “an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention”. MPEP 2163.03(VI).
It is noted “Unlimited functional claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.” MPEP 2173.05(g).
Indefiniteness
The remarks argue “upstream component of the electron beam unit” is a definite term because “upstream” is definite in context and “electron beam unit” does not trigger 112(f) interpretation. The extensive discussion regarding “upstream” is traversed because this is not at issue. The critical issue is that unlike in Takahashi, or any other reference cited, it is unclear what the upstream component is upstream relative to. “Electron beam unit” could comprise the source and/or other components, so it is unclear if the upstream component is upstream of the source, the collimator, the linac, etc (these would also include deflectors, source electrodes, feedback systems, power delivery circuits, operator UI, wall outlet plug, etc, which are all well known (and non-disclosed) components required to generate a focused electron beam). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, with the claim construction proposed by the remarks, the upstream component would have to be in outer space. The argument is traversed for the reasons stated above. Clarification is respectfully requested as to both what the component is, and what the electron beam unit is, otherwise
The remarks regarding claim 4 are persuasive and that rejection is withdrawn.
The remarks argue “light source” is a definite term because “light system” does not trigger 112(f) interpretation. As discussed above, “light system” is, even adopting the construction and non-112(f) interpretation proposed in the remarks, claimed broadly
The remarks argue a skilled artisan would understand “the unit outlet” is identical to the collimator outlet. However, claim 4 recites a further limitation that the collimator outlet is the unit outlet, but claims 1-3 and 5-28 do not share this limitation. These claims recite “the unit outlet”, not the collimator outlet.
Obviousness
The remarks argue Takahashi captures a collimator image and directs light away from the mirror, not towards it. However, Thieme is relied upon to teach the use of a mirror to reflect light from the light source downstream to the patient. (“The light source 130 may be mounted inside the collimator and can be positioned at the location of the X-ray target 118 by a rotating carousel or a sliding drawer assembly, or it may be positioned to one side of the collimator axis of rotation with the light reflected by a mirror”, Thieme, [0070]). As the rejection laid out, it is unclear where the mirror is in Thieme. Takahashi teaches use of known effective mirrors tilted at different angles to provide optical access between the patient (at laser marker position, 2b) and an external imaging device (15), via the internal cavity of a beam delivery system. The imaging disclosed in Takahashi is used, not just for collimator shape monitoring, but patient monitoring (see e.g. [0016]). It is further noted that it has held that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
The remarks note the advantages recognized by the inventor regarding function and accuracy during rotation that are achieved by the present invention are not contemplated by the prior art. However, the claims are sufficiently broad to read on the more conventional systems of the prior art. Although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention claimed, the language of Applicant's claims are sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s). It is additionally noted that the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Examiner suggests considering clarifying details of how the apparatus operates during rotation in order to achieve the improved accuracy beyond the prior art systems.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-22, 24-28 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-22, 24-28 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
PNG
media_image1.png
120
1248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
PNG
media_image2.png
89
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-22, 28 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 24, 26-28 recites “an upstream component of the electron beam unit” but given the interpretation under 112(f) above, it is unclear what this upstream component is.
Claim 23 recites “light source” but given the interpretation under 112(f) above, it is unclear what this component is.
Claim 28 recites a “distance detection system” but given the interpretation under 112(f) above, it is unclear what this component is.
Claims 2-6, 10-22 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 14 recites “a window” but it is unclear if this refers to a different window or the same window as disclosed in claim 1. It is read to mean “the window”.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image3.png
158
934
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 10, 13-18, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thieme et al. (US 20170225015 A1) [hereinafter Thieme] in view of Takahashi et al. (US 20080298553 A1) [hereinafter Takahashi] and Guilietti et al. (EP2316528A1) [hereinafter Guilietti].
Regarding claim 1, Thieme teaches an electron beam radiation system that emits an electron beam at a surface, comprising:
a) an electron beam unit (see e.g. fig 1: 116) having a unit outlet (see e.g. bottom of 116), wherein the electron beam unit produces the electron beam and emits the electron beam from the unit outlet on a linear pathway leading from the unit outlet to the surface (on patient, 101), wherein the linear pathway has a central axis (see fig 1);
b) at least a first field defining member (e.g. fig 4: 129) positioned on the linear pathway downstream from the unit outlet (see fig 4), wherein the first field defining member has a through aperture comprising an inlet through which the electron beam enters the first field defining member through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4), and an outlet through which the electron beam leaves the first field defining member through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4);
c) a rotary coupling system (required for intended operation of rotating collimator, see fig 1, e.g. [0053], interior of fig 4) that rotatably couples at least the first field defining member to an upstream component of the electron beam unit such that the first field defining member is rotatable on demand around a rotational axis independent of rotation of the upstream component (see rotating collimator, fig 1), wherein the rotary coupling system comprises a through aperture (see fig 4), an inlet through which the electron beam enters the rotary coupling system through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4), and an outlet through which the electron beam leaves the rotary coupling system through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4); and
d) a tilted mirror (see [0070])
f) a light system (see light source, e.g. [0070])
Thieme may fail to explicitly disclose a tilted mirror in the through aperture of the rotary coupling system, wherein the mirror is at least partially transparent to the electron beam and is positioned such that the electron beam passes through the mirror as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway through the through aperture of the rotary coupling system; and wherein the mirror is at least partially reflective to light at one or more wavelength bands in a range from 430 nm to 750 nm; and the light being reflected along the linear pathway toward the surface.
Thieme teaches use of a mirror to monitor e.g. patient position (see [0070]) but it is unclear where the mirror would be. Takahashi teaches a known effective optical monitoring system that enables concurrent monitoring of patient and collimator leaf shapes (see e.g. Takahashi, [0044]) comprising a tilted mirror (see e.g. fig 4: 32b) in the through aperture of the coupling system (see fig 4), wherein the mirror is at least partially transparent to the electron beam (required for intended operation of transmitting electron beam, see fig 4, e.g. [0041]) and is positioned such that the electron beam passes through the mirror as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway through the through aperture of the coupling system (see fig 4); and wherein the mirror is at least partially reflective to light at one or more wavelength bands in a range from 430 nm to 750 nm (see aluminum, [0047]); and the light being reflected along the linear pathway toward the surface (see fig 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Takahashi in the rotary coupling system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of providing the mirror, while also enabling the additional ability to concurrently monitor patients and leaf shapes, as taught by Takahashi.
The combined teaching of Thieme and Takahashi may fail to explicitly disclose the light system being positioned outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system; and a window through which light can be directed at the tilted mirror from a location outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to move the light system to whatever location was convenient for operation, including a position mounted outside of the rotary coupling system, as a routine skill in the art. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device would involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Nevertheless, the use of windows as interfaces and/or to protect external light sources and/or electron columns was extremely well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example/alternately, Guilietti teaches using windows to protect vacuum in the electron beam column (see Guilietti, [0040]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the use of the known windows of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to enable effective vacuum conditions in the electron beam column, and/or enable operators/technicians easier access to select or replace different external light sources. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Thus the combined teaching teaches a window through which light can be directed at the tilted mirror from a location outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system (from external and/or enclosed source; see generally Takahashi, fig 4: 15a external to the column).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti teaches a second sub-assembly (see Thieme, e.g. fig 4: 111, 123, etc) such that the second sub-assembly is rotatable on demand on said rotational axis (see fig 1) independent of the fixed sections (see 108). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose a first sub-assembly coupled to the outlet of the electron beam unit, rotatably coupled to the first sub-assembly. However, some kind of mating surface would be required for the intended operation of holding the assembly rotatably together (otherwise 110 would just fall out) and It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to define that mounting portion and/or some part of the frame of 108 that 110 is mounted to, as the first sub-assembly. Therefore, the combined teaching teaches a first sub-assembly (mounting surface, flange, etc, and/or part of 108 near 110) coupled to the outlet of the electron beam unit (see fig 1, between 116 and holding it in place), rotatably coupled to the first sub-assembly (see fig 1). It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti teaches the electron beam has a beam centerline extending along the linear pathway, and wherein the rotational axis is the same as the beam centerline (see Thieme, figs 1, 4).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti teaches the electron beam unit comprises a collimator (see Thieme, fig 4: 111) having an outlet (see fig 4), wherein the collimator outlet is the unit outlet (see fig 4), and wherein the first sub-assembly (see defining as e.g. fig 4: 127-125) of the rotary coupling system is coupled to the electron beam unit downstream from the collimator outlet (see fig 4).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti teaches the rotational axis of the rotary coupling system is co-linear and coincident with the central axis of the electron beam linear pathway (see Thieme, figs 1, 4).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti teaches the mirror comprises a polymer sheet having first and second major faces and having a metallized coating on one or both major faces (see Takahashi, [0047]).
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, some kind of holding mechanism would have been required for the intended operation of holding the mirror and other elements in place, and the use of clamping (including e.g. screwing in place) was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. In a different embodiment, Thieme teaches that the assembly components may be manually adjusted via “mechanical screws, bolts, or any other mechanical pieces of the radiation treatment system” (see [0142]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of known effective screws or bolts to hold the structures, including the mirror of the prior art together. Therefore, the combined teaching teaches a body positioned in the through aperture of the rotary coupling system (screw or bolt, and mating structure), said body including an upstream member and a downstream member (fastener and mating structure), and wherein the mirror is clamped in place between the upstream and downstream members at an interface between the upstream and downstream members (between fastener and mating structure).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti teaches the rotary coupling system comprises a window (see Guilietti, [0040]) through which light can be directed at the mirror in a manner such that the mirror re-directs the light to a target site on the surface (see Takahashi, fig 4).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti teaches an illumination source (required for operation of system, see light source, Thieme, e.g. [0070]) that provides illumination through the window that is redirected by the mirror to illuminate the target site (see discussion of windows above).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti teaches an illumination source that provides an optical signal through the window that is redirected by the mirror in a manner that projects a reference mark onto the surface (see operators using light as reference, Thieme, [0070]).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti teaches the mirror re-directs the illumination onto the surface along the central axis of the electron beam linear pathway (see Takahashi, fig 4).
Regarding claim 18, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti teaches the mirror re-directs the optical signal along the central axis of the electron beam linear pathway such that the reference mark is projected onto the surface in a manner to show where the electron beam is aimed at the surface (see Thieme, [0070]).
Regarding claim 24, Thieme teaches an electron beam radiation system that emits an electron beam at a surface, comprising:
a) an electron beam unit (see e.g. fig 1: 116) having a unit outlet (see e.g. bottom of 116), wherein the electron beam unit produces the electron beam and emits the electron beam from the unit outlet on a linear pathway leading from the unit outlet to the surface (on patient, 101), wherein the linear pathway has a central axis (see fig 1);
b) at least a first field defining member (e.g. fig 4: 129) positioned on the linear pathway downstream from the unit outlet (see fig 4), wherein the first field defining member has a through aperture comprising an inlet through which the electron beam enters the first field defining member through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4), and an outlet through which the electron beam leaves the first field defining member through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4);
c) a rotary coupling system (required for intended operation of rotating collimator, see fig 1, e.g. [0053], interior of fig 4) that rotatably couples at least the first field defining member to an upstream component of the electron beam unit such that the first field defining member is rotatable on demand around a rotational axis independent of rotation of the upstream component (see rotating collimator, fig 1), wherein the rotary coupling system comprises:
i) a through aperture (see fig 4) comprising an inlet through which the electron beam enters the rotary coupling system through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4), and an outlet through which the electron beam leaves the rotary coupling system through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4); and
ii) a tilted mirror (see [0070])
d) a light system (see light source, e.g. [0070])
Thieme may fail to explicitly disclose a tilted mirror mounted at a tilted angle in the through aperture of the rotary coupling system, wherein the mirror is tilted at a non-parallel and non- orthogonal angle relative to the linear pathway, wherein the mirror is at least partially reflective with respect to optical illumination in one or more wavelength bands of the electromagnetic spectrum in a range from 200nm to 2000 nm, andwherein the tilted mirror is at least partially transparent to the electron beam such that at least a portion of the electron beam passes through the tilted mirror as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway; and the light being reflected along the linear pathway to the surface through the first field defining member through aperture.
Thieme teaches use of a mirror to monitor e.g. patient position (see [0070]) but it is unclear where the mirror would be. Takahashi teaches a known effective optical monitoring system that enables concurrent monitoring of patient and collimator leaf shapes (see e.g. Takahashi, [0044]) comprising a tilted mirror (see e.g. fig 4: 32b) mounted at a tilted angle in the through aperture of the rotary coupling system, wherein the mirror is tilted at a non-parallel and non- orthogonal angle relative to the linear pathway (see fig 4), wherein the mirror is at least partially reflective with respect to optical illumination in one or more wavelength bands of the electromagnetic spectrum in a range from 200nm to 2000 nm (see aluminum, [0047]), andwherein the tilted mirror is at least partially transparent to the electron beam such that at least a portion of the electron beam passes through the tilted mirror as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway (see fig 4); and the light being reflected along the linear pathway toward the surface through the first field defining member through aperture (see fig 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Takahashi in the rotary coupling system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of providing the mirror, while also enabling the additional ability to concurrently monitor patients and leaf shapes, as taught by Takahashi.
The combined teaching of Thieme and Takahashi may fail to explicitly disclose the illumination source being positioned outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to move the light illumination source to whatever location was convenient for operation, including a position mounted outside of the rotary coupling system, as a routine skill in the art. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device would involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
The combined teaching of Thieme and Takahashi may fail to explicitly disclose a window through which at least one optical signal can be directed at the tilted mirror from a location outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system; the light being reflected through the window.
However, the use of windows as interfaces and/or to protect light sources and/or electron columns was extremely well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example/alternately, Guilietti teaches using windows to protect vacuum in the electron beam column (see Guilietti, [0040]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the use of the known windows of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to enable effective vacuum conditions in the electron beam column, and/or enable easier access to different light sources. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Thus the combined teaching teaches a window through which at least one optical signal can be directed at the tilted mirror from a location outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system (from external and/or enclosed source); the light being reflected through the window (to reach the column).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zhai et al. (CN106267587A) [hereinafter Zhai].
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti fails to explicitly disclose a rotary encoder that monitors and measures relative rotation between the first and second sub-assemblies of the rotary coupling system. However, some kind of system would have been required to control the rotation of the rotary coupling system, and the use of rotary encoders was well known in the art. For example, Zhai teaches a known effective system for using rotary encoders to precisely monitor and measure relative rotation between rotating subassemblies in a beam column, which also enables locking the assemblies into a desired position (see Zhai, fig 1, abstract, translation, p3 last para). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Zhai in the system of the prior art in order to enable the intended operation of precisely controlling the rotation of the beam collimator, while also enabling the ability to lock the rotation into a desired position as taught by Zhai.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimada et al. (US 20100163726 A1) [hereinafter Shimada].
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti may fail to explicitly disclose the mirror comprises a polyethylene terephthalate sheet. However, the use of PET films to form thin film mirrors in electron beam applications was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Shimada teaches known effective thin film mirrors used in electron beam paths made from a PET sheet (see Shimada, fig 1, [0034,38]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Shimada in the system of the prior art, for example providing a mirror formed from a PET polymer base, as a routine skill in the art, for example to reduce costs and/or use whatever materials are most readily available. It is noted that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, Guilietti, and Shimada teaches an aluminum layer provided on the polyethylene terephthalate sheet in a manner to provide reflectivity (see Takahashi, [0047]).
Claim(s) 19, 21, 22, 26, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti, as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of et Moultrie (WO2012025719A1),
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti teaches an illumination source (see Thieme, [0070]) positioned outside the window. The combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti may fail to explicitly disclose a laser, and an optical manifold that are positioned outside the window, wherein the illumination source provides illumination that is received by the optical manifold, wherein the laser provides an optical laser signal including a laser reference mark that is received by the optical manifold, and wherein the optical manifold combines the illumination and the optical laser signal and directs the combined illumination and optical laser signal through the window to the mirror such that the mirror re-directs and projects the combined illumination and optical laser signal to the surface. However, Moultrie teaches a system that enables projection of both laser distance measurement and reference light at a patient to both dynamically inform operators of the extent of the beam (see Moultrie, p6, lines 20-26, see fig 2) and provide automatic laser distance measurement (see p2, lines 1-8), comprising an illumination source (see 2: 116), a laser (105), and an optical manifold (see around 114, 105, 116), wherein the illumination source provides illumination that is received by the optical manifold (see fig 2), wherein the laser provides an optical laser signal including a laser reference mark that is received by the optical manifold (see fig 2), and wherein the optical manifold combines the illumination and the optical laser signal and directs the combined illumination and optical laser signal through the interface to the mirror (see also 107) such that the mirror re-directs and projects the combined illumination and optical laser signal to the surface (see fig 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Moultrie in the system of the prior art to enable the ability to additionally provide both reference marks to assist operators as well as automatic laser distance measurement, in the manner taught by Moultrie.
Regarding claim 21, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, Guilietti, and Moultrie teaches the optical manifold redirects and emits the illumination light in an output direction that is 90 degrees relative to the input direction of the illumination light received by the optical manifold (see fig 2). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose redirecting the optical laser signal rather than the illumination light. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the mirror (see Moultrie, fig 2: 114) to reflect the laser rather than the illumination light, and/or it would have been obvious to add another mirror to position the laser wherever it would be convenient for an operator for use, maintenance, installation, etc. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device would involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 22, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious, for similar reasons as claim 19 above. Therefore the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, Guilietti, and Moultrie teaches a distance sensor (see Moutlrie, fig 2), wherein the distance sensor comprises: a laser (see 105) positioned outside the window that outputs a laser signal through the window such that the mirror redirects the laser signal to the surface (see fig 2) and such that the laser signal is reflected from the surface back onto a reflection point on the mirror (see at mark 112), and an imaging device (in 105) that observes the mirror and captures an image of the reflection point (see fig 2), wherein the location of the reflection point on an image plane of the imaging device is correlated to the distance of the surface from a distance reference (naturally correlated).
Regarding claim 26, Thieme teaches an electron beam radiation system that emits an electron beam at a surface, comprising:
a) an electron beam unit (see e.g. fig 1: 116) having a unit outlet (see e.g. bottom of 116), wherein the electron beam unit produces the electron beam and emits the electron beam from the unit outlet on a linear pathway leading from the unit outlet to the surface (on patient, 101), wherein the linear pathway has a central axis (see fig 1);
b) at least a first field defining member (e.g. fig 4: 129) positioned on the linear pathway downstream from the unit outlet (see fig 4), wherein the first field defining member has a through aperture comprising an inlet through which the electron beam enters the first field defining member through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4), and an outlet through which the electron beam leaves the first field defining member through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4);
c) a rotary coupling system (required for intended operation of rotating collimator, see fig 1, e.g. [0053], interior of fig 4) that rotatably couples at least the first field defining member to an upstream component of the electron beam unit such that the first field defining member is rotatable on demand around a rotational axis independent of rotation of the upstream component (see rotating collimator, fig 1), wherein the rotary coupling system comprises:
i) a through aperture (see fig 4) comprising an inlet through which the electron beam enters the rotary coupling system through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4), and an outlet through which the electron beam leaves the rotary coupling system through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4); and
ii) a tilted mirror (see [0070])
d) a light system positioned outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system, wherein the light system produces a light signal and emits the light signal in a manner such that the light signal is aimed at the tilted mirror
Thieme may fail to explicitly disclose a tilted mirror mounted at a tilted angle in the through aperture of the rotary coupling system, wherein the mirror is tilted at a non-parallel and non- orthogonal angle relative to the linear pathway, wherein the mirror is at least partially reflective with respect to optical illumination in one or more wavelength bands of the electromagnetic spectrum in a range from 200nm to 2000 nm, andwherein the tilted mirror is at least partially transparent to the electron beam such that at least a portion of the electron beam passes through the tilted mirror as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway; and the light being reflected along the linear pathway toward the first field defining member.
Thieme teaches use of a mirror to monitor e.g. patient position (see [0070]) but it is unclear where the mirror would be. Takahashi teaches a known effective optical monitoring system that enables concurrent monitoring of patient and collimator leaf shapes (see e.g. Takahashi, [0044]) comprising a tilted mirror (see e.g. fig 4: 32b) mounted at a tilted angle in the through aperture of the rotary coupling system, wherein the mirror is tilted at a non-parallel and non- orthogonal angle relative to the linear pathway (see fig 4), wherein the mirror is at least partially reflective with respect to optical illumination in one or more wavelength bands of the electromagnetic spectrum in a range from 200nm to 2000 nm (see aluminum, [0047]), andwherein the tilted mirror is at least partially transparent to the electron beam such that at least a portion of the electron beam passes through the tilted mirror as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway (see fig 4); and the light being reflected along the linear pathway toward the field defining members (see fig 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Takahashi in the rotary coupling system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of providing the mirror, while also enabling the additional ability to concurrently monitor patients and leaf shapes, as taught by Takahashi.
The combined teaching of Thieme and Takahashi may fail to explicitly disclose the illumination source being positioned outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to move the light illumination source to whatever location was convenient for operation, including a position mounted outside of the rotary coupling system, as a routine skill in the art. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device would involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
The combined teaching of Thieme and Takahashi may fail to explicitly disclose a window through which light can be directed at the tilted mirror from a location outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system; the light signal aimed through the window.
However, the use of windows as interfaces and/or to protect light sources and/or electron columns was extremely well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example/alternately, Guilietti teaches using windows to protect vacuum in the electron beam column (see Guilietti, [0040]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the use of the known windows of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to enable effective vacuum conditions in the electron beam column, and/or enable easier access to different light sources. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Thus the combined teaching teaches a window through which at least one optical signal can be directed at the tilted mirror from a location outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system; the light signal aimed through the window (from external and/or enclosed source).
The combined teaching of Thieme and Takahashi may fail to explicitly disclose wherein the light system comprises a laser light source that produces a light signal comprising a visually observable optical reference mark that is reflected downstream through the first field defining member outlet onto the surface in a manner such that the location of the reference mark on the surface is indicative of how the electron beam is aimed at the surface.
However, Moultrie teaches a system that enables projection of both laser distance measurement and reference light at a patient to both dynamically inform operators of the extent of the beam (see Moultrie, p6, lines 20-26, see fig 2) and provide automatic laser distance measurement (see p2, lines 1-8), comprising a laser light source (see 105) that produces a light signal comprising a visually observable optical reference mark that is reflected downstream through the field defining member outlet (see fig 2) onto the surface in a manner such that the location of the reference mark on the surface is indicative of how the electron beam is aimed at the surface (see p2, lines 1-8). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Moultrie in the system of the prior art to enable the ability to additionally provide both reference marks to assist operators as well as automatic laser distance measurement, in the manner taught by Moultrie.
Regarding claim 28, Thieme teaches an electron beam radiation system that emits an electron beam at a surface, comprising:
a) an electron beam unit (see e.g. fig 1: 116) having a unit outlet (see e.g. bottom of 116), wherein the electron beam unit produces the electron beam and emits the electron beam from the unit outlet on a linear pathway leading from the unit outlet to the surface (on patient, 101), wherein the linear pathway has a central axis (see fig 1);
b) at least a first field defining member (e.g. fig 4: 129) positioned on the linear pathway downstream from the unit outlet (see fig 4), wherein the first field defining member has a through aperture comprising an inlet through which the electron beam enters the first field defining member through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4), and an outlet through which the electron beam leaves the first field defining member through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4);
c) a rotary coupling system (required for intended operation of rotating collimator, see fig 1, e.g. [0053], interior of fig 4) that rotatably couples at least the first field defining member to an upstream component of the electron beam unit such that the first field defining member is rotatable on demand around a rotational axis independent of rotation of the upstream component (see rotating collimator, fig 1), wherein the rotary coupling system comprises:
i) a through aperture (see fig 4) comprising an inlet through which the electron beam enters the rotary coupling system through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4), and an outlet through which the electron beam leaves the rotary coupling system through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4); and
ii) a tilted mirror (see [0070])
Thieme may fail to explicitly disclose a tilted mirror mounted at a tilted angle in the through aperture of the rotary coupling system, wherein the mirror is tilted at a non-parallel and non- orthogonal angle relative to the linear pathway, wherein the mirror is at least partially reflective with respect to optical illumination in one or more wavelength bands of the electromagnetic spectrum in a range from 200nm to 2000 nm, andwherein the tilted mirror is at least partially transparent to the electron beam such that at least a portion of the electron beam passes through the tilted mirror as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway.
Thieme teaches use of a mirror to monitor e.g. patient position (see [0070]) but it is unclear where the mirror would be. Takahashi teaches a known effective optical monitoring system that enables concurrent monitoring of patient and collimator leaf shapes (see e.g. Takahashi, [0044]) comprising a tilted mirror (see e.g. fig 4: 32b) mounted at a tilted angle in the through aperture of the rotary coupling system, wherein the mirror is tilted at a non-parallel and non- orthogonal angle relative to the linear pathway (see fig 4), wherein the mirror is at least partially reflective with respect to optical illumination in one or more wavelength bands of the electromagnetic spectrum in a range from 200nm to 2000 nm (see aluminum, [0047]), andwherein the tilted mirror is at least partially transparent to the electron beam such that at least a portion of the electron beam passes through the tilted mirror as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway (see fig 4); and the light being reflected along the linear pathway toward the field defining members (see fig 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Takahashi in the rotary coupling system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of providing the mirror, while also enabling the additional ability to concurrently monitor patients and leaf shapes, as taught by Takahashi.
The combined teaching of Thieme and Takahashi may fail to explicitly disclose a window through which light can be directed at the tilted mirror from a location outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system; the light signal aimed through the window.
However, the use of windows as interfaces and/or to protect light sources and/or electron columns was extremely well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example/alternately, Guilietti teaches using windows to protect vacuum in the electron beam column (see Guilietti, [0040]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the use of the known windows of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to enable effective vacuum conditions in the electron beam column, and/or enable easier access to different light sources. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Thus the combined teaching teaches a window through which at least one optical signal can be directed at the tilted mirror from a location outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system; the light signal aimed through the window (from external and/or enclosed source).
The combined teaching of Thieme and Takahashi may fail to explicitly disclose a distance detection system positioned outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system, wherein the distance detection system comprises a controller, a laser light source, and an image capturing sensor, wherein: the laser light source is configured to emit a laser light signal at the tilted mirror in a manner effective to be reflected downstream along the linear pathway through the first field defining member toward the surface such that at least a portion of the laser light signal is reflected from the surface back to a location on the tilted mirror that is a function of a distance characteristic of the surface relative to a distance reference; and the image capturing sensor observes and captures image information of the tilted mirror, said image information indicative of the location on the tilted mirror onto which the laser light signal is reflected from the surface; andthe control system uses the capture image information to determine a distance characteristic of the surface with respect to the distance reference.
However, Moultrie teaches a system that enables projection of both laser distance measurement and reference light at a patient to both dynamically inform operators of the extent of the beam (see Moultrie, p6, lines 20-26, see fig 2) and provide automatic laser distance measurement (see p2, lines 1-8), comprising a distance detection system (see fig 2), wherein the distance detection system comprises a controller (required for intended operation of system), a laser light source (see 105), and an image capturing sensor (see 105), wherein: the laser light source is configured to emit a laser light signal at the tilted mirror (see 107) in a manner effective to be reflected downstream along the linear pathway through the the first field defining member toward the surface (see fig 2) such that at least a portion of the laser light signal is reflected from the surface back to a location on the tilted mirror that is a function of a distance characteristic of the surface relative to a distance reference (see fig 2); and the image capturing sensor observes and captures image information of the tilted mirror (see fig 2), said image information indicative of the location on the tilted mirror onto which the laser light signal is reflected from the surface (naturally indicative); and the control system uses the capture image information to determine a distance characteristic of the surface with respect to the distance reference (see p2, lines 1-8). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Moultrie in the system of the prior art to enable the ability to additionally provide both reference marks to assist operators as well as automatic laser distance measurement, in the manner taught by Moultrie.
The combined teaching of Thieme and Takahashi may fail to explicitly disclose the distance detection system being positioned outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to move the light illumination source to whatever location was convenient for operation, including a position mounted outside of the rotary coupling system, as a routine skill in the art, for example to enable easier access for maintenance. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device would involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 20, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti, as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Matsunobu et al. (US 20210124178 A1) [hereinafter Matsunobu].
Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti may fail to explicitly disclose the optical signal comprises green laser light. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select a green laser light as a routine skill in the art to provide a known effective illumination source. It was also well known in the art to use green lasers for marking. For example, Matsunobu teaches an improved medical illumination system that enables fluorescence observation modes and higher quality normal illumination (see e.g. Matsunobu, [0206,213]), comprising green laser light (e.g. [0257]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Matsunobu in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve illumination control and quality.
Regarding claim 25, the combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti teaches the light system comprises a light source that produces at least a portion of the light signal in a manner such that the light reflected downstream through the first field defining member outlet illuminates the surface with illumination comprising light from one or more wavelength bands of the electromagnetic spectrum in the range from 200 nm to 2000 nm (visible light, see Thieme, [0070]). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the light source being an LED, but the use of LED illumination to provide visible light was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, and it would have been obvious to select its use as a routine skill in the art. Alternately, the differences would also have been obvious in view of Matsunobu for similar reasons as claim 20, above.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thieme, Takahashi, Guilietti, Moultrie, and Matsunobu.
Regarding claim 27, Thieme teaches an electron beam radiation system that emits an electron beam at a surface, comprising:
a) an electron beam unit (see e.g. fig 1: 116) having a unit outlet (see e.g. bottom of 116), wherein the electron beam unit produces the electron beam and emits the electron beam from the unit outlet on a linear pathway leading from the unit outlet to the surface (on patient, 101), wherein the linear pathway has a central axis (see fig 1);
b) at least a first field defining member (e.g. fig 4: 129) positioned on the linear pathway downstream from the unit outlet (see fig 4), wherein the first field defining member has a through aperture comprising an inlet through which the electron beam enters the first field defining member through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4), and an outlet through which the electron beam leaves the first field defining member through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4);
c) a rotary coupling system (required for intended operation of rotating collimator, see fig 1, e.g. [0053], interior of fig 4) that rotatably couples at least the first field defining member to an upstream component of the electron beam unit such that the first field defining member is rotatable on demand around a rotational axis independent of rotation of the upstream component (see rotating collimator, fig 1), wherein the rotary coupling system comprises:
i) a through aperture (see fig 4) comprising an inlet through which the electron beam enters the rotary coupling system through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4), and an outlet through which the electron beam leaves the rotary coupling system through aperture as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway to the surface (see fig 4); and
ii) a tilted mirror (see [0070])
d) a light system (see light source, e.g. [0070])
i
Thieme may fail to explicitly disclose a tilted mirror mounted at a tilted angle in the through aperture of the rotary coupling system, wherein the mirror is tilted at a non-parallel and non- orthogonal angle relative to the linear pathway, wherein the mirror is at least partially reflective with respect to optical illumination in one or more wavelength bands of the electromagnetic spectrum in a range from 200nm to 2000 nm, andwherein the tilted mirror is at least partially transparent to the electron beam such that at least a portion of the electron beam passes through the tilted mirror as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway; and the light being reflected along the linear pathway to the surface through the first field defining member through aperture, and along the linear pathway through the first field defining member toward the surface.
Thieme teaches use of a mirror to monitor e.g. patient position (see [0070]) but it is unclear where the mirror would be. Takahashi teaches a known effective optical monitoring system that enables concurrent monitoring of patient and collimator leaf shapes (see e.g. Takahashi, [0044]) comprising a tilted mirror (see e.g. fig 4: 32b) mounted at a tilted angle in the through aperture of the rotary coupling system, wherein the mirror is tilted at a non-parallel and non- orthogonal angle relative to the linear pathway (see fig 4), wherein the mirror is at least partially reflective with respect to optical illumination in one or more wavelength bands of the electromagnetic spectrum in a range from 200nm to 2000 nm (see aluminum, [0047]), andwherein the tilted mirror is at least partially transparent to the electron beam such that at least a portion of the electron beam passes through the tilted mirror as the electron beam travels along the linear pathway (see fig 4); and the light being reflected along the linear pathway toward the surface through the first field defining member through aperture (see fig 4), and along the linear pathway through the first field defining member toward the surface (see fig 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Takahashi in the rotary coupling system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the intended operation of providing the mirror, while also enabling the additional ability to concurrently monitor patients and leaf shapes, as taught by Takahashi.
The combined teaching of Thieme and Takahashi may fail to explicitly disclose the illumination source being positioned outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to move the light illumination source to whatever location was convenient for operation, including a position mounted outside of the rotary coupling system, as a routine skill in the art. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device would involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
The combined teaching of Thieme and Takahashi may fail to explicitly disclose a window through which at least one optical signal can be directed at the tilted mirror from a location outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system; the light being reflected through the window.
However, the use of windows as interfaces and/or to protect light sources and/or electron columns was extremely well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example/alternately, Guilietti teaches using windows to protect vacuum in the electron beam column (see Guilietti, [0040]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the use of the known windows of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to enable effective vacuum conditions in the electron beam column, and/or enable easier access to different light sources. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Thus the combined teaching teaches a window through which at least one optical signal can be directed at the tilted mirror from a location outside the through aperture of the rotary coupling system (from external and/or enclosed source); the light being reflected through the window (to reach the column).
The combined teaching of Thieme and Takahashi may fail to explicitly disclose i) a laser light source that produces at least a portion of a first light signal comprising a visually observable optical reference mark, ii) an LED light source that produces at least a portion of a second light signal comprising visually observable LED illumination; and iii) an optical combiner that combines at least the first and second light signals to provide the composite light signal in a manner such that the reference mark is reflected downstream through the first field defining member onto the surface in a manner such that the location of the reference mark on the surface is indicative of how the electron beam is aimed at the surface and such that the LED illumination illuminates the surface where the electron beam is aimed.
However, Moultrie teaches a system that enables projection of both laser distance measurement and reference light at a patient to both dynamically inform operators of the extent of the beam (see Moultrie, p6, lines 20-26, see fig 2) and provide automatic laser distance measurement (see p2, lines 1-8), comprising i) a laser light source (see 105) that produces at least a portion of a first light signal comprising a visually observable optical reference mark (see fig 2; alternately note obviousness in selecting wavelengths), ii) a light source (see 116) that produces at least a portion of a second light signal comprising visually observable LED illumination (see fig 2, abstract); and iii) an optical combiner (see 114) that combines at least the first and second light signals to provide the composite light signal in a manner such that the reference mark is reflected downstream through the first field defining member (through all field defining members, see fig 2) onto the surface in a manner such that the location of the reference mark on the surface is indicative of how the electron beam is aimed at the surface (see fig 2, p6, lines 20-26) and such that the LED illumination illuminates the surface where the electron beam is aimed (fig 2, see p2, lines 1-8). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Moultrie in the system of the prior art to enable the ability to additionally provide both reference marks to assist operators as well as automatic laser distance measurement, in the manner taught by Moultrie.
The combined teaching of Thieme, Takahashi, and Guilietti may fail to explicitly disclose the light source being an LED, but the use of LED illumination to provide visible light was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, and it would have been obvious to select its use as a routine skill in the art. Alternately, the differences would also have been obvious in view of Matsunobu for similar reasons as claim 20, above.
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 extension fee 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 James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 am – 5:30 pm M-T, and every other Friday.
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 on (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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878