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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 14, 17, 32-42 are pending.
All claims stand rejected.
Response to Arguments
The current office action is a second non-final office action because new grounds of rejections are included with respect to previous claim 31, the subject matter of which has been incorporated into claims 14 and 17.
Examiner notes that claims presented 07/08/2026 indicate claim 31 as previously presented but Applicant’s remarks indicate claim 31 as cancelled. Because the improper claim indicator appears to be a clerical error, no 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection is being issued in the current office action AND claim 31 is deemed canceled.
Applicant’s arguments in Applicant’s responses filed 07/08/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 14 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Further, Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 has been fully considered but found NOT persuasive.
Applicant remarks on pages 9-12 that prior art Eickhoff (US 20040113099 A1) fails to teach a curvature of a first end of the beam deflection unit close to the electron gun is greater than a curvature of a second end of the beam deflection unit away from the electron gun. However, Examiner notes that the rejection compares the curvature of magnet 3, which is closer to the electron gun, to the curvature of magnet 4, which is away from the electron gun with respect to magnet 3. As can be seen in fig. 1, the curvature of the magnet 3, which is 45◦ bending magnet, as Applicant admits, is greater than the curvature of the quadrupole magnet 4 which has curvature of zero as it is not curved.
Applicant notes in the responses filed 01/18/2025 that the double patenting rejection of claim 1, 14, and 17 be held in abeyance until allowance of the claims is determined.
Therefore, the claims stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumakhov, et al., US 20140098919 A1 in view of Berrian, D., WO 02052609 A2, and Eickhoff, et al., US 20040113099 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kumakhov teaches a radiation therapy device ([0031] Together with the other afore-mentioned cases of realization of the channel of the suggested device, all above-stated allows assessing the diversity of use of the said device in x-ray sources, systems for electronic, ion and radiation diagnosis and therapy, means for micro-probing of materials, and other applications), comprising: an electron gun ([0030] states “the device can be used to generate beams of charged particles and x-rays with controlled direction, or beams of fixed direction oriented as required”); and a beam deflection unit (bent channel 1 of fig. 1 and [0115]),
wherein the beam deflection unit is curved (the abstract states that “The method and the device for implementing same are based on the use of a curved channel (1) for transporting particles, which is made from a material that is able to be electrically charged, and the formation of the same kind of charge on the inside surface of the channel wall as that of the particles”).
Kumakhov does not teach that the beam deflection unit is configured to accelerate an electron beam emitted from the electron gun, and the accelerated electron beam is deflected by the beam deflection unit.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Berrian teaches apparatus and a system using same for directing and purifying an ion beamline (102) through an acceleration column (114) that provides both desired acceleration (or deceleration) and deflection to filter or purify the ion beam (see abstract). Berrian teaches that the column 114 is a combined acceleration and deflection column in an ion implanter system for receiving a directed scanned ion beam defining an initial plane at entry to the column (page 5, lines 19-21. Also see reproduced fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
274
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Kumakhov wherein the beam deflection unit is configured to accelerate an electron beam emitted from the electron gun, and the accelerated electron beam is deflected by the beam deflection unit, as taught by Berrian, to provide an improved structure for beam acceleration and control that permits flexible control of the energy of the beamline while reducing energy contamination of the beam and while maintaining a short beam length (page 3, lines 13-15).
Kumakhov in view of Berrian fails to teach a curvature of a first end of the beam deflection unit close to the electron gun is greater than a curvature of a second end of the beam deflection unit away from the electron gun.
However, Eickhoff a gantry system for transport, delivery and treatment of a high energy ion beam in a heavy ion cancer therapy facility (see abstract), the gantry system comprising bending magnets, that is, the recited deflection unit (paragraph 23), a curvature of a first end of the beam deflection unit close to the electron gun is greater than a curvature of a second end of the beam deflection unit away from the electron gun (in fig. 1, the curvature of bending magnet 3 is greater than magnet 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Kumakhov, as modified by Berrian wherein a curvature of a first end of the beam deflection unit close to the electron gun is greater than a curvature of a second end of the beam deflection unit away from the electron gun, as taught by Eickhoff, hence providing a position and intensity controlled and monitored heavy ion beam toward the patient treatment couch and improves the precision of operating said ion beam by providing a scanned pencil like ion beam to treat the cancer tissue and improves the safety of the gantry system by a stack of in-situ diagnostic elements (paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 2, Kumakhov in view of Berrian and Eickhoff teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
The embodiment of Kumakhov relied upon for the rejection of claim 1 above does not teach wherein different portions of the beam deflection unit have different curvatures.
However, in a separate cyclic accelerator embodiment depicted in fig. 15, Kumakhov further teaches wherein different portions of the beam deflection unit have different curvatures ([0060] states that “if the cyclic accelerator is used to produce synchrotron radiation, the said channel made as a ring may have variable curvature along its axial line” and [0168] states that “The channel of the closed accelerating chamber of the suggested cyclic accelerator, used as the source of synchrotron radiation, may be made with variable curvature, for instance, it can have an elliptic shape as shown on FIG. 15. This allows obtaining synchrotron radiation at different frequencies”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the modified embodiment of Kumakhov relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 above, wherein different portions of the beam deflection unit have different curvatures, as taught by the cyclic accelerator embodiment of Kumakhov in fig. 15, which would allow obtaining virtually any shape of the longitudinal axis of the channel in the form of a smooth line (and respective form of the trajectory of a beam of particles), without the necessity in special equipment for creation of magnetic fields curving trajectories of particles ([0014]).
Regarding claim 4, Kumakhov in view of Berrian and Eickhoff teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Kumakhov in view of Berrian fails to teach wherein: the beam deflection unit includes one or more acceleration cavities arranged in series, and curvatures of the one or more acceleration cavities from close to the electron gun outward decrease sequentially.
However, Eickhoff further teaches wherein: the beam deflection unit includes a plurality of acceleration cavities arranged in series, and curvatures of the plurality of acceleration cavities from close to the electron gun outward decrease sequentially (figs. 2 and 3, show the internal constitution of the magnets, also referred to as the high energy ion beam transport line in paragraph 23, that is cavities, through which the ion beam is accelerated. Each magnet 1-13 forms a different curvature as indicated above. While Eickhoff does not explicitly indicate that the curvatures decrease sequentially from close to the gun outward, Eickhoff proposes optimization of the bending radius of the magnets in paragraph 24 to achieve to reduce size, and hence sequentially decreasing the curvatures as recited would be within scope of Eickhoff’s apparatus as an optimization of the design of the system. See MPEP 2144.05(I)(A)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine optimization, to configure Kumakhov as modified by Berrian wherein: the beam deflection unit includes one or more acceleration cavities arranged in series, and curvatures of the one or more acceleration cavities from close to the electron gun outward decrease sequentially, as taught by Eickhoff, hence providing a position and intensity controlled and monitored heavy ion beam toward the patient treatment couch and improves the precision of operating said ion beam by providing a scanned pencil like ion beam to treat the cancer tissue and improves the safety of the gantry system by a stack of in-situ diagnostic elements (paragraph 6) and to optimally provide a desired reduced size.
Regarding claim 5, Kumakhov in view of Berrian and Eickhoff teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above.
Kumakhov in view of Berrian fails to teach wherein a deflection angle of an electron beam traversing one of the one or more acceleration cavities is from 0° to 15°.
However, Eickhoff further teaches wherein a deflection angle of an electron beam traversing one of the plurality of acceleration cavities is from 0° to 15° (magnets 1 and 2 of fig. 1 and paragraph 23 accelerate the ion beam along the axis 17 and therefore deflect the ion beam at an angle of 0°).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Kumakhov as modified by Berrian, wherein a deflection angle of an electron beam traversing one of the one or more acceleration cavities is from 0° to 15°, as taught by Eickhoff, hence providing a position and intensity controlled and monitored heavy ion beam toward the patient treatment couch and improves the precision of operating said ion beam by providing a scanned pencil like ion beam to treat the cancer tissue and improves the safety of the gantry system by a stack of in-situ diagnostic elements (paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 6, Kumakhov in view of Berrian and Eickhoff teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above.
Kumakhov in view of Berrian fails to teach wherein the one or more acceleration cavities include a first acceleration cavity, a second acceleration cavity, a third acceleration cavity, and a fourth acceleration cavity arranged in series from close to the electron gun outward.
However, Eickhoff further teaches wherein the plurality of acceleration cavities include a first acceleration cavity, a second acceleration cavity, a third acceleration cavity, and a fourth acceleration cavity arranged in series from close to the electron gun outward (see fig. 1 and paragraph 23 for the bending magnets 1-13 all of which include cavities that form the high energy ion beam transport line).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Kumakhov in view of Berrian wherein the plurality of acceleration cavities include a first acceleration cavity, a second acceleration cavity, a third acceleration cavity, and a fourth acceleration cavity arranged in series from close to the electron gun outward, as taught by Eickhoff, hence providing a position and intensity controlled and monitored heavy ion beam toward the patient treatment couch and improves the precision of operating said ion beam by providing a scanned pencil like ion beam to treat the cancer tissue and improves the safety of the gantry system by a stack of in-situ diagnostic elements (paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 7, Kumakhov in view of Berrian and Eickhoff teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above.
Kumakhov in view of Berrian fails to teach wherein: a first deflection angle of an electron beam traversing the first acceleration cavity is from 0° to 10°, a second deflection angle of the electron beam traversing the second acceleration cavity is from 0° to 15°, a third deflection angle of the electron beam traversing the third acceleration cavity is from 0° to 5°, and a fourth deflection angle of the electron beam traversing the fourth acceleration cavity is from 0° to 5°.
However, Eickhoff teaches wherein: a first deflection angle of an electron beam traversing the first acceleration cavity is from 0° to 10°, a second deflection angle of the electron beam traversing the second acceleration cavity is from 0° to 15°, a third deflection angle of the electron beam traversing the third acceleration cavity is from 0° to 5°, and a fourth deflection angle of the electron beam traversing the fourth acceleration cavity is from 0° to 5° (the magnets 1-13 have deflection angles of 0°, 45°, and 90°. Hence, while Eickhoff does not explicitly indicate that a first deflection angle of an electron beam traversing the first acceleration cavity is from 0° to 10°, a second deflection angle of the electron beam traversing the second acceleration cavity is from 0° to 15°, a third deflection angle of the electron beam traversing the third acceleration cavity is from 0° to 5°, and a fourth deflection angle of the electron beam traversing the fourth acceleration cavity is from 0° to 5°, Eickhoff proposes optimization of the bending radius of the magnets in paragraph 24 to achieve to reduce size, and hence adjusting the magnets such that a first deflection angle of an electron beam traversing the first acceleration cavity is from 0° to 10°, a second deflection angle of the electron beam traversing the second acceleration cavity is from 0° to 15°, a third deflection angle of the electron beam traversing the third acceleration cavity is from 0° to 5°, and a fourth deflection angle of the electron beam traversing the fourth acceleration cavity is from 0° to 5° as recited would be within scope of Eickhoff’s apparatus as an optimization of the design of the system. See MPEP 2144.05(I)(A). Moreover, the recited ranges of 0° to 15° overlap with the ranges of Eickhoff disclosed as ranging from 0° to 90°. MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization, before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Kumakhov as modified by Berrian, wherein: a first deflection angle of an electron beam traversing the first acceleration cavity is from 0° to 10°, a second deflection angle of the electron beam traversing the second acceleration cavity is from 0° to 15°, a third deflection angle of the electron beam traversing the third acceleration cavity is from 0° to 5°, and a fourth deflection angle of the electron beam traversing the fourth acceleration cavity is from 0° to 5°, as taught by Eickhoff, hence providing a position and intensity controlled and monitored heavy ion beam toward the patient treatment couch and improves the precision of operating said ion beam by providing a scanned pencil like ion beam to treat the cancer tissue and improves the safety of the gantry system by a stack of in-situ diagnostic elements (paragraph 6) and to optimally achieve a reduced size.
Regarding claim 32, Kumakhov in view of Berrian and Eickhoff teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Kumakhov further teaches wherein the beam deflection unit includes one or more acceleration cavities arranged along a curve (the abstract states that “The method and the device for implementing same are based on the use of a curved channel (1) for transporting particles, which is made from a material that is able to be electrically charged, and the formation of the same kind of charge on the inside surface of the channel wall as that of the particles”).
Claims 14 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumakhov, et al., US 20140098919 A1 in view of Muntean, F., US 20100301227 A1 and Amies, et al., US 20110213239 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Kumakhov teaches a radiation therapy device ([0031] Together with the other afore-mentioned cases of realization of the channel of the suggested device, all above-stated allows assessing the diversity of use of the said device in x-ray sources, systems for electronic, ion and radiation diagnosis and therapy, means for micro-probing of materials, and other applications), comprising: an electron gun ([0030] states “the device can be used to generate beams of charged particles and x-rays with controlled direction, or beams of fixed direction oriented as required”); and a beam deflection unit (bent channel 1 of fig. 1 and [0115]),
wherein the beam deflection unit is curved (the abstract states that “The method and the device for implementing same are based on the use of a curved channel (1) for transporting particles, which is made from a material that is able to be electrically charged, and the formation of the same kind of charge on the inside surface of the channel wall as that of the particles”).
Kumakhov does not teach the beam deflection unit including one or more acceleration cavities arranged in series, at least one of the one or more acceleration cavities being curved and configured to accelerate an electron beam emitted from the electron gun, wherein the electron beam in the at least one or more acceleration cavities is deflected and accelerated by a magnetic field and an electric field in the at least one of the one or more acceleration cavities.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Muntean teaches a curved ion guide 200 ([0032],[0061] and reproduced fig. 2 below) for mass spectrometry ([0027]), the beam deflection unit (ion guide 200 of [0061]) including one or more acceleration cavities arranged in series, at least one of the one or more acceleration cavities being curved ([0061] states that “the inner electrodes 206, 208 as well as the outer electrodes 202, 204 may be segmented. This implementation is not specifically illustrated but is readily ascertainable from FIG. 2. A progressively decreasing series of DC voltages U.sub.n may be applied on a segment-by-segment basis in the same manner as described above for FIG. 2”. The segmented electrodes of ion guide 200 create a cavity within which a curved ion flight path is realized [0036]-[0037]) and configured to accelerate an electron beam emitted from the electron gun, wherein the electron beam in the at least one or more acceleration cavities is deflected and accelerated by a magnetic field and an electric field in the at least one of the one or more acceleration cavities ([0083] states that “when both the inner electrodes 206, 208 and the outer electrodes 202, 204 are axially segmented as just described, additional DC voltages may be applied in such a way that adds an axial acceleration field to speed up the exiting of the product ions out from the ion guide. One way this could be implemented is by added an additional DC offset on each segment (same on all rods within a segment) such that this DC offset contributes to a potential difference from segment to segment in such way to accelerate ions toward exit of the collision cell”).
PNG
media_image2.png
574
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Kumakhov wherein the beam deflection unit includes one or more acceleration cavities arranged in series, at least one of the one or more acceleration cavities being curved and configured to accelerate an electron beam emitted from the electron gun, wherein the electron beam in the at least one or more acceleration cavities is deflected and accelerated by a magnetic field and an electric field in the at least one of the one or more acceleration cavities, as taught by Muntean, to provide more efficient charged ion beam delivery to target ([0006]-[0007]).
Kumakhov in view of Muntean fails to teach wherein the beam deflection unit is within a magnetic field generated by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, and the accelerated electron beam is deflected in the beam deflection unit by the magnetic field generated by the MRI device.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Amies teaches a combined radiation therapy and magnetic resonance unit comprising a magnetic resonance diagnosis part with an interior, which is limited in radial direction by a main magnet, and a radiation therapy part for the irradiation of an irradiation area within the interior, wherein at least parts of the radiation therapy part, which comprise a beam deflection arrangement, are arranged within the interior (see abstract and fig. 1). Amies teaches that the beam deflection unit is within a magnetic field generated by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device ([0035] and [0050] disclose that the radiation therapy part 5 is in an interior of the magnetic resonance part 3, which comprises the main magnet 10 that generates homogenous main magnetic field necessary for magnetic resonance examination according to [0036]), and the accelerated electron beam is deflected in the beam deflection unit by the magnetic field generated by the MRI device ([0062]-[0063] disclose that through the combination of the main magnetic field and the magnetic field of the deflection coils 17A',17B' an electron beam 13' is deflected in the desired direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure modified Kumakhov, wherein the beam deflection unit is within a magnetic field generated by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, and the accelerated electron beam is deflected in the beam deflection unit by the magnetic field generated by the MRI device, as taught by Amies, as such modification would provide a combined radiation therapy and magnetic resonance unit which with little constructional expense permits high-quality image monitoring by means of magnetic resonance during radiation therapy ([0010]).
Regarding claim 42, Kumakhov in view of Muntean and Amies teaches all the limitations of claim 14.
Kumakhov teaches wherein the beam deflection unit provides an electric field configured to accelerate the electron beam [0041].
Kumakhov in view of Muntean fail to teach that the accelerated electron beam is deflected by a magnetic field generated by a magnetic resonance imaging device, and the magnetic field and the electric field are distributed in a same region in the beam deflection unit.
However, Amies further teaches the accelerated electron beam is deflected by a magnetic field generated by a magnetic resonance imaging device unit, and the magnetic field and the electric field are distributed in a same region in the beam deflection, ([0035] and [0050] disclose that the radiation therapy part 5 is in an interior of the magnetic resonance part 3, which comprises the main magnet 10 that generates homogenous main magnetic field necessary for magnetic resonance examination according to [0036] and [0062]-[0063] disclose that through the combination of the main magnetic field and the magnetic field of the deflection coils 17A',17B' an electron beam 13' is deflected in the desired direction within the same imaging region).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure modified Kumakhov, wherein the accelerated electron beam is deflected by a magnetic field generated by a magnetic resonance imaging device, and the magnetic field and the electric field are distributed in a same region in the beam deflection unit, as taught by Amies, as such modification would provide a combined radiation therapy and magnetic resonance unit which with little constructional expense permits high-quality image monitoring by means of magnetic resonance during radiation therapy ([0010]).
Claims 17, 39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumakhov, et al., US 20140098919 A1 in view of Berrian, D., WO 02052609 A2 and Amies, et al., US 20110213239 A1.
Regarding claim 17, Kumakhov teaches a radiation therapy device ([0031] Together with the other afore-mentioned cases of realization of the channel of the suggested device, all above-stated allows assessing the diversity of use of the said device in x-ray sources, systems for electronic, ion and radiation diagnosis and therapy, means for micro-probing of materials, and other applications), comprising:
an electron gun ([0030] states “the device can be used to generate beams of charged particles and x-rays with controlled direction, or beams of fixed direction oriented as required”); and
a beam deflection unit (bent channel 1 of fig. 1 and [0115]) ,
wherein the beam deflection unit is curved ([0115] states that “Channel 1 of the device according to FIG. 1 is made as a tube with wall 2”).
Kumakhov does not teach that the beam deflection unit is configured to accelerate an electron beam emitted from the electron gun.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Berrian teaches apparatus and a system using same for directing and purifying an ion beamline (102) through an acceleration column (114) that provides both desired acceleration (or deceleration) and deflection to filter or purify the ion beam (see abstract). Berrian teaches that the column 114 is a combined acceleration and deflection column in an ion implanter system for receiving a directed scanned ion beam defining an initial plane at entry to the column (page 5, lines 19-21. Also see reproduced fig. 1 below) and hence teaching that the beam deflection unit is configured to accelerate an electron beam emitted from the electron gun.
PNG
media_image1.png
274
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Kumakhov wherein the beam deflection unit is configured to accelerate an electron beam emitted from the electron gun, as taught by Berrian, to provide an improved structure for beam acceleration and control that permits flexible control of the energy of the beamline while reducing energy contamination of the beam and while maintaining a short beam length (page 3, lines 13-15).
Kumakhov in view of Berrian fails to teach wherein the beam deflection unit is within a magnetic field generated by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, and the accelerated electron beam is deflected in the beam deflection unit by the magnetic field generated by the MRI device.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Amies teaches a combined radiation therapy and magnetic resonance unit comprising a magnetic resonance diagnosis part with an interior, which is limited in radial direction by a main magnet, and a radiation therapy part for the irradiation of an irradiation area within the interior, wherein at least parts of the radiation therapy part, which comprise a beam deflection arrangement, are arranged within the interior (see abstract and fig. 1). Amies teaches that the beam deflection unit is within a magnetic field generated by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device ([0035] and [0050] disclose that the radiation therapy part 5 is in an interior of the magnetic resonance part 3, which comprises the main magnet 10 that generates homogenous main magnetic field necessary for magnetic resonance examination according to [0036]), and the accelerated electron beam is deflected in the beam deflection unit by the magnetic field generated by the MRI device ([0062]-[0063] disclose that through the combination of the main magnetic field and the magnetic field of the deflection coils 17A',17B' an electron beam 13' is deflected in the desired direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure modified Kumakhov, wherein the beam deflection unit is within a magnetic field generated by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, and the accelerated electron beam is deflected in the beam deflection unit by the magnetic field generated by the MRI device, as taught by Amies, as such modification would provide a combined radiation therapy and magnetic resonance unit which with little constructional expense permits high-quality image monitoring by means of magnetic resonance during radiation therapy ([0010]).
Regarding claim 39, Kumakhov in view of Berrian and Amies teaches all the limitations of claim 17 above.
Kumakhov in view of Berrian does not teach wherein the magnetic field is a main magnetic field of the MRI device.
However, Amies further teaches wherein the magnetic field is a main magnetic field of the MRI device [0034]-[0035].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure modified Kumakhov, wherein the magnetic field is a main magnetic field of the MRI device, as taught by Amies, as such modification would provide a combined radiation therapy and magnetic resonance unit which with little constructional expense permits high-quality image monitoring by means of magnetic resonance during radiation therapy ([0010]).
Regarding claim 41, Kumakhov in view of Berrian and Amies teaches all the limitations of claim 17 above.
Kumakhov in view of Berrian fails to teach wherein a direction of the magnetic field is perpendicular to a plane where a center line of the beam deflection unit is located.
However, Amies further teaches wherein a direction of the magnetic field is perpendicular to a plane where a center line of the beam deflection unit is located [0071].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure modified Kumakhov, wherein a direction of the magnetic field is perpendicular to a plane where a center line of the beam deflection unit is located, as taught by Amies, as such modification would provide a combined radiation therapy and magnetic resonance unit which with little constructional expense permits high-quality image monitoring by means of magnetic resonance during radiation therapy ([0010]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumakhov in view of Berrian, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heid, et al., US 20130197351 A1.
Regarding claim 29, Kumakhov in view of Berrian teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Kumakhov in view of Berrian does not teach wherein the beam deflection unit is within a magnetic field generated by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, and the accelerated electron beam in the beam deflection unit is affected by the magnetic field.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Heid further teaches wherein the beam deflection unit is within a magnetic field generated by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device (paragraph 10 discloses that “FIG. 1 shows a schematic representation (not to scale) of a conventional combined radiation therapy and magnetic resonance unit 1 as described in US2008/0208036 with a magnetic resonance diagnosis part 3 and a radiation therapy part 5”, and paragraph 15 states that “The electron accelerator 9 of the radiation therapy part 5 comprises an electron source 11, for example a tungsten cathode, which generates an electron beam 13, which is accelerated by the electron accelerator 9 preferably pulsed parallel to the main magnetic field of the main magnet 10”), and the accelerated electron beam in the beam deflection unit is affected by the magnetic field (paragraph 18 states “To be able to deflect the pulsed electron beam 13 in a small space, the beam deflection arrangement 17 must generate strong magnetic fields”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Kumakhov as modified by Berrian, wherein the beam deflection unit is within a magnetic field generated by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, and the accelerated electron beam in the beam deflection unit is affected by the magnetic field, as taught by Heid, to provide an improved deflection of the beam within a combined radiation therapy and magnetic resonance unit ([0025],[0037]).
Claims 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumakhov in view of Muntean and Amies, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Heid, et al., US 20130197351 A1 and Kruip, M., US 20140135615 A1.
Regarding claim 33, Kumakhov in view of Muntean and Amies teaches all the limitations of claim 14.
Kumakhov in view of Muntean fails to teach wherein the radiation therapy device includes a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) component including: a main magnet body including a plurality of main magnetic field coils coaxially arranged along an axis; and a plurality of shielding coils including a first shielding coil, a second shielding coil and one or more shielding coil group groups arranged coaxially along the axis wherein the one or more shielding coil groups are located between the first shielding coil and the second shielding coil and/or a radius of the first coil is greater than a radius of the second coil.
Amies further teaches wherein the radiation therapy device includes a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) component [0034] including: a main magnet body including a plurality of main magnetic field coils coaxially arranged along an axis (see fig. 1 and [0034]-[0035] for the main magnet 10 and the coaxial arrangement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure modified Kumakhov, wherein the radiation therapy device includes a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) component, as taught by Amies, as such modification would provide a combined radiation therapy and magnetic resonance unit which with little constructional expense permits high-quality image monitoring by means of magnetic resonance during radiation therapy ([0010]).
Kumakhov in view of Muntean and Amies fails to teach a plurality of shielding coils including a first shielding coil, a second shielding coil and one or more shielding coil group groups arranged coaxially along the axis wherein the one or more shielding coil groups are located between the first shielding coil and the second shielding coil and/or a radius of the first coil is greater than a radius of the second coil
However, Heid further teaches a plurality of shielding coils including a first shielding coil, a second shielding coil and one or more shielding coil group groups arranged coaxially along the axis (the shield 27 which completely enclose the gradient coils 20 (paragraph 13), and hence paragraph 11 stating that “both the main magnet 10 and the partial gradient coils 21A, 21B are essentially shaped like a hollow cylinder and are arranged coaxially around the horizontal axis 15” also means that the shield 27 is coaxially arranged along an axis of the annular cryostat formed by the main magnet 10 and the partial gradient coils),
wherein the one or more shielding coil groups are located between the first shielding coil (a first shield 27 for gradient coil 21A in paragraph 13) and the second shielding coil(a second shield for gradient coil 21B in paragraph 13),
and/or a radius of the first coil is greater than a radius of the second coil (the shield 27 is taught to completely surround the gradient coils 20, hence at least includes portions that are arranged at a larger radius from the axis, 15 of fig. 1, than the coils 20. This interpretation is consistent with at least figs. 4-6 of the instant application which depicts the shields distributed in different relative positions within the cryostat).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Kumakhov as modified by Muntean, a plurality of shielding coils including a first shielding coil, a second shielding coil and one or more shielding coil group groups arranged coaxially along the axis wherein the one or more shielding coil groups are located between the first shielding coil and the second shielding coil and/or a radius of the first coil is greater than a radius of the second coil, as taught by Heid, to provide an improved deflection of the beam within a combined radiation therapy and magnetic resonance unit ([0025],[0037]).
Kumakhov in view of Muntean, Amies and Heid fails to teach each of the one or more shielding coil groups includes a first coil and a second coil, a direction of a current within the first coil is opposite to a direction of a current within the second coil.
However, Kruip further teaches each of the one or more shielding coil groups includes a first coil and a second coil, a direction of a current within the first coil is opposite to a direction of a current within the second coil (see fig. 4 for the shielding coil arrangement 102, where all coil groups are arranged along an axis that passes through the center of the annular coils 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Kumakhov as modified by Muntean, Amies and Heid wherein each of the one or more shielding coil groups includes a first coil and a second coil, a direction of a current within the first coil is opposite to a direction of a current within the second coil, as taught by Kruip, as such shield arrangement would allow for reducing the magnitude of stray a stray field around the MRI system, while also reducing spacing required for installing the multimodal therapy and MRI system (paragraph 30).
PNG
media_image3.png
256
314
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 35, Kumakhov in view of Muntean, Amies, Heid, and Kruip teaches all the limitations of claim 33 above.
Kumakhov in view of Muntean, Amies and Heid does not teach wherein the first coil is concentric with the second coil.
However, Kruip further teaches wherein the first coil is concentric with the second coil (see reproduced fig. 4 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Kumakhov as modified by Muntean, Amies and Heid wherein the first coil is concentric with the second coil, as taught by Kruip, as such shield arrangement would allow for reducing the magnitude of stray a stray field around the MRI system, while also reducing spacing required for installing the multimodal therapy and MRI system (paragraph 30).
Claims 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumakhov in view of Muntean, Amies, Heid and Kruip, as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Shvartsman, et al., US 20110012593 A1.
Regarding claim 34, Kumakhov in view of Muntean, Amies, Heid and Kruip teaches all the limitations of claim 33 above.
Kumakhov in view of Muntean, Amies Heid and Kruip does not teach wherein the radiation therapy device includes a drum and a base, the drum has a shape of an annulus, is disposed around the main magnetic body, and intersects the main magnetic body at a central region of the main magnetic body along an axis of a bore of the MRI component.
However, Shvartsman teaches a radiation therapy system comprises a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system combined with an irradiation system, which can include one or more linear accelerators (linacs) that can emit respective radiation beams suitable for radiation therapy (see abstract) wherein the radiation therapy device includes a drum and a base, the drum has a shape of an annulus, is disposed around the main magnetic body, and intersects the main magnetic body at a central region of the main magnetic body along an axis of a bore of the MRI component (see reproduced fig. 1B below, and paragraphs 38 and 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Heid, as modified by Muntean, Amies, Heid and Kruip, wherein the radiation therapy device includes a drum and a base, the drum has a shape of an annulus, is disposed around the main magnetic body, and intersects the main magnetic body at a central region of the main magnetic body along an axis of a bore of the MRI component, as taught by Shvartsman, hence reducing RF interference (paragraph 8) and in a more compact combined radiotherapy imaging apparatus (paragraphs 9-10).
Regarding claim 36, Kumakhov in view of Muntean, Amies, Heid and Kruip teaches all the limitations of claim 33 above.
Kumakhov in view of Muntean, Amies, Heid, and Kruip does not teach wherein the one or more shielding coil group groups include a first coil group and a second coil group, and the first coil group and the second coil group are located on two sides of an annular recess for accommodating at least a portion of the radiation therapy device along the axis.
However, Shvartsman further teaches wherein the one or more shielding coil group groups include a first coil group and a second coil group (shielding structures 120 and 122 of paragraph 58), and the first coil group and the second coil group are located on two sides of an annular recess for accommodating at least a portion of the radiation therapy device along the axis (see fig. 1E and paragraph 58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Kumakhov as modified by Muntean, Amies, Heid, and Kruip wherein the one or more shielding coil group groups include a first coil group and a second coil group, and the first coil group and the second coil group are located on two sides of an annular recess for accommodating at least a portion of the radiation therapy device along the axis, as taught by Shvartsman, hence reducing RF interference (paragraph 8) and in a more compact combined radiotherapy imaging apparatus (paragraphs 9-10).
Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumakhov in view of Berrian and Amies, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Heid and Shvartsman.
Regarding claim 37, Kumakhov in view of Berrian and Amies teaches all the limitations of claim 17 above.
Kumakhov in view of Berrian does not teach wherein the radiation therapy device includes a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) component, including: a plurality of main magnetic coils; a plurality of shielding magnetic coils; and an annular cryostat in which the plurality of main magnetic coils, and the plurality of shielding magnetic coils are coaxially arranged along an axis of the annular cryostat, the annular cryostat including at least one outer wall and at least one inner wall coaxial around the axis, the annular cryostat including an annular recess between the at least one outer wall and the at least one inner wall.
However, Heid further teaches wherein the radiation therapy device includes a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) component (paragraph 10 discloses that “FIG. 1 shows a schematic representation (not to scale) of a conventional combined radiation therapy and magnetic resonance unit 1 as described in US2008/0208036 with a magnetic resonance diagnosis part 3 and a radiation therapy part 5”, and paragraph 15 states that “The electron accelerator 9 of the radiation therapy part 5 comprises an electron source 11, for example a tungsten cathode, which generates an electron beam 13, which is accelerated by the electron accelerator 9 preferably pulsed parallel to the main magnetic field of the main magnet 10”) including:
a plurality of main magnetic coils (primary magnetic coils 121 of paragraph 26);
a plurality of shielding magnetic coils (shields 27 of paragraph 13); and
an annular cryostat in which the plurality of main magnetic coils (paragraph 27 states “The gradient coil system 120 or at least the primary coils 121 as shown in the example in FIG. 1 can be divided into two partial gradient coils 121A, 121B and arranged in such a way that at least parts of the radiation therapy part 105 can move in an annular space between the parts in a rotation of the radiation therapy part 105 around the axis of the main magnetic field” and paragraph 11 states that “both the main magnet 10 and the partial gradient coils 21A, 21B are essentially shaped like a hollow cylinder and are arranged coaxially around the horizontal axis 15. The inner shell of the main magnet 10 limits in radial direction (facing away vertically from the axis 15) a cylinder-shaped interior 7, in which the radiation therapy part 5, the gradient system, high-frequency coils 14 and the patient bed 6 are arranged”. NB: fig. 1 is a cross-sectional view of the hollow cylindrical arrangement formed by the main magnet and the gradient coils 20) and the plurality of shielding magnetic coils are coaxially arranged along an axis of the annular cryostat (the shield 27 which completely enclose the gradient coils 20 (paragraph 13), and hence paragraph 11 stating that “both the main magnet 10 and the partial gradient coils 21A, 21B are essentially shaped like a hollow cylinder and are arranged coaxially around the horizontal axis 15” also means that the shield 27 is coaxially arranged along an axis of the annular cryostat formed by the main magnet 10 and the partial gradient coils),
the annular cryostat including at least one outer wall and at least one inner wall coaxial around the axis, the annular cryostat including an annular recess between the at least one outer wall and the at least one inner wall(paragraph 11 describes a hollow cylinder formed by the main magnet 10 and the partial gradient coils 21A, 21B, with a cylinder-shaped interior 7. The main magnet 10 forms the outer wall while the partial gradient coils 21A, 21B form an inner wall, and the interior 7 is the annular recess. Paragraph 26 also discloses that the radiation therapy part 105 is located in a free space formed between primary coils 121 and secondary coils 122).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Kumakhov as modified by Berrian, wherein the radiation therapy device includes a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) component, including: a plurality of main magnetic coils; a plurality of shielding magnetic coils; and an annular cryostat in which the plurality of main magnetic coils, and the plurality of shielding magnetic coils are coaxially arranged along an axis of the annular cryostat, the annular cryostat including at least one outer wall and at least one inner wall coaxial around the axis, the annular cryostat including an annular recess between the at least one outer wall and the at least one inner wall, as taught by Heid, to provide an improved deflection of the beam within a combined radiation therapy and magnetic resonance unit ([0025],[0037]).
Kumakhov in view of Berrian and Heid fails to teach a first shielding structure configured to provide magnetic shielding for the electron gun and the beam deflection unit; and at least one second shielding structure substantially identical to the first shielding structure, wherein the first shielding structure and the at least one second shielding structure are respectively located at selected circumferential locations within the annular recess.
However, Shvartsman teaches a radiation therapy system comprises a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system combined with an irradiation system, which can include one or more linear accelerators (linacs) that can emit respective radiation beams suitable for radiation therapy (see abstract), including a gantry 106 comprising a split magnet system that includes a pair of magnets 112a and 112b (see figs. 1A-1D) forming an annular cryostat, and a first shielding structure (RF shielding 118 of paragraph 40 and fig. 1E) configured to provide magnetic shielding for the electron gun and the beam deflection unit (paragraph 46) ; and at least one second shielding structure (RF shielding 120 of paragraph 40) substantially identical to the first shielding structure (paragraph 40 indicates that RF shielding 120 and 118 are both cylindrical and hence substantially identical), wherein the first shielding structure and the at least one second shielding structure are respectively located at selected circumferential locations within the annular recess (fig. 4C demonstrates that 118 and 120 surround the LINAC 107 concentrically. Also see paragraph 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Kumakhov as modified by Berrian and Heid with a first shielding structure configured to provide magnetic shielding for the electron gun and the beam deflection unit; and at least one second shielding structure substantially identical to the first shielding structure, wherein the first shielding structure and the at least one second shielding structure are respectively located at selected circumferential locations within the annular recess, as taught by Shvartsman, hence reducing RF interference (paragraph 8) and in a more compact combined radiotherapy imaging apparats (paragraphs 9-10).
Regarding claim 38, Kumakhov in view of Berrian and Amies teaches all the limitations of claim 17 above.
Kumakhov in view of Berrian and Amies fails to teach wherein the first shielding structure includes a first plate located on one side of the beam deflection unit along a circumferential direction of the annular recess and a second plate located on an opposite side of the beam deflection unit along the circumferential direction of the annular recess, the first plate and the second plate are symmetrical to each other with respect to the axis.
However, Shvartsman further teaches wherein the first shielding structure includes a first plate located on one side of the beam deflection unit along a circumferential direction of the annular recess and a second plate located on an opposite side of the beam deflection unit along the circumferential direction of the annular recess, the first plate and the second plate is symmetrical to each other with respect to the axis (paragraph 50 states that “The current linacs are configured to accommodate an electron beam that is at least substantially straight; if the beam were bent only a small amount by the field, the anticipated beam path can be calculated and the accelerating plates can be altered to accommodate the beam bending”. Also see reproduced fig. 1E below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Kumakhov as modified by Berrian and Amies wherein the first shielding structure includes a first plate located on one side of the beam deflection unit along a circumferential direction of the annular recess and a second plate located on an opposite side of the beam deflection unit along the circumferential direction of the annular recess, the first plate and the second plate is symmetrical to each other with respect to the axis, as taught by Shvartsman, hence reducing RF interference (paragraph 8) and in a more compact combined radiotherapy imaging apparats (paragraphs 9-10).
PNG
media_image4.png
746
512
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumakhov in view of Berrian and Eickhoff, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kruip, M., US 20140135615 A1.
Regarding claim 40, Kumakhov in view of Berrian and Eickhoff teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Kumakhov in view of Berrian fails to teach wherein the beam deflection unit includes one or more acceleration cavities.
However, Eickhoff further teaches wherein the beam deflection unit includes one or more acceleration cavities (figs. 2 and 3, show the internal constitution of the magnets, also referred to as the high energy ion beam transport line in paragraph 23, that is cavities, through which the ion beam is accelerated. Each magnet 1-13 forms a different curvature as indicated above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to configure Kumakhov as modified by Berrian wherein the beam deflection unit includes one or more acceleration cavities, as taught by Eickhoff, hence providing a position and intensity controlled and monitored heavy ion beam toward the patient treatment couch and improves the precision of operating said ion beam by providing a scanned pencil like ion beam to treat the cancer tissue and improves the safety of the gantry system by a stack of in-situ diagnostic elements (paragraph 6) and to optimally provide a desired reduced size.
Kumakhov in view of Berrian and Eickhoff fails to teach wherein the electron gun includes a hot cathode, , the hot cathode is disposed in or connected with an acceleration cavity, among the one or more acceleration cavities, located at an end close to the electron gun.
However, Kruip further taches wherein the electron gun includes a hot cathode, and the hot cathode is disposed in or connected with an acceleration cavity, among the one or more acceleration cavities, located at an end close to the electron gun (see fig. 2 and [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Kumakhov as modified by Muntean, Amies and Heid wherein the electron gun includes a hot cathode, , the hot cathode is disposed in or connected with an acceleration cavity, among the one or more acceleration cavities, located at an end close to the electron gun, as taught by Kruip, as such shield arrangement would allow for reducing the magnitude of stray a stray field around the MRI system, while also reducing spacing required for installing the multimodal therapy and MRI system (paragraph 30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Farouk A Bruce whose telephone number is (408)918-7603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/FAROUK A BRUCE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights