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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 10-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 1: “Method” should apparently read -- A method--. In claim 1 0 , line 1: “ Monitoring ” should apparently read -- A m onitoring--. In claim 1 1 , line 1: “Monitoring” should apparently read -- The m onitoring--. In claim 1 2 , line 1: “ Radiotherapy ” should apparently read -- A r adiotherapy--. In claim s 1 3-15 , line 1: “Radiotherapy” should apparently read -- The r adiotherapy--. Appropriate correction is required. 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: at least one light field emitting device, at least one monitoring device, and at least one processing unit in claim 10. No structure is taught for the at least one light field emitting device . The at least one monitoring device is taught to be, for example, a camera, while the at least one processing unit is taught to be, for example, a computer. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 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 “an object” in line 3. It is not clear if this is intended to be the same object recited in line 1 or a separate object. If the former is correct, the limitation should read -- the object--. Claim 1 also recites the limitation “at least substantially corresponding” in line 4. The term “ substantially ” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The requisite level of correspondence to meet the claim is not readily determinable. Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the light field being reflected" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim ; while the claim does previously recite a light field, it does not previously recite a reflected light field. Regarding claims 5 and 6, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is not clear if the recited positioning must include positioning of the couch/gantry or if the couch/gantry is merely exemplary. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the position, orientation and/or shape " in line 4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim . Regarding claim 10 , the phrase "in particular" in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is not clear if the recited system must perform the recited method. Claim 10 also recites the limitation “performing a method to claim 1” in lines 3-4. This language is confusing and not clear. For sake of compact prosecution, this has been taken herein to recite performing the method of claim 1. Claim 1 0 also recites the limitation s “a light field” in line 5, “a surface” in line 5, and “an object” in line s 5-6 . It is not clear if these are intended to be the same light field, surface, and object recited in claim 1 or to be separate elements . Claim 1 0 also recites the limitation “at least substantially corresponding” in line s 6-7 . The term “ substantially ” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The requisite level of correspondence to meet the claim is not readily determinable. Claim 1 0 recites the limitation “an object” in line 2 . It is not clear if this is intended to be the same object recited in claim 1 0 or a separate object. Regarding claim 14 , the phrase "in particular" in line 5 and again in line 6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is not clear if the recited radiotherapy apparatus must include the gantry or if the gantry is merely exemplary. Claim 14 also recites the limitation "the position and/or orientation" in line 7 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim . Claim 15 recites the limitation "the position, orientation and/or shape" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim Claim 1 6 recites the limitation “a threshold amount ” in line 6 . It is not clear if this is intended to be the same threshold amount recited in claim 3 or a separate amount . Regarding claims 17-20 , the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is not clear if the recited positioning must include positioning of the couch/gantry or if the couch/gantry is merely exemplary. Claims 2-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. 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. 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. Claim s 1, 2, 4 -10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowlsbey et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0077102 A1; hereinafter known as “Bowlsbey”), in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0209866 A1; hereinafter known as “Kim”) . Regarding claim 1, Bowlsbey discloses a m ethod for monitoring radiation incidence onto an object being prepared for and/or undergoing radiation delivery (Abstract) , the method comprising: emitting a light field onto a surface of an object being prepared for and/or undergoing radiation delivery, the light field at least substantially corresponding to radiation incidence of the radiation delivery (Fig. 1; [0015]; [0026]). Bowlsbey fails to expressly disclose monitoring the light field being reflected from the surface of the object and processing the monitored light field to determine the radiation incidence of the radiation delivery relative to the object at least partially based on the monitored light field. Kim discloses a similar method (Abstract) comprising monitoring a light field being reflected from a surface of an object and processing the monitored light field to determine a radiation incidence of a radiation delivery relative to the object at least partially based on the monitored light field in order to identify and prevent errors during setup and therapy ([0027]; [0029]; [0041] -[ 0043] ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bowlsbey by monitoring the light field being reflected from the surface of the object and processing the monitored light field to determine the radiation incidence of the radiation delivery relative to the object at least partially based on the monitored light field , as taught by Kim, in order to identify and prevent errors during setup and therapy . Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Kim further discloses determining the radiation incidence of the radiation delivery relative to a predetermined radiation incidence in accordance with a defined radiation delivery plan ([0027]; [0030]; [0041]; [0081]) . Regarding claim 4 , the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Kim further discloses inhibiting or triggering inhibition of irradiation of the object if the determined radiation incidence of the radiation delivery differs from the predetermined radiation incidence determined from the radiation delivery plan by more than a threshold amount ([0031]; [0037] -[ 0039]; [0097]) . Regarding claim 5 , the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Kim further discloses positioning or triggering positioning of the object being prepared for and/or undergoing radiation delivery, in particular of a couch holding the object, based on the determined radiation incidence of the radiation delivery relative to the object ([0096] ; [0112] ) . Regarding claim 6 , the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Kim further discloses positioning or triggering positioning of a radiotherapy apparatus for irradiation of the object, in particular of a gantry of the radiotherapy apparatus, based on the determined radiation incidence of the radiation delivery relative to the object ([0060] -[ 0061]; [0112]) . Regarding claim 7 , the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Kim further discloses that the positioning or triggering positioning of the object being prepared for and/or undergoing radiation delivery and/or the radiotherapy apparatus for irradiation of the object is performed iteratively (Fig. 10) . Regarding claim 8 , the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Kim further discloses determining the position, orientation and/or shape of at least one radiation beam relative to the object (Fig. 5) . Regarding claim 9 , the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Kim further discloses adjusting or triggering adjustment of the position, orientation, size and/or shape of the at least one radiation beam based on the determined radiation incidence of the radiation delivery relative to the object ([0041]; [0112]) . Regarding claim 10 , the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses a m onitoring system for use with a radiotherapy apparatus to monitor radiation incidence onto an object being prepared for and/or undergoing radiation delivery, in particular for performing a method to claim 1, the monitoring system comprising: at least one light field emitting device 26 configured to emit a light field onto a surface of an object being prepared for and/or undergoing radiation delivery, the light field at least substantially corresponding to radiation incidence of the radiation delivery (Bowlsbey: Fig. 1, [0015]-[0016]) ; at least one monitoring device configured to monitor the light field being reflected from the surface of the object (Kim: [0066]-[0068], [0116]-[0120]) ; and at least one processing unit configured to process the monitored light field to determine the radiation incidence of the radiation delivery relative to the object at least partially based on the monitored light field ( Kim: [0029]-[0034], [0070] , [0119]) . Regarding claim 1 2 , the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses a r adiotherapy treatment system comprising at least one radiotherapy apparatus operable to irradiate an object with radiation (Bowlsbey: 10 ; Kim: 10/100 ) and at least one radiation incidence monitoring system according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10) . Regarding claim 13 , the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Kim further discloses that the radiotherapy apparatus is operable to trigger an alarm and/or to inhibit or trigger inhibition of irradiation of the object if the determined radiation incidence of the radiation delivery relative to the object differs from a predetermined radiation incidence determined from a radiation delivery plan by more than a threshold amount ([0031]; [0037]-[0039]; [0097]) . Regarding claim 1 4 , the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses that the radiotherapy treatment system further comprises a couch for positioning the object being prepared for and/or undergoing radiation delivery relative to the radiotherapy apparatus, in particular a gantry of the radiotherapy apparatus, wherein the couch and/or the radiotherapy apparatus, in particular the gantry of the radiotherapy apparatus, is configured to change the position and/or orientation depending on the determined radiation incidence of the radiation delivery relative to the object (Bowlsbey: 22 , [0015]; Kim: 101 , [0059], [0096] , [0112] ) . Regarding claim 1 5 , the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Kim further discloses that the radiotherapy apparatus is configured to adjust the position, orientation and/or shape of at least one radiation beam based on the determined radiation incidence of the radiation delivery relative to the object ([0041]; [0112]) . Regarding claim 16 , the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Kim further discloses inhibiting or triggering inhibition of irradiation of the object if the determined radiation incidence of the radiation delivery differs from the predetermined radiation incidence determined from the radiation delivery plan by more than a threshold amount ([0031]; [0037] -[ 0039]; [0097]) . Regarding claim s 17-19 , the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Kim further discloses positioning or triggering positioning of the object being prepared for and/or undergoing radiation delivery, in particular of a couch holding the object, based on the determined radiation incidence of the radiation delivery relative to the object ([0096]; [0112]) . Regarding claim 20 , the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Kim further discloses positioning or triggering positioning of a radiotherapy apparatus for irradiation of the object, in particular of a gantry of the radiotherapy apparatus, based on the determined radiation incidence of the radiation delivery relative to the object ([0060] -[ 0061]; [0112]) . Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowlsbey and Kim as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Raanes et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0003523 A1; hereinafter known as “Raanes”) . The combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose triggering an alarm if the determined radiation incidence of the radiation delivery differs from the predetermined radiation incidence determined from the radiation delivery plan by more than a threshold amount. Raanes discloses a similar method (Abstract) that monitors patient alignment, wherein if the patient is mis-aligned by more than a threshold amount, irradiation may be halted and/or an alarm may be triggered, in order to indicate that re-alignment is necessary ([0059]; [0079]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim by triggering an alarm if the determined radiation incidence of the radiation delivery differs from the predetermined radiation incidence determined from the radiation delivery plan by more than a threshold amount , as taught by Raanes, in order to indicate that re-alignment is necessary . Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowlsbey and Kim as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Bruza et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20 22 / 0280815 A1; hereinafter known as “ Bruza ”) . The combination of Bowlsbey and Kim discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose that the at least one monitoring device comprises at least one filter configured to selectively transmit light . Bruza discloses a similar system (Abstract) that comprises at least one monitoring device that comprises at least one filter configured to selectively transmit light , in order to prevent interference by ambient lighting ([00 27 ]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bowlsbey and Kim with at least one filter configured to selectively transmit light , as taught by Bruza , in order to prevent interference by ambient lighting . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5132 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9am-6pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jason M. Sims can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7540 . 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. /THADDEUS B COX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791