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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/27/26.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0140225 A1 [Chmielewski] in view of US 10,799,714 B2 [Jongen].
Regarding Claim 1:
Chmielewski teaches a coolant supply apparatus for a rotating gantry (Fig. 1) comprising:
a rotating gantry that supports both an irradiation nozzle configured to radiate a particle beam (Fig. 1 (10)); and
at least one cable group (Fig. 1 (110)) that is configured by integrating a plurality of cables arranged in line along a band-shaped reinforcement member (Fig. 1 (120), para 17), is connected at one end to the rotating gantry (Fig. 1 (10)), and is connected at another end to a stationary device (Fig. 2 (230)).
Chmielewski fails to teach a transport unit configured to transport the particle beam to the irradiation nozzle and rotates around a horizontal axis directed in a horizontal direction.
Jongen teaches a rotating gantry for radiation therapy (See e.g., Fig. 4) including a cable spool (7:25) and a transport unit configured to transport the particle beam to the irradiation nozzle (Fig. 4, 6:14-54) and rotates around a horizontal axis directed in a horizontal direction (4:27-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the radiation therapy transport unit of Jongen in place of that used, but not discussed, by Chmielewski. One would have been motivated to do so in order to better control energy spread of the radiation beam. Jongen 3:32-34.
Regarding Claim 2:
The above modified invention teaches the coolant supply apparatus for the rotating gantry according to claim 1, further comprising a spool (Chmielewski Fig. 2 (10), para 18- the exterior of the gantry acts as a spool), wherein:
the at least one cable group comprises a plurality of cable groups (Chmielewski Fig. 1 (110) shows two cable groups); and
the spool is provided on the rotating gantry and winds or unwinds the plurality of cable groups in a radially stacked state (as shown in Chmielewski Fig. 1, cable groups (110) wind around the spool of the gantry radially).
PNG
media_image1.png
817
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3:
The above modified invention teaches the supply apparatus for the rotating gantry according to claim 2, further comprising:
a connector portion that is provided corresponding to a lane configured to hold the plurality of cable groups in the spool and protrudes in a radial direction of the spool (Chmielewski Fig. 1 shows a protruding portion of the spool surrounding (110) in an axial direction); and
a plurality of penetration portions that are formed in the connector portion, penetrate connector portion in a circumferential direction of the spool, and pass the plurality of cable groups from outside to inside of the spool (as can be seen in Chmielewski Fig. 1, there are penetration portions between the connector portions that penetrate into the connector body and pass the cables into the spool).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0140225 A1 [Chmielewski] in view of Jongen, and further in view of US 2015/0014128 A1 [Mizuno].
Regarding Claim 5:
The above modified invention teaches the coolant supply apparatus for the rotating gantry according to claim 2, wherein the spool includes at least one disc-shaped brim disk that is formed on a periphery. Chmielewski outermost connector portion is said brim disk.
However, the above modified invention fails to teach that the disc has a chamfered portion.
Mizuno teaches a spooling device having disks on its periphery (Fig. 5) wherein the disc has a chamfered portion at the edges thereof (as shown near Fig. 5 (23c)) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the chamfers of Mizuno to the disks of the above modified invention since this would remove sharp corners and thus mitigate the possibility of damaging the cable group.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights