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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 22, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-18 and 21 in the reply filed on June 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 23, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 19 and 20 have been withdrawn from further consideration, but the status of the claims is listed as “(Previously Presented).” The status of the claims should be corrected to “(Withdrawn).”
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 2-5, 8, 10, and 21 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.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “the respective magnetron.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim is unclear as to whether “the respective magnetron” refers to “each of a plurality of magnetrons” or “a magnetron” as recited in Claim 1, on which this claim depends. For the purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “each magnetron of the plurality of magnetrons.”
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “the magnetron.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim is unclear as to whether “the respective magnetron” refers to “each of a plurality of magnetrons” or “a magnetron” as recited in Claim 1, on which this claim depends. For the purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “each magnetron of the plurality of magnetrons.”
Regarding Claim 4, the claim requires the limitations of Claim 3, on which this claim depends, and the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “the magnetron.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim is unclear as to whether “the respective magnetron” refers to “each of a plurality of magnetrons” or “a magnetron” as recited in Claim 1, on which this claim depends. For the purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “each magnetron of the plurality of magnetrons.”
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “the magnetron.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim is unclear as to whether “the respective magnetron” refers to “each of a plurality of magnetrons” or “a magnetron” as recited in Claim 1, on which this claim depends. For the purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “each magnetron of the plurality of magnetrons.”
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites the limitation “the magnetron.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim is unclear as to whether “the respective magnetron” refers to “each of a plurality of magnetrons” or “a magnetron” as recited in Claim 1, on which this claim depends. For the purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “each magnetron of the plurality of magnetrons.”
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “the respective magnetron.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim is unclear as to whether “the respective magnetron” refers to “each of a plurality of magnetrons” or “a magnetron” as recited in Claim 18, on which this claim depends. For the purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “each magnetron of the plurality of magnetrons.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-16, 18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes and/or mathematical concepts without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of independent Claim 1 based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 1-16 are directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong I, judicial Exception:
The Examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
1. (Previously Presented) A computer-implemented method of determining a model for predictive maintenance of a magnetron for a particle accelerator for a radiotherapy device, the method comprising:
collating lifetime data of each of a plurality of magnetrons;
analyzing the lifetime data to determine a set of values indicative of a need for magnetron replacement; and
outputting the set of determined values to form a model for predictive maintenance of a magnetron.
The limitation analyzing the lifetime data to determine a set of values is an abstract idea because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. A user can perform the mental evaluation of analyzing lifetime data to determine values. A user may use pen and paper to perform the analysis.
Step 2A Prong II, Integration into a Practical Application:
Claim 1 recites the following additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present general fields of use, mere instructions to apply an exception, and/or insignificant extra-solution activity:
A computer-implemented method of determining a model for predictive maintenance of a magnetron for a particle accelerator for a radiotherapy device (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
collating lifetime data of each of a plurality of magnetrons (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
outputting the set of determined values (insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
to form a model for predictive maintenance of a magnetron (general field of use, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS:
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
“Computer-implemented” is a high level recitation of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represents mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B, Significantly More:
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations and elements of Claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional element “computer-implemented” reciting generic computer components as mere instructions to apply on a computer per MPEP § 2106.05(f) is carried over and does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner also notes that the specification does not define the structures of the additional elements in any way that could be used to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations identified as mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, or general field of use above are carried over and also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP § 2106.05(f), MPEP § 2106.05(g), and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The insignificant extra solution activity of collating lifetime data and outputting the set of determined values are considered to be further well understood, routine and conventional, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iii. Electronic recordkeeping […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics.”
Considering the claim limitations in combination and the claims as a whole does not change this conclusion, and Claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, wherein the lifetime data comprises a plurality of parameters from the respective magnetron; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 2 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites The method according to claim 2, wherein: the magnetron comprises a tuner and is comprised in a particle accelerator for generating a beam for a radiotherapy device; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
the plurality of parameters comprises Low Tension, LT, & High Tension, HT, hour history, the LT hour history being hours over the lifetime of the magnetron it has been switched on in a closed state or higher, HT hour history being a number of hours the beam has been on; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
and the LT and HT hour history comprising at least one of: mean X-ray dose rate for all X-ray energies, min, mean and max tuner position for a lowest configured x-ray (XLOW) energy, min, mean and max magnetron filament current and voltage with no energy selected, or min, mean and max magnetron filament voltage for the XLOW energy; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 3 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites The method according to claim 3, wherein analyzing the lifetime data comprises determining an average value of each of the plurality of parameters; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of determining an average value. A user may use pen and paper to compute a mathematical average of values.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 4 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites The method according to claim 4, wherein the average value comprise at least one of: an average lifetime of one or more parts of the magnetron, an average start value and an average end value of the tuner of the magnetron, an average lifetime of the tuner, an average total monitor units (Mus) delivered by the magnetron, an average number of HT hours in the magnetron's lifetime, an average number of days in the magnetron's lifetime, or an average number of operational hours in a day; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 5 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, wherein analyzing the lifetime data comprises determining one or more trends in the lifetime data; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of determining a trend. A user may use pen and paper to perform the necessary calculations, including determining regression functions or identifying links between parameters.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 6 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, wherein analyzing the lifetime data comprises using artificial intelligence (Al) to determine one or more trends in the data; this limitation recites the further additional element “artificial intelligence” which is a high level recitation of generic computer components, computer elements used as a tool, and represents mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 7 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, wherein analyzing the lifetime data comprises determining a set of threshold values for the magnetron relating to one or more of: an age of one or more parts of the magnetron, a start value and a current value of a tuner of the magnetron, an age of the tuner, a total number of monitor units delivered by the magnetron, a total number of HT hours in the magnetron's lifetime to date, an age of the magnetron, or an average length of operation of the magnetron during a day in use; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of determining a threshold values. A user may use pen and paper to record said threshold values.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 8 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, wherein collating the lifetime data comprises retrieving data from records stored in a system; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 9 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, wherein collating the lifetime data comprises receiving data from the magnetron over a network; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 10 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving data relating to a first magnetron; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
comparing the data from the first magnetron to the model for predictive maintenance; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of comparing data. A user may use pen and paper to perform any necessary calculations.
and based on the comparison, determining whether replacement should be scheduled; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental judgement of determining whether a replacement should be scheduled.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 11 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites The method according to claim 11, wherein the data relating to the first magnetron is received from the first magnetron over a network; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 12 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites The method according to claim 11, wherein the data relating to the first magnetron comprises lifetime data and a plurality of measurements of the first magnetron; this limitation is considered to merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or technological environment under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(h).
and wherein comparing the data from the first magnetron to the model for predictive maintenance comprises comparing each measurement of the plurality of measurements of the first magnetron to a respective value in the model for predictive maintenance; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of comparing measurements to a model value. A user may use pen and paper to perform any necessary calculations.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 13 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites The method according to claim 11, wherein comparing the data from the first magnetron to the predictive maintenance model comprises comparing a measurement in the data from the first magnetron to a threshold value in the predictive model; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental evaluation of comparing a measurement to a threshold value. A user may use pen and paper to perform any necessary calculations.
and in response to the value being greater than the threshold value, determining that replacement of the magnetron should be scheduled; this limitation is considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A user can perform the mental judgement of determining that a replacement should be scheduled. A user may use pen and paper to perform any necessary calculations.
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations are considered to constitute additional mental processes and/or mathematical concepts under step 2A prong I of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 14 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites The method according to claim 11, further comprising: outputting the determination; this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 12 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim recites The method according to claim 1, wherein outputting the model for predictive maintenance of a magnetron comprises outputting the model for predictive maintenance to a user interface or to a computer storage medium; this limitation recites the further additional elements “user interface” and “computer storage medium,” which are high level recitations of generic computer components and/or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP §2106.05(f).
This limitation is further considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong II of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(g). The insignificant extra-solution activity is further well-understood, routine conventional activity under step 2B of the abstract idea analysis, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.”
These limitations have been considered in combination with the limitations required by the claim(s) from which this claim depends. The additional limitations and/or additional elements do not integrate the claim limitations into a practical application (step 2A prong II), or recite significantly more than the abstract idea (step 2B). Therefore, Claim 12 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 1, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons. The additional elements “non-transitory computer-readable medium,” “instructions,” and “processor” represent mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f) and thus do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or recite significantly more.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claims 2 and 4, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 for the same reasons.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8-16, 18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berezowitz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2001/0031036 A1), hereinafter Berezowitz.
Regarding Claim 1, Berezowitz teaches A computer-implemented method of determining a model for predictive maintenance of a magnetron for a particle accelerator for a radiotherapy device (“More particularly, the invention relates to a technique for predicting future life and possible failure of an x-ray tube through analysis of predictive parameters sensed during use of the tube.”) (e.g., paragraph [0001]).
the method comprising: collating lifetime data of each of a plurality of magnetrons (“The foregoing procedure is summarized in FIG. 6. As shown at step 122 in FIG. 6, subscribing scanners or facilities are periodically swept to obtain data on parameters considered indicative of possible x-ray tube failure, such as anode overcurrent events, and [spit rate exceeded (SRE)] rates or Z-scores derived from the SRE data.”) (e.g., paragraph [0045]).
analyzing the lifetime data to determine a set of values indicative of a need for magnetron replacement (“At step 124, the data is compiled, either at the central service facility or at the scanners (or internal management station), to obtain the failure prediction values needed for the prediction analysis. At step 126 the predictive analysis is performed, such as through the calculations summarized above in equations 2 and 3.”) (e.g., paragraph [0045]).
and outputting the set of determined values to form a model for predictive maintenance of a magnetron (“At step 126 the predictive analysis is performed, such as through the calculations summarized above in equations 2 and 3. The predictive failure analysis concludes at step 128 wherein a comparison is made between the failure prediction values, as summarized above.” Equations 2 and 3 are a model for predictive maintenance.) (e.g., paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 2, Berezowitz teaches The method according to claim 1. Berezowitz further teaches wherein the lifetime data comprises a plurality of parameters from the respective magnetron (“The foregoing procedure is summarized in FIG. 6. As shown at step 122 in FIG. 6, subscribing scanners or facilities are periodically swept to obtain data on parameters considered indicative of possible x-ray tube failure, such as anode overcurrent events, and [spit rate exceeded (SRE)] rates or Z-scores derived from the SRE data.”) (e.g., paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 6, Berezowitz teaches The method of claim 1. Berezowitz further teaches wherein analyzing the lifetime data comprises determining one or more trends in the lifetime data (“[D]iscriminant analysis is used to determine weighting coefficients for the parameters considered to be predictive of failure […] two weighted functions are obtained through the discriminant analysis [as given by equations 2 and 3,] where the value Idf1 is a first linear discriminant function value, Idf2 is a second linear discriminant function value […] if the value of Idf2 is found to be greater than or equal to the value of Idf1 no imminent failure is predicted for the tube. On the contrary, when the value of Idf1 exceeds the value of Idf2, the tube is considered to be near failure.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0034] – [0036]).
Regarding Claim 7, Berezowitz teaches The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the lifetime data comprises using artificial intelligence (Al) to determine one or more trends in the data (“At step 126 the predictive analysis is performed, such as through the calculations summarized above in equations 2 and 3. The predictive failure analysis concludes at step 128 wherein a comparison is made between the failure prediction values, as summarized above […] If the result of the comparison made at step 128 is affirmative, this fact is reported to the scanner or institution at step 132.” The central service facility 102, comprising central computers 104, is interpreted as performing the comparison. That is, a computer system performs decision making, which is artificial intelligence, given its broadest reasonable interpretation.) (e.g., paragraphs [0045] and [0046]).
Regarding Claim 8, Berezowitz teaches The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the lifetime data comprises determining a set of threshold values for the magnetron (“[I]f the value of Idf2 is found to be greater than or equal to the value of Idf1 no imminent failure is predicted for the tube. On the contrary, when the value of Idf1 exceeds the value of Idf2, the tube is considered to be near failure.”) (e.g., paragraph [0036]).
relating to one or more of: an age of one or more parts of the magnetron, a start value and a current value of a tuner of the magnetron, an age of the tuner, a total number of monitor units delivered by the magnetron, a total number of HT hours in the magnetron's lifetime to date, an age of the magnetron, or an average length of operation of the magnetron during a day in use (“[D]iscriminant analysis is used to determine weighting coefficients for the parameters considered to be predictive of failure […] two weighted functions are obtained through the discriminant analysis [as given by equations 2 and 3,] where the value Idf1 is a first linear discriminant function value, Idf2 is a second linear discriminant function value., C1 and C2 are constants resulting from the discriminant analysis, K1, K2, K3, and K4 are coefficients resulting from the discriminant analysis, adjrate is the Z-score for the tube, and the value aoc is the count of daily anode overcurrent events.”) (e.g., paragraph [0030]).
Regarding Claim 9, Berezowitz The method of claim 1. Berezowitz further teaches wherein collating the lifetime data comprises retrieving data from records stored in a system (“The number of SREs per day is also monitored by system controller 34 and stored in memory circuitry 36.”) (e.g., paragraph [0029]).
Regarding Claim 10, Berezowitz teaches The method of claim 1. Berezowitz further teaches wherein collating the lifetime data comprises receiving data from the magnetron over a network (“As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, field service engineers may access information on replacement of tubes through the same network used to link the scanners to the service facility.”) (e.g., paragraph [0044]).
Regarding Claim 11, Berezowitz teaches The method according to claim 1. Berezowitz further teaches receiving data relating to a first magnetron; (“The foregoing procedure is summarized in FIG. 6. As shown at step 122 in FIG. 6, subscribing scanners or facilities are periodically swept to obtain data on parameters considered indicative of possible x-ray tube failure, such as anode overcurrent events, and [spit rate exceeded (SRE)] rates or Z-scores derived from the SRE data.”) (e.g., paragraph [0045]).
comparing the data from the first magnetron to the model for predictive maintenance (“The predictive failure analysis concludes at step 128 wherein a comparison is made between the failure prediction values, as summarized above.”) (e.g., paragraph [0045]).
and based on the comparison, determining whether replacement should be scheduled (“If the result of the comparison made at step 128 is affirmative, this fact is reported to the scanner or institution at step 132. In addition, a service order is generated at step 134 and a replacement tube is ordered from a warehouse or factory as indicated at reference numeral 114 in FIG. 5.”) (e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 12, Berezowitz teaches The method of claim 11. Berezowitz further teaches wherein the data relating to the first magnetron is received from the first magnetron over a network (“As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, field service engineers may access information on replacement of tubes through the same network used to link the scanners to the service facility.”) (e.g., paragraph [0044]).
Regarding Claim 13, Berezowitz teaches The method of claim 11. Berezowitz further teaches wherein the data relating to the first magnetron comprises lifetime data and a plurality of measurements of the first magnetron (“The Z-score is calculated based upon the occurrences of SREs by [equation 1,] where SRE3d is the average number of SREs per day over a previous three day period, SREL is the average number of SREs per day over the life of the tube, and σSRE is the standard deviation of the number of daily SREs over the life of the tube.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0031] and [0032]).
and wherein comparing the data from the first magnetron to the model for predictive maintenance comprises comparing each measurement of the plurality of measurements of the first magnetron to a respective value in the model for predictive maintenance (“While algorithms including a large number of monitor parameters may be included in such failure prediction analyses, in a present embodiment the rate of occurrence of anode overcurrent events and SREs are used to generate failure prediction values which may be compared to evaluate the potential for short term tube failure.”) (e.g., paragraph [0030]).
Regarding Claim 14, Berezowitz teaches The method of claim 11. Berezowitz further teaches wherein comparing the data from the first magnetron to the predictive maintenance model comprises comparing a measurement in the data from the first magnetron to a threshold value in the predictive model (“[I]f the value of Idf2 is found to be greater than or equal to the value of Idf1 no imminent failure is predicted for the tube. On the contrary, when the value of Idf1 exceeds the value of Idf2, the tube is considered to be near failure.”) (e.g., paragraph [0036]).
and in response to the value being greater than the threshold value, determining that replacement of the magnetron should be scheduled (“If the result of the comparison made at step 128 is affirmative, this fact is reported to the scanner or institution at step 132. In addition, a service order is generated at step 134 and a replacement tube is ordered from a warehouse or factory as indicated at reference numeral 114 in FIG. 5.”) (e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 15, Berezowitz teaches The method of claim 11, Berezowitz further teaches outputting the determination (“If the result of the comparison made at step 128 is affirmative, this fact is reported to the scanner or institution at step 132.”) (e.g., paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 16, Berezowitz teaches The method of claim 1. Berezowitz further teaches wherein outputting the model for predictive maintenance of a magnetron comprises outputting the model for predictive maintenance to a user interface or to a computer storage medium (“In such cases, the scanners are preferably provided with network software, such as a graphical user interface and browser permitting operations personnel at a facility to send and receive messages with the central service facility.”) (e.g., paragraph [0038]).
Regarding Claim 18, Berezowitz teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to (“[I]n the present embodiment the parameters considered indicative of future tube failure are monitored at the individual diagnostic or imaging system in which the tube is installed. The analysis of these parameters may also be performed at the diagnostic system, or may be performed remotely, such as at a central service facility.”) (e.g., paragraph [0038]).
The remaining limitations of Claim 18 recite substantially similar material to Claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) for the same reasons.
the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 1, and the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons. The additional elements “non-transitory computer-readable medium,” “instructions,” and “processor” represent mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas on a computer as in MPEP § 2106.05(f) and thus do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application or recite significantly more.
Regarding Claim 21, Berezowitz teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18. Berezowitz further teaches wherein the lifetime data comprises a plurality of parameters from the respective magnetron (“The foregoing procedure is summarized in FIG. 6. As shown at step 122 in FIG. 6, subscribing scanners or facilities are periodically swept to obtain data on parameters considered indicative of possible x-ray tube failure, such as anode overcurrent events, and [spit rate exceeded (SRE)] rates or Z-scores derived from the SRE data.”) (e.g., paragraph [0045]).
and wherein analyzing the data comprises determining an average value of each of the plurality of parameters (“The Z-score is calculated based upon the occurrences of SREs by [equation 1,] where SRE3d is the average number of SREs per day over a previous three day period, SREL is the average number of SREs per day over the life of the tube, and σSRE is the standard deviation of the number of daily SREs over the life of the tube.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0031] and [0032]).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berezowitz in view of Smith (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0248214 A1), hereinafter Smith, further in view of Hess (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0006093 A1), hereinafter Hess.
Regarding Claim 3, Berezowitz teaches The method according to claim 2. Berezowitz further teaches wherein: the magnetron comprises a tuner and is comprised in a particle accelerator for generating a beam for a radiotherapy device (“In the system shown in FIG. 1, radiation source 12 receives power and control signals from a generator or controller 16.” The controller is interpreted as a tuner.) (e.g., paragraph [0019]).
However, Berezowitz does not appear to specifically teach the plurality of parameters comprises Low Tension, LT, & High Tension, HT, hour history, the LT hour history being hours over the lifetime of the magnetron it has been switched on in a closed state or higher, HT hour history being a number of hours the beam has been on; and the LT and HT hour history comprising at least one of: mean X-ray dose rate for all X-ray energies, min, mean and max tuner position for a lowest configured x-ray (XLOW) energy, min, mean and max magnetron filament current and voltage with no energy selected, or min, mean and max magnetron filament voltage for the XLOW energy
On the other hand, Hess, which relates similarly as a method for predicting the lifetime of an x-ray generator, does teach wherein the plurality of parameters comprises Low Tension, LT, & High Tension, HT, hour history, the LT hour history being hours over the lifetime of the magnetron it has been switched on in a closed state or higher, HT hour history being a number of hours the beam has been on (“Data acquisition and evaluation system 4 contains a data logger with data memories, which is connected to a measuring device 5 for the tube current, a measuring device 6 for the positive high Voltage, a measuring device 7 for the negative high Voltage, and to a temperature measuring device 8. The values determined by measuring devices 5-8 are stored at regular, predetermined time intervals in data acquisition and evaluation system 4. In addition, the standby times and the operating times of X-ray tube 1 are recorded.” Logged standby time is interpreted as an LT history, and logged operating time is interpreted as an HT history.) (e.g., paragraph [0020]).
However, neither Berezowitz nor Hess teaches the LT and HT hour history comprising at least one of: mean X-ray dose rate for all X-ray energies, min, mean and max tuner position for a lowest configured x-ray (XLOW) energy, min, mean and max magnetron filament current and voltage with no energy selected, or min, mean and max magnetron filament voltage for the XLOW energy
On the other hand, Smith, which relates similarly as a method for monitoring x-ray dose rate, does teach the LT and HT hour history comprising at least one of: mean X-ray dose rate for all X-ray energies, min, mean and max tuner position for a lowest configured x-ray (XLOW) energy, min, mean and max magnetron filament current and voltage with no energy selected, or min, mean and max magnetron filament voltage for the XLOW energy (The Examiner notes the use of at least one of, and the prior art teaches a min, mean, and max voltage for an XLOW energy. “Conversely, charge-depth curve 603 illustrates an exemplary electron current flux distribution when the effective energy of the electron beam is too low. The peak value of the dose-depth curve is below the nominal value represented by curve 601 and the electron current flux reaches zero well before the boundary 424 of the collector 414. Either condition (i.e., too much energy or too little energy) may be detected by measuring the value of Vsense. As noted above, the value of Vsense is proportional to the residual current 417, and the residual current is proportional to the area under the depth-dose curve (e.g., curves 601, 602 and 603) in collector 414.” The recorded values of Vsense are interpreted as comprising a min, max, and mean, wherein Vsense corresponds to an energy of the electron beam.) (e.g., paragraphs [0040] and [0041]).
However, neither Berezowitz nor Smith teaches the plurality of parameters comprises Low Tension, LT, & High Tension, HT, hour history, the LT hour history being hours over the lifetime of the magnetron it has been switched on in a closed state or higher, HT hour history being a number of hours the beam has been on.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Berezowitz with Hess. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Berezowitz teaches a method for predicting failure of an x-ray tube. However, Berezowitz does not appear to specifically teach wherein the parameters comprise a low tension and high tension hour history. On the other hand, Hess, which relates similarly as a method for predicting the lifetime of an x-ray generator, does teach logging standby and operating times of an x-ray tube. As both Berezowitz and Hess relate to predicting x-ray tube failure (e.g., Berezowitz, paragraph [0001]; Hess, paragraph [0019]), one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the standby and operating time histories of Hess with the prediction method of Berezowitz. Furthermore, Berezowitz already discloses plotting spit rate exceeded errors over time (e.g., Berezowitz, figure 4 and paragraph [0033]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have used the standby and operating time histories of Hess as analysis parameters in Berezowitz, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to combine Berezowitz with Hess to provide further parameters to improve the accuracy of the analysis in Berezowitz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Berezowitz in view of Hess with Smith. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Berezowitz teaches a method for predicting failure of an x-ray tube. However, Berezowitz does not specifically teach wherein a standby and operation time history comprise information relating to x-ray dose rate and magnetron filament voltage. On the other hand, Smith, which relates similarly as a method for monitoring x-ray dose rate, does teach a magnetron voltage and current are monitored for a low energy x-ray. As both Berezowitz and Smith relate to medical x-ray sources (e.g., Berezowitz, paragraph [0001]; Smith, paragraph [0001]), one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the voltage and current measurements of Smith with the predictive analysis in Berezowitz. Furthermore, Berezowitz already discloses that tube failure can be a function of the modes of operation and user-selected parameters, such as voltage or current (e.g., Berezowitz, paragraph [005]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have used the voltage and current measurements of Smith as analysis parameters in Berezowitz, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Berezowitz in view of Hess with Smith to provide further parameters to improve the accuracy of the analysis in Berezowitz.
Regarding Claim 4, Berezowitz in view of Smith and Hess teaches The method according to claim 3. Berezowitz further teaches wherein analyzing the lifetime data comprises determining an average value of each of the plurality of parameters (“The Z-score is calculated based upon the occurrences of SREs by [equation 1,] where SRE3d is the average number of SREs per day over a previous three day period, SREL is the average number of SREs per day over the life of the tube, and σSRE is the standard deviation of the number of daily SREs over the life of the tube.”) (e.g., paragraphs [0031] and [0032]).
Regarding Claim 5, Berezowitz in view of Smith and Hess teaches The method according to claim 4. Berezowitz further teaches wherein the average value comprise at least one of: an average lifetime of one or more parts of the magnetron, an average start value and an average end value of the tuner of the magnetron, an average lifetime of the tuner, an average total monitor units (Mus) delivered by the magnetron, an average number of HT hours in the magnetron's lifetime, an average number of days in the magnetron's lifetime, or an average number of operational hours in a day (The Examiner notes the use of or, and the prior art teaches an average total monitor units. “Moreover, where the electron beam is diverted from the anode disc by the particulate, the high current discharge event is generally termed a "spit" in the art. In addition to detecting current anomalies of these types, generator 16 is capable of distinguishing between anode overcurrent events and spits […] The Z-score is calculated based upon the occurrences of SREs by [equation 1,] where SRE3d is the average number of SREs per day over a previous three day period, SREL is the average number of SREs per day over the life of the tube, and σSRE is the standard deviation of the number of daily SREs over the life of the tube.” The average number of spit rate exceeded errors is interpreted as relating to an average total monitor units delivered by the magnetron, wherein a higher spit rate correlates to reduced radiation output.) (e.g., paragraphs [0031] and [0032]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Able et al. (Able, Charles M., Alan H. Baydush, Callistus Nguyen, Jacob Gersh, Alois Ndlovu, Igor Rebo, Jeremy Booth, Mario Perez, Benjamin Sintay, and Michael T. Munley. "A model for preemptive maintenance of medical linear accelerators—predictive maintenance." Radiation Oncology 11, no. 1 (2016): 36.) teaches a method for predicting maintenance for medical linear accelerators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights