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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9 lines 5-6, change “therapy radiation” to --the therapy radiation--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8-9, 15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Seeber et al. (US 20070127624).
Regarding claim 1, Seeber teaches a slat for collimating therapy radiation, the slat comprising:
a collimation region 7 made from a first material;
a holding region 10 made from a second material, wherein
the collimation region and the holding region are connected together by a connection point (figure 4),
the first material is configured to collimate therapy radiation (figure 4), and
the holding region is couplable to an adjusting facility for adjusting the slat; and
a guide element 10 configured to guide the slat in the adjusting facility, the guide element extending across the connection point.
Regarding claim 5, Seeber teaches the first material includes tungsten (para 6).
Regarding claim 8, Seeber teaches a collimator, comprising:
a plurality of slats, each of the plurality of slats being the slat of claim 1; and the adjusting facility, wherein the slats are coupled to the adjusting facility by the holding regions of the slats, and the adjusting facility is configured to adjust each slat of the plurality of slats perpendicularly to a contact face of the respective holding region and the collimation region (figure 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 9, Seeber teaches a method for producing a slot for collimating therapy radiation, the method comprising:
forming a combination block by connecting a first block 7 made from a first material and a second block 10 made from a second material at a connection point, the first material configured to collimate the therapy radiation;
shaping the first block into a collimation region (figures 1 and 2) and
shaping the second block into a holding region couplable to an adjusting facility for adjusting the slat (figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15, Seeber teaches the first material includes tungsten (para 6).
Regarding claim 21, Seeber teaches the guide element is on one side of the slat, the one side of the slat configured to face a radiation source when coupled to the adjusting facility (figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-4, 10-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeber in view of Porebski et al. (US 20230120400).
Regarding claims 2-4, 10-14 and 18-20, Seeber fails to teach pre-treating, gluing, welding, coating, soldering nor milling.
Porebski teaches pre-treating, gluing, welding, coating, soldering and milling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the connection of Seeber with the connection as taught by Porebski, since it would better assembly.
Claim(s) 2-4, 10-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeber in view of Hall (US 5354623).
Regarding claims 2-4, 10-14 and 18-20, Seeber fails to teach pre-treating, gluing, welding, coating, soldering nor milling.
Hall teaches pre-treating, gluing, welding, coating, soldering and milling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the connection of Seeber with the connection as taught by Porebski, since it would better assembly.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeber in view of Orton et al. (US 20140239204).
Regarding claim 6, Seeber fails to teach the second material is at lease one of aluminum or a copper alloy.
Orton teaches at lease one of aluminum or a copper alloy (para 76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the material of Seeber with the aluminum as taught by Orton, since it would provide ease of movement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-16 and 18-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached on 571-272-2273. 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.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884