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
Applicant’s amendments, filed 27 April 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered. The requirement for restriction made in the Office action mailed 26 February 2026 is withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (e.g., paragraph 0012, EP21208699; paragraph 0043, EP2021/208699) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
The page containing FIGs. 2(c) – 2(e) contains 4 drawings but only 3 figure labels; it is not clear which figure label corresponds to which drawing;
FIG. 8(b): there is an unlabeled arrow at the upper left of the figure, near element Pz;
FIGs. 11(c) – 11(d): element 11c appears to be mis-labeled as 11b (see paragraph 0043 of the instant specification).
FIGs. 3(b) and 3(c) should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
FIG. 1(a): 3s, di0, di1, dk0, dk1, dm0, dm1;
FIG. 1(c): di0, di1;
FIG. 1(d): Vm, vm, dm0, dm1;
FIG. 2(a): 3s, E0;
FIG. 2(b): 3s, E0, Ej, Lj, Wu
FIGs. 2(c) – 2(e): F(Z), R, di1, di2, dk1, dk2,
W
E
T
~
;
FIG. 3(b): S1.1, S1.j, S2.1, S2.j, Si.1, Si.j;
FIGs. 8(a) – 8(d), 9(a) – 9(d): Pz
FIG. 3(c):
W
E
T
~
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-5 and 9-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the irradiation axis” in line 11, and “the irradiation axes” in the last two lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim; it is unclear whether “the irradiation axis/axes” refers to the “corresponding irradiation axes” or the “central irradiation axis”. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the irradiation axis” and “the irradiation axes” to mean “the corresponding irradiation [[axis]]axes” and “the corresponding irradiation axes”, respectively.
Claims 2-5 and 9-14 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3 recite the limitation “the corresponding pencil beam axes” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the corresponding pencil beam axes” to mean “the corresponding irradiation axes”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a major axis of cavities” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “a major axis of cavities” to mean “a major axis of orifices”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the irradiation axis” in lines 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the irradiation axis” to mean “the corresponding irradiation [[axis]]axes”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the pencil beams of accelerated charged particles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the pencil beams of accelerated charged particles” to mean “the pencil beams
Claims 10-14 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 9.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “corresponding radiation modules of the sequence of radiation modules” in lines 6-7, and “the irradiation axis” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “corresponding radiation modules of the sequence of radiation modules” and “the irradiation axis” to mean “corresponding radiation modules of [[the]]a sequence of radiation modules” and “the corresponding irradiation [[axis]]axes”, respectively.
Claim 12 is rejected because of its dependence on claim 11.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the pencil beam of the charged particles” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the pencil beam of the charged particles” to mean “the pencil beam
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Design of static and dynamic ridge filters for FLASH-IMPT: A simulation study”, 2022), hereinafter Zhang, in view of Jongen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0005463 A1), hereinafter Jongen.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a dynamic ridge filter (FIG. 2) for shaping a dose deposition zone (FIG. 1, caption) by radiation with charged particles beams (page 5388, column 2, section 2.1, paragraph 1: proton beam), and for depositing doses applied by pencil beams (page 5388, column 2, paragraph preceding section 2: PBS) propagating along corresponding irradiation axes fanning out of a central irradiation axis by a pencil beam scanning system (page 5390, column 1, paragraph 2) and delivered in sequence to specific volumes along a X-axis (page 5394, column 2, spot-to-spot) to form specific volume stripes distributed next to one another along a Y-axis transverse to the X-axis (page 5394, column 2, line), the specific volumes defining in combination a target volume comprising tumoral cells (page 5390, column 1, section 2.3, paragraph 1), wherein the dynamic ridge filter comprises:
a number of energy spreading units (FIG. 2b: each of the yellow and blue blocks is an individual energy spreading unit), each energy spreading unit being characterized by a corresponding energy spreading capacity for spreading the dose deposited along the irradiation axis by the corresponding pencil beams traversing one or more energy spreading units (page 5388, column 2, section 2.1, paragraph 1);
wherein the energy spreading units are distributed in filter modules (FIG. 2b: each stack of yellow and blue blocks forms a filter module), each filter module supporting one or more energy spreading units and having an area normal to the central irradiation axis (FIG. 2b, top view) corresponding to a cross-section of the corresponding pencil beam (page 5396, column 2, paragraph 1), wherein the filter modules are arranged in different filter rows, each extending along a row-direction (FIG. 2b, top view: each filter row is formed by filter modules in the horizontal direction in the top view); and
wherein:
each filter row can be displaced independently (FIG. 2b and page 5396, column 2, lines 1-4) to form a filter string along the X-axis (FIG. 2b, top view: each filter string is formed by filter modules in the vertical direction in the top view), and
the filter string is configured to shape the dose deposition in the specific volumes forming the specific volume stripe facing the filter string along the irradiation axes (FIG. 1, step 2).
Zhang fails to disclose that each filter row includes a number of dissimilar filter modules, each filter module of a filter row having a different energy spreading capacity from the other filter modules of the same filter row.
However, Jongen discloses that each filter row (FIG. 3, rows in filter 51) includes a number of dissimilar filter modules (FIG. 3, filter modules 21, 22, 23; each filter module comprises one or more energy spreading units as disclosed at paragraph 0056, “multiple sub-filtering elements”), each filter module of a filter row having a different energy spreading capacity from the other filter modules of the same filter row (paragraph 0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhang to include that each filter row includes a number of dissimilar filter modules, each filter module of a filter row having a different energy spreading capacity from the other filter modules of the same filter row, based on the teachings of Jongen that this enables easy modulation of beam energy as required for different spots on the irradiation target (Jongen, paragraphs 0054-0056).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Jongen as applied to claim 1 discloses the dynamic ridge filter according to claim 1.
In addition, Zhang discloses that the energy spreading units are in the form of spikes of generalized cylindrical geometry or of conical geometry (FIG. 2b), wherein the spikes are supported on a base of the filter modules (FIG. 2b, red blocks) and configured in use for having a major axis of the spikes extending parallel to the corresponding pencil beam axes (FIG. 2b: the major vertical axis of the spikes extends in the same direction as the vertically incident proton beam).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Jongen as applied to claim 1 discloses the dynamic ridge filter according to claim 1.
In addition, Zhang discloses that all filter rows are identical and comprise a same selection of filter modules (FIG. 2b: each filter row is shown in the top view to have the same selection of filter modules formed by the yellow and blue blocks).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Jongen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (JP Patent No. 2019136167 A), hereinafter Sakamoto (English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Jongen as applied to claim 1 discloses the dynamic ridge filter according to claim 1.
Zhang in view of Jongen fails to disclose that the energy spreading units are in the form of orifices of generalized cylindrical or conical geometry penetrating in a support base of the filter modules, each orifice extending from an aperture opening at a surface of the support base and penetrating to a given depth leaving a resulting thickness of material of the support base, and configured in use for having a major axis of cavities extending parallel to the corresponding pencil beam axes.
However, Sakamoto discloses that the energy spreading units are in the form of orifices of generalized cylindrical or conical geometry (FIG. 47, elements 19) penetrating in a support base of the filter modules (FIG. 47, element 18), each orifice extending from an aperture opening at a surface of the support base (FIG. 47, aperture opening 59) and penetrating to a given depth leaving a resulting thickness of material of the support base (FIG. 47: the orifices 19 penetrate to a given depth 60), and configured in use for having a major axis of cavities extending parallel to the corresponding pencil beam axes (FIG. 47, vertical cavity axes are parallel to pencil beam axes 10a, 10b, 10c).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhang in view of Jongen to include that the energy spreading units are in the form of orifices of generalized cylindrical or conical geometry penetrating in a support base of the filter modules, each orifice extending from an aperture opening at a surface of the support base and penetrating to a given depth leaving a resulting thickness of material of the support base, and configured in use for having a major axis of cavities extending parallel to the corresponding pencil beam axes, based on the teachings of Sakamoto that this provides greater control of the dose distribution for different target locations and volumes (Sakamoto, page 17, paragraph beginning “In FIG. 46…”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Jongen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagamoto et al. (JP Patent No. 2020081425 A), hereinafter Nagamoto (English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang in view of Jongen as applied to claim 1 discloses the dynamic ridge filter according to claim 1.
In addition, Zhang discloses that each filter module (FIG. 2b: each stack of yellow and blue blocks forms a filter module) comprises one or more energy spreading units (FIG. 2b: each of the yellow and blue blocks is an individual energy spreading unit).
Zhang in view of Jongen fails to disclose that the energy spreading units are each formed by a plurality of spreading subunits having differing cross-sectional areas normal to the irradiation axis, and stacked on top of one another along a major axis of the energy spreading unit configured in use for extending parallel to the irradiation axis, wherein all spreading subunits of the stack have different energy spreading capacities.
However, Nagamoto discloses that the energy spreading units (FIG. 9, energy spreading units 43) are each formed by a plurality of spreading subunits having differing cross-sectional areas (page 7, second paragraph from the last) normal to the irradiation axis (FIG. 9, energy spreading subunits 44), and stacked on top of one another along a major axis of the energy spreading unit (FIG. 9, vertical axis of energy spreading units 43) configured in use for extending parallel to the irradiation axis (FIG. 9, irradiation axes B1, B2), wherein all spreading subunits of the stack have different energy spreading capacities (page 7, second paragraph from the last).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhang in view of Jongen to include that the energy spreading units are each formed by a plurality of spreading subunits having differing cross-sectional areas normal to the irradiation axis, and stacked on top of one another along a major axis of the energy spreading unit configured in use for extending parallel to the irradiation axis, wherein all spreading subunits of the stack have different energy spreading capacities, based on the teachings of Nagamoto that this enables flexibility in achieving a desired energy distribution (Nagamoto, page 8, paragraph beginning “As shown in FIG. 19…”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Jongen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwata (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0133715 A1), hereinafter Iwata.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of Jongen as applied to claim 1 discloses the dynamic ridge filter according to claim 1.
In addition, Jongen discloses a treatment station, comprising:
a nozzle for directing the pencil beams of accelerated charged particles towards the target volume (paragraph 0021, lines 18-29), the nozzle comprising magnetic elements configured for deviating a respective pencil beam to scan along the X-axis as the nozzle remains static (paragraph 0022);
a couch or chair for receiving a patient in supine, prone, seated or standing position (paragraph 0024); and
one or more processors configured for controlling various components of the treatment station (paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhang in view of Jongen to include a treatment station, comprising: a nozzle for directing the pencil beams of accelerated charged particles towards the target volume, the nozzle comprising magnetic elements configured for deviating a respective pencil beam to scan along the X-axis as the nozzle remains static; a couch or chair for receiving a patient in supine, prone, seated or standing position; and one or more processors configured for controlling various components of the treatment station, based on the additional teachings of Jongen that this enables flexible and accurate positioning of the dose distribution at the target volume (Jongen, paragraph 0021).
Zhang in view of Jongen fails to disclose that the nozzle comprises electromagnetic elements; and a dynamic range shifter, wherein the dynamic ridge filter and dynamic range shifter are arranged such as to form a shaping device.
However, Iwata discloses that the nozzle comprises electromagnetic elements (FIG. 9, elements 5, 6); and
a dynamic range shifter (paragraph 0067, absorbers 26a-26d);
wherein the dynamic ridge filter (paragraph 0071) and dynamic range shifter are arranged such as to form a shaping device (paragraph 0077).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhang in view of Jongen to include that the nozzle comprises electromagnetic elements; and a dynamic range shifter, wherein the dynamic ridge filter and dynamic range shifter are arranged such as to form a shaping device, based on the teachings of Iwata that this improves irradiation flexibility in the system (Iwata, paragraphs 0069, 0078).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Jongen and Iwata as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Nagamoto.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of Jongen and Iwata as applied to claim 9 discloses the treatment station according to claim 9.
In addition, Iwata discloses that the shaping device and the filter string and shifter string remain static relative to the target volume (paragraph 0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhang in view of Jongen and Iwata to include that the shaping device and the filter string and shifter string remain static relative to the target volume, based on the additional teachings of Iwata that this provides the benefit of quieter operation of the apparatus (Iwata, paragraph 0077).
Zhang in view of Jongen and Iwata fails to disclose that the couch is provided with a translation system configured for translating the couch along the Y-axis to align the specific volumes with the corresponding pencil beams.
However, Nagamoto discloses that the couch is provided with a translation system configured for translating the couch along the Y-axis to align the specific volumes with the corresponding pencil beams (page 3, last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhang in view of Jongen and Iwata to include that the couch is provided with a translation system configured for translating the couch along the Y-axis to align the specific volumes with the corresponding pencil beams, based on the teachings of Nagamoto that this provides optimal accuracy for irradiating the target (Nagamoto, page 3, last paragraph).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Jongen, Iwata, and Nagamoto as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Mansfield (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0281981 A1), hereinafter Mansfield.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang in view of Jongen, Iwata, and Nagamoto as applied to claim 10 discloses the treatment station according to claim 10.
Zhang in view of Jongen, Iwata, and Nagamoto fails to disclose that the couch is static and wherein, to ensure that beam paths followed by the pencil beams always cross a corresponding filter module of the filter string and a corresponding shifter module of the shifter string, the one or more processors are configured for synchronizing the electromagnetic elements and the translation system of the shaping device for ensuring that as the pencil beam is deviated along the Y-axis, the shaping device or a radiation string is also translated along the Y-axis, or a moving of the filter string and the shifter string along the Y-axis relative to the shaping device which remains static relative to the target volume, in order to keep in alignment with the pencil beam along the Y-axis.
However, Mansfield discloses that the couch is static (paragraph 0035, supporting device 108) and wherein, to ensure that beam paths followed by the pencil beams always cross a corresponding filter module of the filter string (paragraph 0069, range modulator 212) and a corresponding shifter module of the shifter string (paragraph 0069, range shifter 214), the one or more processors are configured for synchronizing the electromagnetic elements and the translation system of the shaping device for ensuring that as the pencil beam is deviated along the Y-axis, the shaping device or a radiation string is also translated along the Y-axis (paragraph 0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhang in view of Jongen, Iwata, and Nagamoto to include that the couch is static and wherein, to ensure that beam paths followed by the pencil beams always cross a corresponding filter module of the filter string and a corresponding shifter module of the shifter string, the one or more processors are configured for synchronizing the electromagnetic elements and the translation system of the shaping device for ensuring that as the pencil beam is deviated along the Y-axis, the shaping device or a radiation string is also translated along the Y-axis, based on the teachings of Mansfield that this enables compensation of undesirable variations in beam intensity (Mansfield, paragraph 0069).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Jongen and Iwata as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kang et al. (“A Universal Range Shifter and Range Compensator Can Enable Proton Pencil Beam Scanning Single-Energy Bragg Peak FLASH-RT Treatment Using Current Commercially Available Proton Systems”, 2022), hereinafter Kang.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang in view of Jongen and Iwata as applied to claim 9 discloses the treatment station according to claim 9.
In addition, Iwata discloses that the dynamic range shifter has a thickness of material varying over an area of the range shifter (FIG. 9, range shifters 9a, 9b), the area being normal to one of the irradiation axes (FIG. 9, irradiation axis 14), wherein a value of the thickness determines a corresponding amount of absorbed energy of the pencil beam of the charged particles traversing the thickness (paragraph 0040, lines 7-10), and wherein the dynamic range shifter comprises:
shifter modules arranged side by side to form shifter rows (FIG. 9: each step of shifter rows 9a, 9b is a shifter module), wherein each shifter row (FIG. 9, shifter rows 9a, 9b) comprises a selection of shifter modules having a substantially constant thickness different from other shifter modules of the same shifter row (FIG. 9: each step of shifter rows 9a, 9b is a shifter module), and configured for absorbing different amounts of energy from the pencil beam (paragraph 0040, lines 7-10), and
wherein the shifter string is configured to shape the dose deposition in a corresponding stripe (paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhang in view of Jongen and Iwata to include that the dynamic range shifter has a thickness of material varying over an area of the range shifter, the area being normal to one of the irradiation axes, wherein a value of the thickness determines a corresponding amount of absorbed energy of the pencil beam of the charged particles traversing the thickness, and wherein the dynamic range shifter comprises: shifter modules arranged side by side to form shifter rows, wherein each shifter row comprises a selection of shifter modules having a substantially constant thickness different from other shifter modules of the same shifter row, and configured for absorbing different amounts of energy from the pencil beam, and wherein the shifter string is configured to shape the dose deposition in a corresponding stripe, based on the additional teachings of Iwata that this improves irradiation flexibility in the system (Iwata, paragraphs 0069, 0078).
Zhang in view of Jongen and Iwata fails to disclose that each shifter row can be displaced independently to form a shifter string along the X-axis.
However, Kang discloses that each shifter row can be displaced independently to form a shifter string along the X-axis (page 206, column 1, lines 7-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhang in view of Jongen and Iwata to include that each shifter row can be displaced independently to form a shifter string along the X-axis, based on the teachings of Kang that this enables treatment of both superficial and deeper targets (Kang, page 206, column 1, paragraph 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 11 is allowed because the prior art of record fails to teach “moving filter rows and shifter rows along the Y-axis to yield a sequence of filter modules forming an ith filter string and of an ith shifter string extending along the X-axis to yield an ith radiation string according to a predefined treatment plan, such that beam paths of the pencil beams of an ith scanning string traverse corresponding radiation modules of the sequence of radiation modules forming the ith radiation string before attaining the target volume, wherein a radiation module is formed by a filter module and a shifter module aligned along the irradiation axis” in combination with the additional limitations of claim 11.
The closest prior art of record, Zhang in view of Jongen, Iwata, and Nagamoto, teaches the limitations of claim 10, upon which claim 11 depends.
However, Zhang in view of Jongen, Iwata, and Nagamoto fails to teach moving both filter rows and shifter rows along a Y-axis to yield filter and shifter strings along the X-axis such that beams traverse corresponding radiation modules formed by a filter module and a shifter module along the irradiation axis. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “moving filter rows and shifter rows along the Y-axis to yield a sequence of filter modules forming an ith filter string and of an ith shifter string extending along the X-axis to yield an ith radiation string according to a predefined treatment plan, such that beam paths of the pencil beams of an ith scanning string traverse corresponding radiation modules of the sequence of radiation modules forming the ith radiation string before attaining the target volume, wherein a radiation module is formed by a filter module and a shifter module aligned along the irradiation axis” as currently claimed.
Claim 12 is allowed because of its dependence on claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maradia et al. (“Universal and dynamic ridge filter for pencil beam scanning particle therapy: a novel concept for ultra-fast treatment delivery”, 2022), hereinafter Maradia, teaches a dynamic ridge filter for shaping a dose deposition zone by radiation with charged particles beams, and for depositing doses applied by pencil beams propagating along corresponding irradiation axes by a pencil beam scanning system and delivered in sequence to specific volumes, the specific volumes defining in combination a target volume comprising tumoral cells.
Tansho et al. (“Development of a new ridge filter with honeycomb geometry for a pencil beam scanning system in particle radiotherapy”, 2016), hereinafter Tansho, teaches filter modules comprising one or more energy spreading units each formed by a plurality of spreading subunits having differing cross-sectional areas normal to the irradiation axis, and stacked on top of one another along a major axis of the energy spreading unit configured in use for extending parallel to the irradiation axis, wherein all spreading subunits of the stack have different energy spreading capacities.
Wang et al. (“Synchrotron-Based Pencil Beam Scanning Nozzle with an Integrated Mini-Ridge Filter: A Dosimetric Study to Optimize Treatment Delivery”, 2017), hereinafter Wang, teaches a treatment station, comprising: a nozzle for directing the pencil beams of accelerated charged particles towards the target volume, the nozzle comprising magnetic elements configured for deviating a respective pencil beam to scan along the X-axis as the nozzle remains static.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights