DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are amended.
Claims 21-23 are new.
Claims 2, 6, and 7 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to Claim 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 09/10/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 9, 10, 12-15, and 17-20 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maurer (US 8536547 B2).
Regarding Claim 19: Maurer discloses a device for a medical device, comprising:
a pedestal (Fig. 11A, 1170);
a rotation base disposed on the pedestal (1104);
an imaging component disposed on the rotation base (Fig. 8A/B, S1/D1; Col. 21, lines 35-40: “Also provided in conjunction with the IGRT system 1100 of FIGS. 11A-11C, as well as the IGRT system 1300 of FIGS. 13A-13C infra are one or more kV imaging systems analogous to those illustrated in FIGS. 8A-10 and described in the context of the IGRT systems of FIGS. 2A-5G, which description need not be repeated here.” ); and
a treatment component disposed on the rotation base (1110),
wherein the imaging component and the treatment component are configured to rotate, by the rotation component, around a rotation axis parallel with the pedestal and the rotation base (Figs. 11A-11C).
Regarding Claim 20: Maurer discloses a device for a medical device, comprising:
a pedestal (Fig. 2, 1);
a rotation base disposed on the pedestal (6);
an imaging component disposed on the rotation base (Fig. 2: imaging ring 3; Fig. 5, 31a and 31b); and
a treatment component disposed on the rotation base (Fig. 1, 2),
wherein the imaging component and the treatment component are configured to rotate around a rotation axis, the rotation axis being perpendicular to a surface of the pedestal (Figs. 13A-13C).
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) 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 12-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer (US 8536547 B2) in view of Maolinbay (US 20200016432 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Maurer discloses a device, comprising:
a pedestal (Fig. 11A, 1170);
a rotation base disposed on the pedestal (1104);
an imaging component disposed on the rotation base (Fig. 8A/B, S1/D1; Col. 21, lines 35-40: “Also provided in conjunction with the IGRT system 1100 of FIGS. 11A-11C, as well as the IGRT system 1300 of FIGS. 13A-13C infra are one or more kV imaging systems analogous to those illustrated in FIGS. 8A-10 and described in the context of the IGRT systems of FIGS. 2A-5G, which description need not be repeated here.” ); and
a treatment component disposed on the rotation base (1110),
wherein the imaging component and the treatment component are disposed on a same side of the rotation base (Fig. 8A), and the imaging component and the treatment component are configured to rotate around a first rotation axis of the rotation base (Fig. 12A-12C).
Maurer fails to teach wherein the imaging component and the treatment component are disposed on a same end surface of the rotation base, the end surface of the rotation base refers to a surface parallel to a rotation plane of the rotation base.
Maolinbay teaches a device comprising an imaging component and treatment component disposed on a same end surface of the rotation base ([0024]: “The gantry may comprise a circular or ring gantry (e.g. closed bore ring gantry…)”; Fig. 1A, 1C), the end surface of the rotation base refers to a surface parallel to a rotation plane of the rotation base ([0026]: “The therapeutic radiation system and the imaging system may be arranged on the gantry such that the field-of-view of the imaging system is in-plane with the radiation beam from the therapeutic radiation source. In some variations, the imaging system and the therapeutic radiation source may be mounted on the gantry such that they are coplanar with each other (i.e., on the same cross-sectional plane that is transverse to the longitudinal axis of the gantry patient area). That is, the central axis of the therapeutic radiation beam may be coplanar with the central axis of the field-of-view of the imaging system. For example, the gantry may be a circular or ring gantry with a longitudinal length, and the imaging system and the therapeutic radiation source may be located at the same longitudinal location along the length of the gantry, or in other words, may be located on the same cross-sectional plane or slice of the gantry (e.g., cross-sectional plane that is transverse to the longitudinal axis of the gantry).”; Fig. 1A, 1C).
Maurer and Maolinbay are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of radiation imaging and treatment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maurer to incorporate the teachings of Maolinbay and provide the radiation sources on a same end surface of the rotation base, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 3: Maurer in view of Maolinbay discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the imaging component and the treatment component are located at a same rotation unit of the rotation base (Maurer: Fig. 2B, Maolinbay: Fig. 1C).
Regarding Claim 4: Maurer in view of Maolinbay discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising a first drive component configured to drive the rotation base to rotate around the first rotation axis of the rotation base (Maurer: Col. 16, lines 8-11: “…the IGRT system includes respective actuation devices (not shown) to achieve the rotation of the ring gantry 204 around the rotation axis 214”).
Regarding Claim 5: Maurer in view of Maolinbay discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising a rotation component disposed between the pedestal and the rotation base, and the imaging component and the treatment component are configured to rotate, by the rotation component, around a second rotation axis parallel with the rotation base (Maurer: Fig. 11A-11C).
Regarding Claim 8: Maurer in view of Maolinbay discloses the device of claim 5, wherein a rotation angle of the rotation base rotating, by the rotation component, around the second rotation axis ranges from 5° to 60° (Col. 21, lines 1 – 6: “…the IGRT system 1100…is configured to achieve a ring gantry tilt angle of at least 60 degrees…”).
Regarding Claim 10: Maurer in view of Maolinbay discloses the device of claim 5, further comprising:
a second drive component configured to drive the rotation base to rotate around the second rotation axis (Figs. 11A-11C; Col. 20, lines 22-24: “The skilled artisan will appreciate that the IGRT system 1100 of FIGS. 11A-11C further includes a plurality of actuators of various types…”).
Regarding Claim 12: Maurer in view of Maolinbay discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the pedestal is configured to rotate around a third rotation axis, wherein the third rotation axis is perpendicular to a surface of the pedestal (Maurer: Figs. 13A-13C).
Regarding Claim 13: Maurer in view of Maolinbay discloses the device of claim 12, wherein the imaging component and the treatment component are configured to rotate around the third rotation axis along with the rotation of the pedestal (Maurer: Figs. 13A-13C).
Regarding Claim 14: Maurer in view of Maolinbay discloses the device of claim 12, wherein a rotation angle of the pedestal around the third rotation axis is less than or equal to 90°or 120° (Maurer: Figs. 13A-13C).
Regarding Claim 15: Maurer in view of Maolinbay discloses the device of claim 12, further comprising a third drive component configured to drive the pedestal to rotate around the third rotation axis (Maurer: Col. 21, lines 62-65: “A gantry tilting mechanism (not shown) is provided that is configured to tilt the ring gantry 1304 around a vertical tilt axis 1377 to a plurality of different tilt angles relative to the longitudinal axis 1114.”).
Regarding Claim 17: Maurer in view of Maolinbay discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the rotation base includes a first rotation unit and a second rotation unit, the treatment component being disposed on the first rotation unit, the imaging component being disposed on the second rotation unit, and the second rotation unit being rotatable with respect to the first rotation unit (Maolinbay: Fig. 1C).
Regarding Claim 18: Maurer in view of Maolinbay discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the imaging component includes an imaging radiation source (Maurer: Fig. 2B, S1), and the treatment component includes a treatment radiation source (Maurer: Fig. 2B: 210), the imaging radiation source and the treatment radiation source being disposed on the rotation base at intervals (Maurer: Fig. 2B).
Regarding Claim 21: Maurer in view of Maolinbay discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the rotation base includes the rotation unit and a base body, and the rotation unit rotates relative to the base body (Maurer: Figs. 2B and 3B).
Claim(s) 9 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer in view of Maolinbay, in further view of Pourrahimi (US 20180011153 A1).
Regarding Claim 9: Maurer in view of Maolinbay discloses the device of claim 5, but both fail to teach wherein the rotation component includes a first support unit and a second support unit disposed
on the pedestal, the rotation component also includes a first rocker arm and a second rocker arm disposed on the rotation base, the first rocker arm being rotatably connected with the first support unit, and the second rocker arm being rotatably connected with the second support unit, and at least one of the first support unit and the second support unit includes a telescopic column.
However, Pourrahimi teaches an imaging system including a first support unit and a second support unit (Fig. 2, 212) disposed on the pedestal (214), the rotation component also includes a first rocker arm and a second rocker arm disposed on the rotation base, the first rocker arm being rotatably connected with the first support unit, and the second rocker arm being rotatably connected with the second support unit (Fig. 2; [0029]: “FIG. 2 further illustrates a height-adjustable supporting frame 212, which holds the MRI scanner 202 that is configured to controllably and/or adjustably rotate around A-A′ axis.”), and at least one of the first support unit and the second support unit includes a telescopic column (Figs. 2 and 3; [0029]: “As shown in this example system, the height-adjustable supporting frame 212 is telescopic…”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of (
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Maurer and Maolinbay to incorporate the teachings of Pourrahimi and provide a support unit with a telescopic column. One would be motivated to make such a modification to enable height adjustability.
Regarding Claim 22: Maurer in view of Maolinbay, in further view of Pourrahimi, discloses the device of claim 9, wherein at least one of the first support unit and the second support unit includes a transmission mechanism configured to drive the telescopic column to retract (Pourrahimi: Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 23: Maurer in view of Maolinbay, in further view of Pourrahimi, discloses the device of claim 9, but all fail to teach wherein the rotation component includes two triangular brackets arranged on the pedestal, and the two triangular brackets are rotatably connected with the first rocker arm and the second rocker arm, respectively.
However, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rocker arms of Pourrahimi (Fig. 2) to include a triangular bracket as a known structural reinforcement technique to increase rigidity and resist rotationally induced stresses, since it has been held that use of a known technique to yield predictable results and a matter of an engineering design choice involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer in view of Maolinbay, in further view of Bigbee (US 10494130 B1).
Regarding Claim 11: Maurer in view of Maolinbay discloses the device of claim 10, but both are silent with respect to a specific driver for the second drive component, thereby allowing for that which is known in the art of drivers.
Bigbee teaches a pneumatic pusher (Col. 7, line 9-10: “the control system 121 actuates a pneumatic pusher arm”).
It would have been obvious to select a pneumatic pusher as the second drive component because such actuators are well known for providing a compact, low-cost, and reliable means of delivering sufficient force to accomplish predictable tilting motion.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer in view of Maolinbay, in further view of Ragan (US 9162824 B2).
Regarding Claim 16: Maurer in view of Maolinbay discloses the device of claim 15, but both are silent with respect to how the pedestal’s rotational motion is driven, thereby allowing for that which is known in the art of generating rotary motion.
Ragan teaches a system with a stator (Fig. 1a, 10) and a rotor (Fig. 1b, 20), a drive component including a motor (Fig. 3, 74’), and a conveyor (Fig. 2, 46), the motor being connected with the conveyor (Fig. 3, 74’; Fig. 7, 74), and the conveyor being wounded on the rotor (Fig. 2, conveyor 46 wrapped around rotor 36).
It would have been obvious to configure a pedestal with a stator and rotor, and a third drive component comprising a motor connected to a conveyor wound around the rotor, as such components are well known in the art for generating rotary motion, as evidenced by Ragan. Further, one would be motivated to use such a configuration to drive rotational motion to provide precise control over the rotational speed with a compact mechanical layout.
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 MIYA DOWNING whose telephone number is (703)756-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 at (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.
/MIYA DOWNING/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights