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 .
Examiner withdraws the 112(f) interpretation for the “beam generation apparatus” given the structure, “each of the charged particle beam generation apparatuses comprising an ion source, a pre-accelerator and a circular accelerator”, added to claim 1.
Examiner maintains the interpretation under 112(f) of the “beam irradiation apparatus”.
Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 1/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(2), and claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art references detailed below.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansmann et al. (US 20080290299 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Hansmann”, and in further view of Takeji Miyaoka (US 20230199935), hereinafter referred to as “Miyaoka”.
Regarding claims 1 and 5 Hansmann discloses a particle beam irradiation system (fig. 1: para. [0020]-[0023]) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
654
1053
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a beam transport line that transports charged particle beams generated by the charged particle beam generation apparatuses (Fig. 1 as annotated below);
and two or more beam irradiation apparatuses to which the charged particle beams are transported through the beam transport line (this is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) above. Fig. 1 room 25 and gantry 29 disclose the corresponding structures),
wherein any one of the beam irradiation apparatuses is configured such that the charged particle beams from a plurality of the charged particle beam generation apparatuses can be transported thereto (Fig. 1 and para 13 demonstrate that the transporting system is operable to guide the particles to one or more treatment rooms), and
the charged particle beams are simultaneously transported from the plurality of charged particle beam generation apparatuses to corresponding ones of the different beam irradiation apparatuses, respectively (the combination of parallel beam courses, as described in para 7, demonstrates simultaneous transportation from the accelerators to the irradiation rooms).
PNG
media_image2.png
820
1224
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hansmann further teaches two or more charged particle beam generation apparatuses capable of operating independently of each other (fig. 1, elements 19 and 11; para. [0007])(at least two acceleration units may accelerate different types of particles (para. [0011])),
However, Hansmann fails to explicitly teach two or more charged particle beam generation apparatuses capable of operating independently of each other, each of the charged particle beam qeneration apparatuses comprisinq an ion source, a pre-accelerator and a circular accelerator;
Miyaoka teaches two or more charged particle beam generation apparatuses capable of operating independently of each other, each of the charged particle beam qeneration apparatuses comprisinq an ion source, a pre-accelerator (Fig. 1 as a annotated below);
PNG
media_image3.png
772
880
media_image3.png
Greyscale
To be clear, Hansmann teaches two independently operating circular accelerators (Fig. 1, 19 and 11). Miyaoka teaches two independently operating ion sources and pre- accelerators. 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 device described in Hansmann to include the teachings of Miyaoka by adding the ions sources 11 and 12 and pre-accelerators 21 and 22 to the circular accelerators 19 and 11. Doing so, allows the particles being sent to each irradiation rooms to be uniquely optimized in terms of energy and number of particles, and the particles can be accelerated to different desired energies.
Regarding claim 3, Hansmann fails to explicitly disclose the particle beam irradiation system according to claim 1, wherein the charged particle beam generation apparatuses have different ion sources.
However, Miyaoka teaches the particle beam irradiation system according to claim 1, wherein the charged particle beam generation apparatuses have different ion sources (Fig. 1, ion sources 11 and 12).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansmann in view of Inaniwa et al. (US 2015/0133714 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Inaniwa”, and in further view of Yoshihito Hori (10556131), hereinafter referred to as Hori.
Regarding claim 2, Hansmann teaches wherein the beam transport line comprises a vacuum pipe (beam transporting system 23).
Hansmann fails to teach a plurality of bending magnets provided on the vacuum pipe.
However, Hori teaches wherein the beam transport line comprises a vacuum pipe (beam transport system 2) and a plurality of bendinq magnets provided on the vacuum pipe (bending magnets 9a and 9b).
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 device described in Hansmann, to include the teachings of Hori, by adding bending magnets 9a and 9b to the vacuum pipe in Hansmann. Bending magnets direct the beams to their respective irradiation rooms.
Further, Hansmann does not explicitly teach an advancing direction of a first charged particle beam from a first charged particle beam generation apparatus to a first beam irradiation apparatus and an advancing direction of a second charged particle beam from a second charged particle beam generation apparatus to a second beam irradiation apparatus intersect in a vacuum pipe at a position where a bending magnet is arranged on the beam transport line.
Inaniwa teaches an advancing direction of a first charged particle beam from a first charged particle beam generation apparatus to a first beam irradiation apparatus and an advancing direction of a second charged particle beam from a second charged particle beam generation apparatus to a second beam irradiation apparatus intersect in a vacuum pipe at a position where a bending magnet is arranged on the beam transport line. (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
738
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Hansmann such that the first particle beam from the first cyclotron (fig. 1, element 11), guided by the first beam transporting system (fig. 1, element 13), and the second particle beam from the second cyclotron, ((fig. 1, element 19) guided by the second beam transporting system (fig. 1, element 21), intersect using the method in Inaniwa where the beam paths are altered in a vacuum pipe at a position where a bending magnet is arranged on the beam transport line (fig. 1 as annotated). Doing so allows for charged particle beams generated from independent beam generation apparatuses to be transported to separate irradiation apparatuses.
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 MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881