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 .
Objected Informalities
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In The Claims
Claim 12, line 2, “is” should be -- are --.
Claim 17, line 2, “calibration radiation sensed by the radiation detector” should be -- calibration radiation to a calibration detector --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Objected drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the radiation detector is positioned within a detector collimator to define a volume from which the radiation detector receives radiation of the directed radiation beams of the compact linac systems as recited in claim 16; and the calibration unit positioned within the overall cumulative volume that produces calibration radiation sensed by the radiation detector as recited in claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Rejection under First Paragraph
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification is completely silent for reciting the limitations "the radiation detector is positioned within a detector collimator to define a volume from which the radiation detector receives radiation of the directed radiation beams of the compact linac systems” as recited in claim 16; and “a calibration unit positioned within the overall cumulative volume that produces calibration radiation sensed by the radiation detector” as recited in claim 17.
How is the radiation detector positioned within a detector collimator to define a volume? What is the detector collimator? What is the volume? How is the calibration radiation sensed by the radiation detector?
Additional explanations are needed if applicant insists on including these features in the claims 16 and 17 without the insertion of new matter.
Clarification without the introduction of new matter is required.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph
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 16-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 is indefinite for reciting the limitation “the radiation detector is positioned within a detector collimator to define a volume from which the radiation detector receives radiation of the directed radiation beams of the compact linac systems” in lines 1-3. What is the detector collimator? What is the volume? How is the radiation detector positioned within a detector collimator that defines a volume from which the radiation detector receives radiation of the directed radiation beams of the compact linac systems?
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
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, 6, 8-9, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura et al. (6,396,065).
Kimura et al. (6,396,065) discloses, in figs. 1-5, a food irradiation system comprising a plurality of compact linac systems for sanitizing food (see abstract, col. 1, lines 47-60, col. 2, lines 21-49, col. 5, lines 43-56, col. 10, lines 11-26), which includes
Regarding claim 1, each of the plurality of compact linac systems comprising:
a high energy particle beam source providing a particle beam at up to 10MeV (see col. 7, lines 10-24, col. 9, lines 30-43);
an emission target assembly positioned at a distal end of an accelerator to generate bremsstrahlung x-rays when impacted by particles of the particle beam (see col. 9, lines 30-43); and
a drift tube (the accelerator) through which the particle beam passes on a path from the high energy particle beam source to the emission target assembly (see col. 4, lines 31-46, col. 9, lines 30-43);
wherein ones of the plurality of compact linac systems are individually positioned such that, as a group of the plurality of compact linac systems provide directed radiation beam coverage at prescribed radiation dose levels for an overall cumulative volume (see col. 4, lines 31-46).
Regarding claim 6, a converter target material is considered to be inherent in the Kimura et al. (6,396,065) food irradiation system to generate, when impacted by particles of the particle beam, bremsstrahlung x-rays for sanitizing food (see col. 9, lines 30-43).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the high energy particle beam source is an electron accelerator (see col. 9, lines 30-43).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the emission target assembly permits passage of particles of the particle beam (see col. 9, lines 30-43).
Regarding claim 13, further comprising local radiation shielding (shield room 12) positioned to contain energy of the directed radiation beam within an irradiation treatment space.
Regarding claim 18, a pallet irradiation system comprising: a conveyance apparatus 4, 10 configured to carry a pallet supporting an object 2 to be irradiated (see abstract, figs. 1, 5, col. 3, lines 50-63, col. 9, lines 13-29 and 56-65).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 2, 10-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (6,396,065) in view of Cheung et al. (2012/0294422); Main et al. (2007/0127622); and Bendahan et al. (2015/0014526).
Kimura et al. (6,396,065) discloses all the features as discussed above except a shield collimator provided external to the drift tube and proximal the emission target assembly, wherein the shield collimator defines a radiation dispersion pattern of the bremsstrahlung x-rays in the directed radiation beam as recited in claim 2; the drift tube configured as an extended snout as recited in claim 10; the path of the particle beam from the high energy particle beam source to the emission target assembly that is a bending pathway defined by an external magnetic field source as recited in claim 11; respective beams which are guided on respective bending paths of respective drift tubes to individually positioned ones of the emission target assemblies oriented to provide the directed radiation beam coverage at prescribed radiation dose levels for an overall cumulative volume as recited in claim 12; a beam deflector positioned before the emission target assembly and configured to alter a trajectory of the particle beam towards a particular position on the emission target assembly as recited in claim 14; and at least one radiation detector positioned to receive energy from one or more of the compact linac systems, wherein the radiation detector provides information indicative of the directed radiation beam coverage at prescribed radiation dose levels for an overall cumulative volume as recited in claim 15.
Using the shield collimator provided external to the drift tube and proximal the emission target assembly for defining a radiation dispersion pattern of the bremsstrahlung x-rays in the directed radiation beam is considered to be obvious variation in design, since it is well known in the art as Cheung et al. (2012/0294422) discloses, in figs. 1-14, a system using LINAC for generating X-rays in cargo scanning and radio therapy applications, which includes a shield collimator 29 attached to an emission target assembly 22 which is connected to an accelerator 8 (a drift tube) for defining a radiation dispersion pattern of the bremsstrahlung x-rays in the directed radiation beam (see fig. 2), thus would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the shield collimator provided external to the drift tube and proximal the emission target assembly for defining a radiation dispersion pattern of the bremsstrahlung x-rays in the directed radiation beam in the Kimura et al. (6,396,065) food irradiation system for controlling the X-ray beam.
Using the drift tube configured as an extended snout is considered to be obvious variation in design, since it is well known in the art as Main et al. (2007/0127622) discloses, in figs. 1-7, a radiation treatment system including a radiation treatment source 105 (see a linear accelerator (drift tube) LINAC in [0057]) having a snout 107 (see figs. 1, 2, 5) for shaping an X-ray beam, thus would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the drift tube having an extended snout in the Kimura et al. (6,396,065) food irradiation system for controlling the X-ray beam.
Bending the path of the particle beam from the high energy particle beam source to the emission target assembly by using an external magnetic field source; guiding respective beams on respective bending paths of respective drift tubes to individually positioned ones of the emission target assemblies oriented to provide the directed radiation beam coverage at prescribed radiation dose levels for an overall cumulative volume; positioning the beam deflector before the emission target assembly for altering a trajectory of the particle beam towards a particular position on the emission target assembly; and positioning the at least one radiation detector to receive energy from one or more of the compact linac systems to provide information indicative of the directed radiation beam coverage at prescribed radiation dose levels for an overall cumulative volume are considered to be obvious variation in design, since it is well known in the art as Bendahan et al. (2015/0014526) discloses, in figs. 1A-16, a multi-view X-ray inspection system, which includes a plurality of electron sources or LINACs (see [0014], [0076]) for generating a plurality of electron beams; a plurality of electron transport stations 1112 (see fig. 11, [0019]), each electron source and each station comprising an electron beam, LINAC 1304, bending magnets 1306, 1312 (see fig. 13), 1408, 1414 (see figs. 14A, 14B, 14C) for bending a path of each electron beam, a target 1430 (see figs. 14A, 14B, 14C) for generating X-rays 1432, when the target 1430 is irradiated by the electron beam, thereby respective beams are guided on respective bending paths of respective drift tubes (LINACs) to individually positioned ones of the emission target assemblies 1430 oriented to provide the directed radiation beam coverage at prescribed radiation dose levels for an overall cumulative volume (see figs. 1-5, 7-8, 11-12, 16); a beam deflector (a steering magnet) 1426 positioned before the emission target assembly 1430 for altering a trajectory of the particle beam towards a particular position on the emission target assembly 1430 (see figs. 14B, 14C); and at least one radiation detector 105, 205a, 205b, 305, 405, 505, 705, 1607 positioned to receive energy from one or more of the compact linac systems for providing information indicative of the directed radiation beam coverage at prescribed radiation dose levels for an overall cumulative volume (see figs. 1-5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16), thus would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the magnets for bending the path of the particle beam from the high energy particle beam source to the emission target assembly, thereby the respective beams guided on respective bending paths of respective drift tubes to individually positioned ones of the emission target assemblies oriented to provide the directed radiation beam coverage at prescribed radiation dose levels for an overall cumulative volume; the beam deflector positioned before the emission target assembly for altering a trajectory of the particle beam towards a particular position on the emission target assembly; and the at least one radiation detector positioned to receive energy from one or more of the compact linac systems to provide information indicative of the directed radiation beam coverage at prescribed radiation dose levels for an overall cumulative volume in the Kimura et al. (6,396,065) food irradiation system for controlling the X-ray beam.
It is noted that claims 16-17 have been not applied by the prior art for the reasons of objection(s) and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st and 2nd paragraph above.
Claims 3-5 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art fails to disclose a food irradiation system comprising a plurality of compact linac systems, which includes a shield collimator configured for adjusting relative to an emission target assembly as recited in claim 3; or a converter target material having an orientation of anisotropic as recited in claim 7.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) McIntyre (6,576,915) discloses a system having LINACs using a magnet for bending a plurality of electron beams to irradiate a target; and
2) Brown et al. (2012/0025105) discloses a LINAC system using a deflector for scanning an electron beam on a target to produce X-rays.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIET TUAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2479. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert H. Kim can be reached on 571-272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KIET T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881