DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on December 23th, 2025. Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12 are pending.
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 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 the 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 the 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(s) uses the generic placeholder “unit” 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(s) is/are: “a charged particle beam generation unit configured to generate a charged particle beam” in claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In particular, the corresponding structure is an accelerator.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “step,” 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(s) use functional language without reciting sufficient acts to perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “(step of) determin(ing) … whether to skip the irradiation of the charged particle beam at a first one of the a plurality of spots that have subsequently irradiated with the charged particle beam,” in claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding actions described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In particular, the corresponding method step is step S321 on applicant’s flow charts, which checks if the target dose is greater than the current dose.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting actions to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient actions to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “step,” 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(s) use functional language without reciting sufficient acts to perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “(step of) determin(ing) … whether the irradiation dose measured is normal or abnormal” in claim 3-4, 7-8, and 11-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding actions described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In particular, the corresponding method step is S317 on applicant’s flow charts, which checks if the actual irradiation dose is within a set range.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting actions to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient actions to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0102856 (Matsuda et al.) in view of US 2012/0238795 (Bert et al.).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuda et al. discloses a particle beam irradiation system comprising:
a charged particle beam generation unit configured to generate a charged particle beam (fig. 1, element 1);
an irradiation unit including a scanning electromagnet configured to provide spot-by-spot irradiation at an object to be irradiated with the charged particle beam generated by the charged particle beam generation unit, the spot-by-spot irradiation performed by sequentially and consecutively providing irradiation of the charged particle beam at a plurality of spots in the object (fig. 1, 6 & 12, element 5), an irradiation dose monitor configured to measure an accumulated irradiation dose of the charged particle beam at the plurality of spots (fig. 1, 6, & 12, element 6A), and a counter that counts pulse signals output from the irradiation dose monitor (fig. 6, element 41c & fig. 12, element 41a);
a scanning controller configured to generate a signal to start or stop the irradiation of the charged particle beam provided by the irradiation unit at the object to be irradiated (multiple figures, element 41 or 41A); and
an accelerator and transport system controller configured, on receipt of the signal to start or stop the irradiation of the charged particle beam outputted from the scanning controller, to start or stop emission of the charged particle beam from the charged particle beam generation unit to the irradiation unit (multiple figures, element 40),
wherein the scanning controller controls the accelerator and transport system controller to consecutively provide the irradiation of the charged particle beam at the plurality of spots (fig. 5, 7, & 13),
wherein the scanning controller outputs to the accelerator and transport system controller the signal to stop the irradiation of the charged particle beam upon determining a cumulative total of the irradiation dose of the charged particle beam consecutively provided at each of the plurality of spots, the irradiation dose measured by the irradiation dose monitor, has reached a predetermined irradiation dose (“To achieve the above object, the present invention is featured in that, when the sum of a first dose irradiated after output of a beam extraction stop signal with respect to a first exposure position preceding a second exposure position and a second dose irradiated to the second exposure position reaches a setting dose, the beam extraction stop signal is outputted to stop the extraction of the charged particle beam irradiated to the second exposure position.” P 8),
wherein subsequent to the scanning controller outputting the signal to stop the irradiation of the charged particle beam: a delay timer is started to count up to a predetermined time, the charged particle beam is emitted for a period of time and the irradiation dose monitor continues to measure the accumulated irradiation dose for the period of time (fig. 7 & 13, step 314), and upon reaching the predetermined time, read a value of the counter (fig. 7 & 13, step 316).
Matsuda et al. does not disclose wherein the scanning controller determines, in accordance with the read value of the counter indicating the cumulative total of the irradiation dose measured by the irradiation dose monitor from when the signal to stop the irradiation is outputted, whether to skip the irradiation of the charged particle beam at a first one of a plurality of spots that are to be consecutively irradiated subsequent to the plurality of spots that have been consecutively irradiated with the charged particle beam, so as to control the accelerator and transport system controller.
Bert et al. discloses a particle beam irradiation system including a scanning controller that determines, in accordance with a value indicating the cumulative total of the irradiation dose measured by the irradiation dose monitor, whether to skip the irradiation of the charged particle beam at a first one of a plurality of spots that are to be consecutively irradiated subsequent to the plurality of spots that have been consecutively irradiated with the charged particle beam, so as to control the accelerator and transport system controller (“It may happen that, during the irradiation of the previous k-th grid positions, the i-th grid position already received a dose change which is already greater than or equal to the reference dose defined for the i-th grid position in the irradiation plan. In this case, the irradiation of the i-th grid position is either skipped or carried out with a minimum dose determined prior to the irradiation.” P 58).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the particle beam irradiation system of Matsuda et al. to include the step of determining whether to skip one of the spot doses from Bert et al, to avoid overdosing, as disclosed in Bert et al. (“This reduces the occurrence of overdosages.” P 139).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuda discloses control method for a particle beam irradiation system including a charged particle beam generation unit configured to generate a charged particle beam, an irradiation unit configured to consecutively provide irradiation of the charged particle beam at a plurality of spots in an object to be irradiated, the irradiation unit including an irradiation dose monitor to measure an accumulated irradiation dose of the charged particle beam at the plurality of spots, a scanning controller configured to output a signal to start or stop the irradiation of the charged particle beam, and an accelerator and transport system controller configured, based on the signal outputted from the scanning controller, to start or stop the irradiation of the charged particle beam,
the control method, performed by the scanning controller, comprising:
counting, by a counter, that counts pulse signals output from the irradiation dose monitor (“The counter 41c counts the number of pulses outputted from the dose monitor 6A to measure the dose.” P 54);
outputting to the accelerator and transport system controller the signal to stop the irradiation of the charged particle beam when a cumulative total of the irradiation dose of the charged particle beam consecutively provided at each of the plurality of spots, the irradiation dose measured by the irradiation dose monitor, reaches a predetermined irradiation dose (“When the value counted based on the input pulses from the pulse input section 41ca reaches or exceeds a setting value of the target count number set in step 302 (step 309), the counter 41c outputs a trigger signal from the setting-value comparison result output section 41cf in step 310.” P 59),
wherein subsequent to the scanning controller outputting the signal to stop the irradiation of the charged particle beam: a delay timer is started to count up to a predetermined time, the charged particle beam is emitted for a period of time and the irradiation dose monitor continues to measure the accumulated irradiation dose for the period of time (fig. 7 & 13, step 314), and upon reaching the predetermined time, read a value of the counter (fig. 7 & 13, step 316).
Matsuda et al. does not disclose determining, in accordance with the read value of the counter indicating the cumulative total of the irradiation dose measured by the irradiation dose monitor from when the signal to stop the irradiation is outputted, whether to skip the irradiation of the charged particle beam at a first one of a plurality of spots that are to be consecutively irradiated subsequent to the plurality of spots that have been consecutively irradiated with the charged particle beam, so as to control the accelerator and transport system controller
Bert et al. discloses a control method for a particle beam irradiation system including determining, in accordance with a value indicating the cumulative total of the irradiation dose measured by the irradiation dose monitor, whether to skip the irradiation of the charged particle beam at a first one of a plurality of spots that are to be consecutively irradiated subsequent to the plurality of spots that have been consecutively irradiated with the charged particle beam, so as to control the accelerator and transport system controller (“It may happen that, during the irradiation of the previous k-th grid positions, the i-th grid position already received a dose change which is already greater than or equal to the reference dose defined for the i-th grid position in the irradiation plan. In this case, the irradiation of the i-th grid position is either skipped or carried out with a minimum dose determined prior to the irradiation.” P 58).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the control method of Matsuda et al. to include the step of determining whether to skip one of the spot doses from Bert et al, to avoid overdosing, as disclosed in Bert et al. (“This reduces the occurrence of overdosages.” P 139).
Regarding claim 10 Matsuda et al. discloses a ontrol device for a particle beam irradiation system including a charged particle beam generation unit configured to generate a charged particle beam, an irradiation unit configured to consecutively provide irradiation of the charged particle beam generated by the charged particle beam generation unit at a plurality of spots in an object to be irradiated, and an irradiation dose monitor configured to monitor and measure an accumulated irradiation dose of the charged particle beam provided by the irradiation unit at the plurality of spots, and a counter that counts pulse signals output from the irradiation dose monitor,
the control device comprising:
a scanning controller configured to generate a signal to start or stop the irradiation of the charged particle beam provided by the irradiation unit at the object to be irradiated (multiple figures, element 41); and
an accelerator and transport system controller configured, on receipt of the signal to stop the irradiation of the charged particle beam outputted from the scanning controller, to start or stop emission of the charged particle beam from the charged particle beam generation unit to the irradiation unit (multiple figures, element 40),
wherein the scanning controller outputs to the accelerator and transport system controller the signal to start or stop the irradiation of the charged particle beam upon determining the cumulative total of the irradiation dose of the charged particle beam consecutively provided at each of the plurality of spots, the irradiation dose measured by the irradiation dose monitor, has reached a predetermined irradiation dose (“When the value counted based on the input pulses from the pulse input section 41ca reaches or exceeds a setting value of the target count number set in step 302 (step 309), the counter 41c outputs a trigger signal from the setting-value comparison result output section 41cf in step 310.” P 59),
wherein subsequent to the scanning controller outputting the signal to stop the irradiation of the charged particle beam: a delay timer is started to count up to a predetermined time, the charged particle beam is emitted for a period of time and the irradiation dose monitor continues to measure the accumulated irradiation dose for the period of time (fig. 7 & 13, step 314), and upon reaching the predetermined time, read a value of the counter (fig. 7 & 13, step 316).
Matsuda et al. does not disclose wherein the scanning controller determines, in accordance with the read value of the counter indicating the cumulative total of the irradiation dose measured by the irradiation dose monitor from when the signal to stop the irradiation is outputted, whether to skip the irradiation of the charged particle beam at a first one of a plurality of spots that are to be consecutively irradiated subsequent to the plurality of spots that have been consecutively irradiated with the charged particle beam, so as to control the accelerator and transport system controller
Bert et al. discloses a control device for a particle beam irradiation system including determining, in accordance with a value indicating the cumulative total of the irradiation dose measured by the irradiation dose monitor, whether to skip the irradiation of the charged particle beam at a first one of a plurality of spots that are to be consecutively irradiated subsequent to the plurality of spots that have been consecutively irradiated with the charged particle beam, so as to control the accelerator and transport system controller (“It may happen that, during the irradiation of the previous k-th grid positions, the i-th grid position already received a dose change which is already greater than or equal to the reference dose defined for the i-th grid position in the irradiation plan. In this case, the irradiation of the i-th grid position is either skipped or carried out with a minimum dose determined prior to the irradiation.” P 58).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the control device of Matsuda et al. to include the step of determining whether to skip one of the spot doses from Bert et al, to avoid overdosing, as disclosed in Bert et al. (“This reduces the occurrence of overdosages.” P 139).
Regarding claims 3, 7, and 11, Matsuda et al. in view of Bert et al. disclose the invention of the part claims, wherein the scanning controller determines whether the irradiation dose measured is normal or abnormal (fig. 7 & 13, step 317).
Matsuda in view of Bert does not disclose checking whether the irradiation dose measured by the irradiation dose monitor at each of the plurality of spots that has been irradiated with the charged particle beam is greater than an irradiation dose previously set before checking whether the measured dose is abnormal, and skip checking for abnormalities if not. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to skip checking for abnormalities in the case of skipped irradiations, which would result in false errors.
Regarding claims 4, 8, and 12, Matsuda et al. in view of Bert et al. disclose the invention of the part claims, wherein the scanning controller compares a cumulative total of the irradiation dose measured at each of the plurality of spots, where the scanning controller has skipped determining whether the irradiation dose measured is normal or abnormal, with a threshold value previously set, and wherein, upon determining the cumulative total of the irradiation dose is greater than the threshold value, an action is controlled (fig. 7 & 13, step 318, wherein “The central controller 100 receives the abnormality signal and executes predetermined processing in the event of the abnormality.” P 67)
Matsuda et al. does not specify whether the pre-determined processing takes the form of suspending the irradiation of the charged particle beam. However, this would be a standard response to finding an abnormality, and would be obvious because it prevents accidental over and underdoses caused by an abnormally functioning system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881