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
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a ultra-high dose deposition rate” and should be amended to recite “an ultra-high dose deposition rate”.
Claim 1 recites “volumewherein” and should be amended to recite “volume wherein”.
Claim 1 recites “all specific volume” and should be amended to recite “all specific volumes”.
Claim 1 recites “HDR deposition rate”. The claim has already defined that HDR stands for “ultra-high deposition rate” and should be amended to recite “HDR” by itself, and not “HDR deposition rate”.
Claims 2-4 inherit the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 5 includes capitalized letters for each step of the definition of the pseudo-mediatrix. It is therefore unclear whether or not the claim is in single sentence form, as required.
Claim 6 inherits the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 7 includes capitalized letters for each step of the definition of the pseudo-mediatrix. It is therefore unclear whether or not the claim is in single sentence form, as required.
Claim 8 includes capitalized letters for each step of the definition of the pseudo-mediatrix. It is therefore unclear whether or not the claim is in single sentence form, as required.
Claim 9 inherits the limitations of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 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) method steps of defining and establishing sequences, lines, and areas on a volume. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the method includes no method steps reducing the theoretical defining steps to a practical method of actually controlling or changing any physical object in the real world. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because although the claim generally recites “a method for defining a scanning sequence for treatment by radiation with charged particle beams”, the claim includes no method steps related to actually scanning an object with charged particle beams, and includes no positive recitation of a charged particle beam being generated, controlled, or manipulated in any way.
Claims 2-9 inherit the limitations of claim 1 and do no add any method steps of actually controlling a charged particle beam.
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 1-9 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 1, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “significant fraction” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a surface plane (P0 = (Y,Z))”. It is unclear what quantity or quantities or unit(s) of measure are associated with the quantities Y and Z.
Claim 1 recites “all the specific volumes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 does not specify that there are plural specific volumes.
Claim 1 recites “the proton beam current”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the claim does not necessarily specify that a proton beam is present, and does not specify a current of a proton beam.
Claims 2-5 inherit the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites “the spots enclosed” within “a first reference rectangle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as it not clear that the first reference rectangle necessarily includes enclosed spots. It is believed that this this recitation should be amended to recite “for a first reference rectangle, identify any spots enclosed therein”. The claim then recites “a geometric median of the spots enclosed in the first reference rectangle”, which is similarly unclear.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “insignificant effect” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “insignificant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "preferably" (and “more preferably”) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Labarbe et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0402214 discloses a method for defining a scanning sequence for treatment by radiation with proton (“for instance with proton beams” [0001]) charged particle beams, wherein the method ensures that doses are deposited by pencil beam scanning onto a target volume comprising tumoral cells enclosed within a peripheral surface (“a plan for treatment by radiation with charged particles beams applied by pencil beam scanning onto a target tissue comprising tumoral cells is provided” [Abstract]) and at an ultra-high dose deposition rate onto a significant fraction of specific volumes defining a critical volume comprising healthy cells (“it has been observed that a same dose (D) had different effects on healthy cells but not on tumoral cells when deposited at conventional dose deposition rates (CDR) or at ultra-high dose deposition rate (HDR)” [0013]). However, Labarbe does not disclose ensuring that doses are deposited in an energy monolayer onto a target volume. Additionally, Labarabe does not disclose the claimed method steps, at least of defining a target area bounded by a target perimeter by projection of the target volume onto a surface plane normal to a central irradiation axis, and defining a spot diameter and spot position pattern on the surface plane of spots distributed at least within the target perimeter such as to cover at least a whole area defined within the target perimeter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-1489. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM-5:00PM 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.
/JASON L MCCORMACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2881