DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-7, 14-15, 17 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and sub-species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 February 2026.
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 a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A beam generating device configured to generate a charged particle beam in claim 1. (accelerator see paragraph [0040] of the published application)
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.
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.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation “wherein the charged particle beam…converges at a treatment center point within a range where the treatment center point is taken as a center point within a range where the treatment center point is taken as a center” is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. the focusing magnets, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the focusing magnets in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-11, 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizushima et al. (US pgPub 2019/0311879).
Regarding claim 1, Mizushima et al. teach a radiation therapy device (fig. 1a), comprising:
a beam generating device (upstream accelerator side regarded as the x- axis, thus an accelerator, see paragraph [0099] (note beam generator device invokes 112(f) and the disclosure teaches the structure to be an accelerator)) configured to generate a charged particle beam (accelerator supplies charged particle beam [0099], thus generates from source and accelerates therefrom);
a scanning magnet (20) configured to diverge the charged particle beam (via deflection the charged particle beam is diverged as indicated by ray traces in figure 1a see paragraph [0097] for various angles of deflection); and
one or more focusing magnets (focusing magnet 10 comprising magnetic field regions 15a/15b. Alternatively, Figure 1b shows 15a made up of poles 12a and 15b made up of poles 12b, each pole pair 12a/12b is alternatively interpreted as two focusing magnets) configured to deflect the charged particle beam diverged by the scanning magnet (as seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, Mizushima et al. teach wherein each focusing magnet includes: an entrance configured for injection of the charged particle beam; and an exit configured for emission of the charged particle beam (see annotated figure 1a below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1016
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Mizushima et al. teach wherein the charged particle beam deflected by the focusing magnets converges at a treatment center point within a range where the treatment center point is taken as a center ([0093] “The focusing magnet 10 is configured to focus the charged particle beam incident from a wide range of deflection angle ϕ with respect to the x-axis on an xy-plane, to an isocenter O”. That is 10 converges (focuses at a treatment center point (i.e. isocenter O)) within a wide range of deflection, wherein the isocenter O is the treatment center point) and a central angle is greater than 180º (O is a point thus having a central angle of 365 degrees).
Regarding claim 8, Mizushima et al. teach wherein a count of the focusing magnets is at least two (fig. 1b, 12a and 12b), the at least two focusing magnets are arranged adjacently or oppositely (as seen in figure 1b); and when the at least two focusing magnets are arranged oppositely, the exits of the at least two focusing magnets are opposite (exits in annotated figure above are arranged opposite of x axis).
Regarding claim 9, Mizushima et al. teach wherein a deflection angle of the charged particle beam is within a range of 0-150º ([0097] teaches max ranges of deflection by bending magnet 20 within this range)
Regarding claim 10, Mizushima et al. teach wherein each focusing magnet bends towards the exit of each focusing magnet (magnet 10 bends towards the exit as seen in figure 1a), and the exit of each focusing magnet is arc (as seen in annotated figure above, exit forms an arc).
Regarding claim 11, Mizushima et al. teach wherein a magnetic field intensity of a magnetic field generated by the focusing magnets is not uniformly distributed ([0107] teaches a non-uniformity in the magnetic field distribution).
Regarding claim 13, Mizushima et al. teach wherein each focusing magnet (interpreting single focusing magnet 10) includes a first portion (fig. 1b, left side 12a/12b interpreted as first portion) and a second portion (right side 12a/12b interpreted as second portion), a gap is arranged between the first portion and the second portion (gap between left and right sides indicated by arrows), and a dimension of a middle position of the gap is greater than a dimension of two ends position of the gap in a vertical direction (in y direction (vertical dimension) gap between left and right 12a and left and right 12b is smaller than the gap at isocenter “O”).
PNG
media_image2.png
800
651
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Mizushima et al. teach wherein a dimension of the gap gradually decreases from the middle position to the two ends position (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
795
778
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Mizushima et al. teach wherein a trajectory of the gap from the middle position to the two ends position is an arc (as seen in figure 1a, a trajectory can be drawn from the middle line along the x axis (i.e. along middle gap in annotated figure 1b above) along an arc).
PNG
media_image4.png
620
1014
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kats (Kats, “gantry free transport line for Proton/Ion therapy”, 2017) (copy of publication submitted herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Kats teaches a radiation therapy device (fig. 5-6), comprising:
a beam generating device (proton beam treatment requires an upstream accelerator) configured to generate a charged particle beam (particle beam entering magnet to deflect by 20 degrees in figures 5 and 6);
a scanning magnet (magnet in figures 5 and 6 deflecting by 20 degrees) configured to diverge the charged particle beam (via deflection the charged particle beam is diverged to either upper path to 30 degree magnets or lower path to 30 degree magnets); and
one or more focusing magnets (30 degree magnets in upper and lower path are interpreted to be focusing magnets because they direct the beam to a point on the patient as illustrated in figures 5 and 6) configured to deflect the charged particle beam diverged by the scanning magnet (30 degree magnets direct diverged beam from 20 degree magnet from respective upper and lower paths to the patient).
Regarding claim 12, Kats teaches a length of each focusing magnet is less than or equal to 4 m (figures 5-6 show 30 degree magnets have a length less than 2 m); and a width of each focusing magnet is less than or equal to 2m (the vertical direction of the magnets is interpreted to be the width, since the magnets are rectangular the width is also less than 2 meters since the length is indicated to be less than 2 meters).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizushima et al. as evidenced by Yan et al. (US20230051255) or Mitsumoto (EP3136400) (copy of publication submitted herewith)..
Regarding claim 12, Mizushima teaches the focusing magnet in the irradiation room with a low ceiling ([0126]) and reducing installation space ([0074]) and a width of the magnet much smaller than the length (as evident from figure 1b).
However, Mizushima fails to specifically disclose the length and width of the focusing magnet. Therefore fails to disclose a length of each focusing magnet is less than or equal to 4 m; and a width of each focusing magnet is less than or equal to 2m.
However, Yan et al. is evidence that a conventional radiation treatment room has a height of 3 m ([0036]), similarly Mitsumoto is evidence that an irradiation chamber may measure 3 meters in height ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the length (i.e. height) of the focusing magnet 10 to be less than 4 meters, because a conventional treatment room is known to have a height of 3 meters as evidenced by Yan or Mitsumoto, therefore by having a length (height) less than the height of the room would allow for the focusing magnet to be within the irradiation room as suggested by Mizushima such that the ceiling height may be kept low, thus reducing the space requirement for treatment. Moreover, since it would be obvious for the height to be less than or equal to 4 m, it would further be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the width of the magnet 10 would be less than or equal to 2 m as the width of magnet 10 seen in figures 1b and 4b is less than half of the height (i.e. length) of magnet 10. Alternatively, interpreting the focusing magnets to be 12a/12b, in a room of 3 meters height, the height of 12a/12b would be far less than 3 meters and the width would be far less than 2 meters as the width of 12a/12b is less than the length of each magnet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US11058899 is similar to Mizushima discussed above and would anticipate at least claim 1. Additionally figure 10 shows an arrangement where the magnets have offset portions that would be sufficient to anticipate claim 13.
CN115569312 anticipates also anticipates claim 1 (see figure 1). Note: deflection occurs greater than 180 degrees (i.e. claim 3) (copy of publication submitted herewith).
CN1139013 (cited in IDS of 07/02/2024) also anticipates at least claim 1, see figure 1.
FR2201523 also anticipates claims 1 and 3 (submitted with IDS of 07/02/2024, see figure 2).
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 18