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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 19 May 2026, with respect to the claims, the drawings, the abstract, and the specification have been entered. Therefore, the objections to the drawings, the abstract, and the specification; and the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 19 May 2026, have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the objections to the drawings, the abstract, and the specification; and the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 uses reference character (Axi(j+1)) to represent both “the cross-sectional area” (line 9) and “the degrading unit” (lines 9-10).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, the limitation “wherein one or more structures formed by two or more degrading subunits aligned in series along the corresponding beam axis (Xi)” is unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “wherein one or more structures formed by two or more degrading subunits aligned in series along the corresponding beam axis (Xi)” to mean “wherein one or more structures are formed by two or more degrading subunits aligned in series along the corresponding beam axis (Xi)”.
Regarding claim 7, “a generalized cylindrical geometry of cross-sectional areas (Aij)”) should read “a generalized cylindrical geometry of cross-sectional areas (Ai[[j]])”, based on the disclosure of reference characters Aij in claim 1 and Ai in claim 5.
Claim 8 uses reference character (Axi(j-1)) to represent both “the cross sectional area” (line 10) and “the degrading unit” (line 10).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the set of combined energy degrading units.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the set of combined energy degrading units” to mean “the set of combined subunits.”
Claims 2-10 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “the specific doses” and “the specific locations.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the specific doses” to mean “the
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the beam axis (Xi).” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the beam axis (Xi)” to mean “the corresponding beam axis (Xi).”
Claims 6 and 9-10 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the following limitations for which there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim:
“at least two subunits” (line 2);
“the given degrading unit (11.ij)” (line 9);
“the degrading unit (Axi(j+1)) circumscribed within the given degrading unit” (lines 9-10).
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted these limitations as follows:
“at least two degrading subunits” (line 2);
“the given degrading subunit (11.ij)” (line 9);
“the degrading subunit (Axi(j+1)) circumscribed within the given degrading subunit” (lines 9-10).
Furthermore, the term “optionally” renders claim 6 indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “optionally; one or more individual degrading subunits, are arranged side-by-side within the base area (Abi)” to mean “
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the beam axis (Xi).” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the beam axis (Xi)” to mean “the corresponding beam axis (Xi).”
Claim 8 is rejected because of its dependence on claim 7.
Claim 8 recites the following limitations for which there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim:
“at least two subunits” (line 2);
“the given degrading unit” (lines 9-10, 11);
“the degrading unit (Axi(j-1))” (line 10).
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted these limitations as follows:
“at least two degrading subunits” (line 2);
“the given degrading subunit” (lines 9-10, 11);
“the degrading subunit (Axi(j-1))” (line 10).
Furthermore, the terms “preferably” and “optionally” render claim 8 indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “preferably coaxially” to mean “
Regarding claim 9, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “to vary, preferably decrease the value” to mean “to
Claim 10 is rejected because of its dependence on claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “preferably, the lengths” to mean “
The claims inconsistently define the lengths of the degrading subunits as “Lij” (claims 1, 10; e.g., “a degrading subunit…of generatrixes of length (Lij)”) and “Lsij” (claims 5-8; e.g., “degrading subunits…extending along the corresponding beam axis…over lengths (Lsij)”), where “Lij” is set equal to Bi ± Lsij in claims 5 and 7. This inconsistency renders the claims indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 is allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach “determining the base area (Aij) of the base of a degrading subunit by equating a normalized beam weight (ωij /
Σ
j
ωij) with a ratio of (a) an integral of a fluence (Fi(y,z)) over the degrading subunit base area (Aij) to (b) an integral over a base area (Abi) of the energy degrading unit, as generally reflected by the following equation:
ω
i
j
Σ
j
ω
i
j
=
∬
A
i
j
F
i
y
,
z
.
d
y
.
d
z
∬
A
b
i
F
i
y
,
z
.
d
y
.
d
z
wherein the fluence (Fi(y,z)) is a number of charges per unit area of the beam at a position (y,z) of the beam, and wherein the base area (Abi) of the energy degrading unit is equal to a sum of the degrading subunit base areas (Aij)” in combination with the additional limitations of claim 1.
The closest prior art of record, Cooley, III et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0298025 A1), hereinafter Cooley, III, teaches a method for configuring a ridge filter (paragraph 0020) used by a charged particle accelerator (paragraph 0023), when treating a treatment volume of a patient based on a treatment plan (paragraph 0022), depositing beams of doses (Dij) at locations of the treatment volume (V) of tissue (paragraph 0022), wherein the charged particle accelerator uses pencil beam scanning (paragraph 0091) to deliver, according to the treatment plan (paragraph 0029), the beams toward spots associated with the treatment volume (paragraph 0088), wherein the beams output by the charged particle accelerator extend along corresponding beam axes (Xi) within ±5° of parallelism with an irradiation axis (X) (paragraph 0091, last sentence), and wherein the treatment volume is associated with a first distance into the treatment volume (paragraph 0186, deepest part 502), the method comprising:
defining a boundary of the treatment volume (V) (FIG. 2, element 21) based on areas (Aj) over upstream planes (Y,Z)j of slices (Tj) of thickness (dxj), wherein the upstream planes (Y,Z)j are normal to the irradiation axis (X) (FIG. 2, slices formed by the bean-shaped planes surrounding columns 25);
defining subvolumes (Vi) having a substantially cylindrical shape (FIG. 2, columns 25) that extends parallel to the corresponding beam axes (Xi) (FIG. 2, along the direction 29), where each subvolume (Vi) has a projection onto a respective plane (Y,Z) defining an array of spots (Si) (FIG. 2, circular spots);
defining a beam weight (ωij) for a dose (Dij);
determining an energy degrading unit (FIG. 4, element 426), where the energy degrading unit reduces an initial energy (E0) of a corresponding beam (paragraph 0014), to a reduced energy (Eij) (paragraph 0014), such that the doses (Dij) are deposited (paragraph 0105);
wherein the energy degrading unit has a plurality of degrading subunits having a cylindrical shape (paragraph 0105, the subunit being the ‘structures’); and
combining the degrading subunits to obtain the energy degrading unit configured for degrading the energy of the beam to deposit the doses (Dij) into the subvolume (Vi) (paragraph 0105).
However, Cooley, III fails to teach equating a normalized beam weight with a ratio of integrals of a fluence. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “determining the base area (Aij) of the base of a degrading subunit by equating a normalized beam weight (ωij /
Σ
j
ωij) with a ratio of (a) an integral of a fluence (Fi(y,z)) over the degrading subunit base area (Aij) to (b) an integral over a base area (Abi) of the energy degrading unit, as generally reflected by the following equation:
ω
i
j
Σ
j
ω
i
j
=
∬
A
i
j
F
i
y
,
z
.
d
y
.
d
z
∬
A
b
i
F
i
y
,
z
.
d
y
.
d
z
wherein the fluence (Fi(y,z)) is a number of charges per unit area of the beam at a position (y,z) of the beam, and wherein the base area (Abi) of the energy degrading unit is equal to a sum of the degrading subunit base areas (Aij)” as currently claimed.
Claims 2-10 are allowable over the prior art because of their dependence on claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights