DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1. (Proposed Amendments) A particle induced radiography system comprising:
(a) an implant module, being a proton detector, configured to present a location of an object, and to receive and detect [[the]] beams (a lack of an antecedent basis) from the means for radiating particles,
wherein the implant module comprises:
an implant detection unit, being a silicon array detector or a thin metal array, configured to detect a number of particles from the beams,
at least one implanted material configured to interact with the beams that are irradiated by the means for radiating particles to generate secondary particles,
an array detector, being an optically sensitive detector, configured to detect the secondary particles,
an electronic and communication module, including a current integrating circuit, configured to read out data from the array detector and to output the data, and an extension unit comprising tracking markers or mechanical indexing elements;
(b) an external detector device, comprising a sensitive array detector, a readout electronic and communication module, and a mechanical unit for housing, and configured to receive [[data]] the data (a previously recited limitation) from the electronic and communication module and detect the secondary particles, which are generated from the at least one implanted material, to generate and output signals;
(c) a central module, including a software, for processing the signals to perform a computation, and communicate pertinent control signals, wherein the central module receives signals from the implant module or the external detector device and transmits to other modules;
(d) means for positioning, comprising a resistive mat or a sensor array, to obtain the location of the object in order to localize a gamma image from the implant module and the external detector device; and
(e) means for controlling beams to control a beam energy and deliver the beams at different positions on a target material of the object.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
4. (Proposed Amendments) The particle induced radiography system of claim 1, wherein the array detector comprises means for optically detecting particles, and the means for optically detecting particles includes a silicon photomultiplier and an array of scintillating crystals coupled to the silicon photomultiplier, an avalanche photodiode, or a photomultiplier tube.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
6. (Proposed Amendments) The particle induced radiography system of claim 5, wherein the planar sector comprises:
(a) the collimator, comprising tungsten or [[leads]] lead, configured to allow the secondary particles in selected regions of interest with a gap;
(b) a sensitive array detector configured to detect the secondary particle that pass through the collimator;
(c) a readout electronic and communication module comprising at least one circuit capable of reading the sensitive array detector, wherein the readout electronic and communication module communicates with the central module; and
(d) a motorized mechanical unit configured to package and adjust [[the]] positions (a lack of an antecedent basis) of the collimator in the external detector device.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
9. (Proposed Amendments) The particle induced radiography system of claim 8, wherein the gap of [[every]] the pair (a previously recited limitation in claim 8) of collimators is 0.1 to 10 mm.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
20. (Canceled).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover a corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover a corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: a central module in claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 12-14.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover a corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a passive limitation “the means for irradiating particles” in lines 8-9. Although the specification discloses a particle radiation source device configured to irradiate beams at various positions on a target material of an object, the specification does not disclose an adequate structure for performing the recited function. Consequently, it is concluded that the inventor or joint inventors, at the time the application was filed, did not have possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2181(II).
Claim 1 recites a passive limitation “the means for irradiating particles” in line 13. Although the specification discloses a particle radiation source device configured to irradiate beams at various positions on a target material of an object, the specification does not disclose an adequate structure for performing the recited function. Consequently, it is concluded that the inventor or joint inventors, at the time the application was filed, did not have possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2181(II).
Claim 1 recites a limitation “(c) a central module, including a software, for processing the signals to perform a computation” in lines 27-28. Claim 12 further recites a limitation “wherein the central module is configured to enable a conversion of a gamma into estimated dose profiles” in lines 2-3. However, the specification fails to disclose or explain an algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computation in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or the steps/procedure taken to perform the computation must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the computation to be performed. See MPEP § 2161.01(I). Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2181(II).
Claim 1 recites a limitation “(e) means for controlling beams to control a beam energy and deliver the beams at different positions on a target material of the object” in lines 34-35. However, in spite of stating that the 3D imaging system comprises a particle radiation source device 2 configured to irradiate a pencil beam at various positions on a target material and a beam control device 2 configured to adjust the particle radiation source device 2 and control a beam energy to deliver beams at different positions (paragraph [0092]), the specification does not disclose an adequate structure for performing the recited function. Consequently, it is concluded that the inventor or joint inventors, at the time the application was filed, did not have possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2181(II).
Claim 13 recites a limitation “wherein the means for positioning creates a digital map of the object based on a positional signal from the resistive mat attached to a treatment couch” in lines 1-4. However, the specification fails to disclose or explain an algorithm or steps/procedure for creating a digital map in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or the steps/procedure taken to create a digital map must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the computation to be performed. See MPEP § 2161.01(I). Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2181(II).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the means for radiating particles” in lines 8-9, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites a limitation “the means for radiating particles” in line 13, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “(c) a central module, including a software, for processing the signals to perform a computation” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. However, the specification fails to disclose or explain an algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computation in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “wherein the central module is configured to enable a conversion of a gamma into estimated dose profiles” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. However, the specification fails to disclose or explain an algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computation in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses a corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what a corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 fails to set forth an additional structural limitation of the particle induced radiography system. See MPEP § 2115. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 05 September 2025 with respect to claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 12-14 have been fully considered. The objections of claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 12-14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 05 September 2025 with respect to claim 4 have been fully considered. The objections of claim 4 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 05 September 2025 with respect to claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 have been fully considered. The objection of claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 05 September 2025 with respect to claim 6 have been fully considered. The objection of claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 05 September 2025 with respect to claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 12-14 have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 05 September 2025 with respect to claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 12-14 have been fully considered. The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dejongh et al. (U. S. Patent No. 11,116,459 B2) disclosed a proton imaging system for an optimization of a proton therapy.
Balakin (U. S. Patent No. 9,044,600 B2) disclosed a proton tomography apparatus and a method of operation therefor.
Balakin (U. S. Patent No. 8,642,978 B2) disclosed a dose distribution method of a charged particle cancer therapy and an apparatus.
Balakin (U. S. Patent No. 7,939,809 B2) disclosed a method of an extraction of a charged-particle beam.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David J. Makiya, can be reached at (571) 272-2273. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Allen.Ho@uspto.gov