DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 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.
Claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f):
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended to require structure to the claimed “shielding member” of “a particle beam-shielding material”, since a shielding material is sufficient to perform the function of “shield the particle beam”, the claim interpretation under 112(f) is withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 102/103 rejections
The applied rejections have been overcome by amendment (see discussion in the interview summary of 19 August 2026), however upon further search and consideration a new grounds rejection is applied herein below
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.
Claims 1-7, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka (USPN 6,080,992) (submitted with non-Final rejection of 02 March 2026) in view of KR100309690 (herein ‘690) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted with the office action of 02 March 2026).
Regarding claim 1, Nonaka et al. teach a particle beam irradiation apparatus (fig. 2) comprising:
an accelerator (col. 5, lines 13-17 teach a proton beam, wherein the proton beam is accelerated via an accelerator, see col. 1, lines 31-36) configured to accelerate a particle so as to generate a particle beam (col. 1, lines 31-36);
an irradiation unit (120) including an electromagnet (40 is an electromagnet) and configured to irradiate an irradiation target with the particle beam (inherent to an irradiator);
a transport path provided between the accelerator and the irradiation unit and provided so as to be capable of transporting the particle beam (inherent to irradiate target with protons); and
a collimator (34 better seen in figure 3) device including
a first shielding member (34a), formed of a particle-beam-shielding material (col. 3, lines 7-10 teaches final collimator 34 is made of brass, thus particle beam shielding material), provided in the transport path (as seen in figures 1-3) configured to shield the particle beam (inherent to collimate the beam), and including a first opening penetrating first shielding member in an advancing direction of the particle beam to allow the particle beam to pass therethrough (inherent to pass beam to 34b-34c, see also fig. 7 showing apertures in each of 34a-34c),
a second shielding member (34c) provided in the transport path (as seen in figure 3), formed of a particle beam shielding material (col. 3, lines 7-10 teaches final collimator 34 is made of brass, thus particle beam shielding material) configured to shield the particle beam (inherent to a collimator), and including a second opening penetrating the second shielding member in the advancing direction of the particle beam to allow the particle beam to pass therethrough (pass through collimator 34c, aperture in 34c seen in figure 7),
a support member (frame 72) that is a single member (as seen in figure 3) configured to support both the first shielding member and the second shielding member (fig. 3, 72 supports both 34a and 34c),
wherein the second shielding member is spaced from the first shielding member to a downstream side in the advancing direction of the particle beam (34c is spaced downstream in an advancing direction of the particle beam)
the support member includes a first support surface provided at one end portion of the support member (see annotated figure below) and supporting the first shielding member (73a supporting 34a) and a second support surface at the other end portion of the support member (see annotated figure below) and supporting the second shielding member (groove 73a associated and supporting 34c).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the one surface of the first shielding member is fixed to the first support surface and the one surface of the second shielding member is fixed to the second support surface (via closing door 74, the collimators 34a/34c are fixed to the surfaces of 73a/73b via pushers 75, see col. 6, lines 3-8 and col. 6, lines 56-61 which teaches collimators are pushed until the het the back panel 76 upon closure of the door 74, thus fixed into position on 73a/73b as discussed in col. 5, lines 35-49).
Nonaka fails to disclose wherein a cooling tube is connected to the support member.
However, ‘690 teaches wherein a cooling unit is connected to the support member (figure 4 shows colling passage 11’ (cooling tube) in holder 11 of collimator 10).
‘690 modifies Nonaka by suggesting a cooling passage for the collimator support.
Since both inventions are directed towards collimators, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the cooling member 11’ of ‘690 in the device of Nonaka because the cooling passage allows heat generated by the beam being incident on the collimator to be cooled (page 3, second full paragraph), thus protecting the collimator from detrimental thermal effects (thermal stress).
Regarding claim 2, Nonaka teaches a degrader (fig. 2, 26) provided on the transport path and attenuating the particle beam (inherent to a degrader), wherein the collimator device is provided on a downstream side of the degrader in the advancing direction of the particle beam (34 is downstream 26 as seen in figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Nonaka teaches the first support surface and the second support surface are parallel to each other (as seen in figure 3, 73a and 73b are parallel to each other)
Regarding claim 4, Nonaka teaches the first support surface and the second support surface are machined surfaces formed by drilling in the same direction perpendicular to the advancing direction of the particle beam (product by process see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 5, Nonaka teaches wherein the support member supports at least one of the first shielding member and the second shielding member from two directions perpendicular to the advancing direction of the particle beam (as seen in figure 3 grooves 73a support the first and second member from two directions perpendicular to the direction of the particle beam (i.e. in the plane of the page), via additional pushers 75 in figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Nonaka teaches wherein the support member includes a particle beam passage groove portion forming a passage path for the particle beam so as not to interfere with the particle beam (between grooves 73a as seen in figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, Nonaka teaches wherein the particle beam is incident into the first opening of the first shielding member from an upstream side in the advancing direction of the particle beam (particle beam through opening in collimator 34a), passes through the particle beam passage groove portion of the support member (region where 34b is positioned), enters the second opening of the second shielding member (opening in 34c), and exits from a downstream end portion of the second opening in the advancing direction of the particle beam (exits opening in 34c).
Claim 11 is commensurate in scope and taught as discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Nonaka teaches wherein the first support surface and the second support surface are parallel to each other (see claim 3 above).
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toru (JP2014138669) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted with the IDS of 12/05/2025) in view of Nonaka or alternatively in view of Tsutsui (US pgPub 2023/0414970)1 (submitted with Non-Final rejection of 02 March 2026) and further in view of KR100309690 (herein ‘690) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted with the office action of 02 March 2026).
Regarding claim 1, Toru teach a particle beam irradiation apparatus (figs. 1-2, 7 and 8) comprising:
an accelerator (fig. 1, 2 upstream of components in figure 7) configured to accelerate a particle so as to generate a particle beam (inherent to an accelerator);
an irradiation unit including an electromagnet (irradiation nozzle 18 irradiates the charged particle beam using a scanning method [0023], and paragraph [0056] teaches scanning electromagnet is the scanning means 18a) and configured to irradiate an irradiation target with the particle beam (object below nozzle);
a transport path (path through transport line 3 which transports charged particle beam from accelerator to gantry 4 ([0017]), which transports the charged particle beam to nozzle in order for irradiation from nozzle to occur as discussed in paragraph [0023]) provided between the accelerator and the irradiation unit (path through transport line 3 which transports charged particle beam from accelerator to gantry 4 ([0017]), which transports the charged particle beam to nozzle in order for irradiation from nozzle to occur as discussed in paragraph [0023]. Thus 3 between nozzle (i.e. irradiator) and accelerator) and provided so as to be capable of transporting the particle beam ([0017]); and
a collimator device (figs. 7-8, 53A/53B) including
a first shielding member (53A), formed of a particle beam shielding material (inherent to a collimator) provided in the transport path (53 part of path 3 in figure 7), configured to shield the particle beam (best seen in figure 8, 53A shields the beam (i.e. inherent to a collimator to shape the beam)), and including a first opening (53a) penetrating the first shielding member in an advancing direction of the particle beam to allow the particle beam to pass therethrough (best seen in figure 8, beam passing through 53a of 53A via aperture) and
a second shielding member (53B), formed of a particle beam shielding material (inherent to a collimator) provided in the transport path (53 part of path 3), configured to shield the particle beam (fig. 8 shows 53B shielding the beam Ra, see paragraph [0050]), and including a second opening (53b) penetrating the second shielding member in the advancing direction of the particle beam to allow the particle beam to pass therethrough (beam passing through 53b as seen in figure 8 via aperture through 53b),
wherein the second shielding member is spaced from the first shielding member to a downstream side in the advancing direction of the particle beam (figures 7-8 show 53B downstream of 53A in the beam direction as indicated by arrow Ra).
Toru fails to specifically disclose the means to mount 53a/53b.
However, Nonaka teaches a support member (frame 72) that is a single member (as seen in figure 3) configured to support both the first shielding member and the second shielding member (fig. 3, 72 supports both 34a and 34c),
the support member includes a first support surface provided at one end portion of the support member (see annotated figure below) and supporting the first shielding member (73a supporting 34a) and a second support surface at the other end portion of the support member (see annotated figure below) and supporting the second shielding member (groove 73a associated and supporting 34c).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the one surface of the first shielding member is fixed to the first support surface and the one surface of the second shielding member is fixed to the second support surface (via closing door 74, the collimators 34a/34c are fixed to the surfaces of 73a/73b via pushers 75, see col. 6, lines 3-8 and col. 6, lines 56-61 which teaches collimators are pushed until the het the back panel 76 upon closure of the door 74, thus fixed into position on 73a/73b as discussed in col. 5, lines 35-49).
Nonaka modifies Toru by providing a frame to mount the collimators.
Since both inventions are directed towards mounting collimators along a beam line, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount the collimators in the support suggested in Nonaka because it would facilitate a mounting structure that allows the collimators to be easily exchange the collimators when necessary for either replacement for a different size opening or when collimators have reached the end of life (see abstract). Moreover, Nonaka provide a means to facilitate the mounting of collimators of Toru, thus resolving the problem as to how to mount the collimators such that they may be axially aligned.
Alternatively, Tsutsui teaches a support member (beam duct 17, figure 3B) that is a single member (as seen in figure 3B) configured to support both the first shielding member and the second shielding member (only one collimator is shown in figure 3b, however 17 is configured to support both as it is a duct)
the support member includes a first support surface provided at one end portion of the support member and supporting the first shielding member (fig. 3b 37 supported at one end by 17) and a second support surface at the other end portion of the support member (opposite end of 17 in figure 3B)
the one surface of the first shielding member is fixed to the first support surface (as seen in figure 3B 37 fixed to 17)
Tsutsui modifies Toru by suggesting how to mount the collimator within the vacuum duct.
Since both inventions are directed towards mounting elements with respect to a beam duct, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount the collimators of Toru in the manner suggested by Tsutsui because it would resolve how to mount the collimators of Toru in the vacuum duct 3 of Toru as suggested by Tsutsui.
While Toru in view of Tsutsui fails to disclose the second support surface supporting the first shielding member and the one surface of the second shielding member is fixed to the second support surface, Toru teaches two collimators and Tsutsui teaches a structure suitable for fixing more than one collimator. Therefore, the combination would inherently result in mounting the second collimator of Toru in a similar manner to a different space in the beam duct of Tsutsui in the same manner that the first collimator is mounted. MPEP 2112 (IV) recites “[I]n order to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness analysis – the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art." Id. at 1195-96, 112 USPQ2d at 1952. But see, Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations LTD., 945 F.3d 1184, 1191, 2019 USPQ2d 494084 (Fed. Cir. 2019)”
Here, Toru already requires the first and second shielding members to be separated, however fails to disclose how they are separated in a vacuum duct, Tsutsui is evidence of how to mount a single collimator within a vacuum duct, therefore modifying the collimator in a spaced relationship of Toru in a vacuum duct suggested in Tsutsui would naturally result in both collimators mounted in the vacuum duct. Therefore, it is considered that the combination would inherently result in the claimed second shielding member mounted (of Toru) in the vacuum duct in the same manner as the first as suggested in Tsutsui.
Claim 11 is commensurate in scope and taught as discussed above in claim 1.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of KR100309690 (herein ‘690) and further in view of KR19990024031. (herein ‘031) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted herewith)..
Regarding claims 9-10, Nonaka in view of ‘690 teaches cooling passages formed in the holder 11 (see page 4, third paragraph from bottom of the page). Therefore, the combined device fails to disclose wherein the cooling unit includes an outer tube extending in an up-down direction and an inner tube disposed in the outer tube and causes a cooling medium to flow downward from above through the inner tube, wherein the cooling medium is folded back at a lower end of the inner tube and flows upward from below through a gap between the outer tube and the inner tube.
However, ‘031 teaches wherein the cooling tube (fluid moving through passages 60/56) includes an outer tube (fig. 2, hollow shaft 56) extending in an up-down direction (as seen in figure 2) and an inner tube (60) disposed in the outer tube (60 inside hollow shaft 56) and causes a cooling medium to flow downward from above through the inner tube, wherein the cooling medium is folded back at a lower end of the inner tube and flows upward from below through a gap between the outer tube and the inner tube (last paragraph on page 4).
‘031 modifies the combined device by suggesting an exterior cooling mechanism. Specifically, ‘031 teaches that machining to receive a manifold or pipe increases the cost (see paragraph bridging pages 2-3).
Since both inventions are directed towards cooling systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the embedded fluid passage of the combined device co-axial arrangement suggested in ‘031 because the coaxial arrangement would reduce the cost of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US pgPub 20220401759 teaches a collimator 28 (see figure 1) may be configured with a fixed aperture and may be interchangeable so that a particular aperture size may be produced ([0020])
Sasai (US pgPub 2021/0299480) would still make obvious the claimed invention as discussed in the office action of 02 March 2026 as modified by Toru and Nonaka discussed above.
Tsutsui (US pgPub 2023/0414970) teaches a passage selection unit 33 in figure 1, figure 3B shows collimator 33B supported in duct 3B.
Nonaka et al. (USPN 6,080,992) teaches a holder 72 comprising grooves 73b for quickly changing out collimator plates (34a-34c). Similarly, US pgPub 20150352372 in figures 3 and 11 shows a frame for exchanging different collimators individually so as to reduce the burden on the operator ([0037])
KR200325713 teaches a holder 51 holding a collimator 49 on one side and a plate 45 with an aperture on the other (see figure 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
1 Note this combination may be used to teach the remaining limitations as discussed above in view of Nonaka. However, since Nonaka already anticipates claims 1-7 and 11-14, this rejection is not applied herein.
Prosecution Insights