DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2023 and 3/7/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, 2, 3, 15, and 40-53 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 uses the term “about” with a range in line 14. The specification does not state what are the metes and bounds of the term about, which makes it unclear how much outside of the range is encompassed by the term about.
Claims 2, 3, 15, and 40-47 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are likewise rejected.
Claim 42 uses the term “about” with a range in line 5. The specification does not state what are the metes and bounds of the term about, which makes it unclear how much outside of the range is encompassed by the term about.
Claim 48 uses the term “about” with a range in line 6. The specification does not state what are the metes and bounds of the term about, which makes it unclear how much outside of the range is encompassed by the term about.
Claims 49-53 inherit the deficiencies of claim 48 and are likewise rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 44 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 44 repeats the same limitations of claim 1, line 5.
Claim 46 has the same limitations of claim 45 with the only difference being the phrase “coupled to” in claim 45 and “attached to” in claim 46. It is not clear how “attached to” further limits “coupled to”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 42, 44-46, 48, 51, and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,757,881 (Hughes) in view of US 2014/0239204 (Orton).
In regards to claims 1, 3, and 42, Hughes discloses a collimator comprising:
a leaf movable between a first position and a second position (Fig. 2 (82, 84));
a leaf shaft having a proximal portion and a distal portion (Fig. 2 (82 and 84)) wherein the distal portion of the shaft is attached to the leaf (as shown in Fig. 2);
a spring system coupled to the leaf and configured to apply a force along a longitudinal axis of the leaf shaft (Fig. 2 (100, 102)); and
an actuator system (Fig. 2 (92, 96) and the motors and linkages connected thereto) coupled to the leaf shaft wherein a motive force generated by the spring system and a motive
force generated by the actuator system longitudinally translate the leaf from the first and second
position (column 5, lines 45-53, the springs move the fingers from a more closed position, i.e. first position, to an open position, i.e. second position. column 5, lines 23-33 describes the use of the actuator to move the fingers longitudinally), and
wherein the actuator system is configured to selectively retain the leaf at the first position
or the second position (column 5, lines 23-44; thus meeting the limitations of claim 3).
However, Hughes fails to teach that the spring system and actuator system work together to move the leaf between the first position and the second position within about 7 ms or less.
Orton teaches a collimator that uses extremely fast, electromagnetically actuated leaves (abstract) in order to achieve improved shaping and modulating in beam application (para 12). Optimizing the transition time of the leaves of Hughes is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, itis not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Orton teaches that leaf movement time is a variable which achieves a recognized result. In particular, Orton demonstrates that faster leaves provide improved therapy results (para 12). Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting leaf speed and identifies said speed as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the fast electromagnetic actuator of Orton for the actuator of Hughes, and to optimize the speed of the modified invention to open or close in less than 7 milliseconds. This would have been obvious because Hughes teaches that the faster movement improves shaping and modulation, and since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
In regards to claim 48, Hughes teaches a collimator comprising:
a leaf movable between a first position and a second position (Fig. 2 (82, 84);
a spring system coupled to the leaf (Fig. 2 (100, 102)); and
an actuator system coupled to the leaf (Fig. 2 (92, 96)).
However, Hughes fails to teach that the spring system and actuator system work together to move the leaf between the first position and the second position within about 10 ms or less.
Orton teaches a collimator that uses extremely fast, electromagnetically actuated leaves (abstract) in order to achieve improved shaping and modulating in beam application (para 12). Optimizing the transition time of the leaves of Hughes is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, itis not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Orton teaches that leave movement time is a variable which achieves a recognized result. In particular, Orton demonstrates that faster leaves provide improved therapy results (para 12). Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting leaf speed and identifies said speed as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the fast electromagnetic actuator of Orton for the actuator of Hughes, and to optimize the speed of the modified invention to open or close in less than 6 milliseconds. This would have been obvious because Hughes teaches that the faster movement improves shaping and modulation, and since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
In regards to claims 2 and 52, Hughes and Orton disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 48. In addition, Hughes teaches wherein the motive force generated by the actuator system is sufficient to overcome losses in the spring system (The mechanical linkage, i.e. the actuator system, closes the fingers. (column 5, lines 48-52), the springs pull the fingers open. Thus, the actuator overcomes the spring system and the losses created thereof).
In regards to claim 44, Hughes and Orton teach the collimator of claim 1. Hughes further shows, wherein the spring system is coupled to the leaf shaft (column 5, lines 48-50).
In regards to claim 45, Hughes and Orton teach the collimator of claim 1. Hughes further shows wherein the spring system is coupled to the leaf shaft (column 5, lines 48-50).
In regards to claim 46, Hughes and Orton teach the collimator of claim 45. Hughes further shows wherein the spring system and the actuator system are coupled to the proximal portion of the leaf shaft (in figure 2, the spring system is directly coupled to the proximal portion, the actuator is couple to the proximal portion through the distal portion).
In regards to claim 51, Hughes and Orton disclose the limitations of claim 48. In addition, Orton discloses the use of electromagnetic actuators to control the leaves (paragraph 47-73, 87, and 93). Orton states that magnetic actuation provides an advantage of enabling more control for modulating radiation intensity compared to conventional actuators (paragraph 55). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hughes and Orton to use an electromagnetic actuator as taught by Orton in order to enable better control for modulating radiation intensity compared to conventional actuators.
Claim(s) 15 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,757,881 (Hughes) in view of US 2014/0239204 (Orton) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 3,721,826 (Thomas).
In regards to claim 15, Hughes and Orton teach the collimator of claim 1, but fails to specify that the spring system comprises at least one coil spring. Thomas teaches a radiation blocking system using a spring system comprising at least one coil spring to bias components of a radiation modifying system (column 3, lines 50-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of fling to use the biasing coil springs of Thomas as the biasing springs of Hughes and Orton in order to in bias components of radiation blocking systems.
In regards to claim 43, Hughes and Orton teach the collimator of claim 1, but fails to specify that the spring system comprises at least one torsion bar spring. Thomas teaches a radiation blocking system using a spring system comprising at least one torsion bar spring to bias components of a radiation modifying system (claim 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to use the biasing torsion bar springs of Thomas as the biasing springs of Hughes and Orton because Thomas teaches that such springs are effective in biasing components of radiation modifying systems.
Claim(s) 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,757,881 (Hughes) in view of US 2014/0239204 (Orton) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2008/0117518 (Wang et al., hereinafter Wang).
In regards to claims 40 and 41, Hughes and Orton disclose the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose the use of a voice coil actuator, a type of linear actuator. In a related area, Wang discloses a microarray scanning method and system that uses collimators and actuator to focus beams. In this case one of the actuators that can be used is a voice coil actuator, a type of linear actuator (paragraph 87-91). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the actuator system of Hughes and Orton to substitute the actuator system with the actuator system of Wang as both the actuators of Hughes and Orton and Wang serve the same purpose and produce the same result of focusing a beam.
Claim(s) 1, 47, 48, and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US 2012/0203490 (Sayeh) in view of US 2014/0239204 (Orton).
In regards to claims 1, 47, 48, and 53 Sayeh teaches a collimator comprising:
a leaf (Fig. 2 (160)) movable between a first position and a second position (Fig. 3a-c);
a leaf shaft having a proximal portion and a distal portion (Fig. 2 (150) demonstrate proximal and distal portions between the connection to the springs and connection to gears (That portion of wing (150) attached to leaf (160), para 27), and wherein the distal portion of the shaft is attached to the leaf (as shown in Fig. 2);
a spring system coupled to the leaf (Fig. 2 (100, 102)); and
an actuator system coupled to the leaf shaft (Fig. 2 (175), motor, linkage, roller as describes in paras 27 and 30) wherein a motive force generated by the spring system (per para 29, separate springs apply force in the opening and closing directions) and a motive force generated by the actuator system (paras 27, 30) longitudinally translate the leaf from the first and second position (para 29), and wherein the actuator system is configured to selectively retain the leaf at the first position or the second position (para 21, Fig. 8).
Sayeh also shows wherein the motive force generated by the spring system and the motive force generated by the actuator system longitudinally translate the leaf from the second position to the first position (paras 29-30, the various springs of the spring system apply motive forces in both directions, thus meeting the limitations of claims 47 and 53).
However, Sayeh fails to teach that the spring system and actuator system work together to move the leaf between the first position and the second position within about 7 ms or less.
Orton teaches a collimator that uses extremely fast, electromagnetically actuated leaves (abstract) in order to achieve improved shaping and modulating in beam application (para 12). Optimizing the transition time of the leaves of Sayeh is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, itis not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Orton teaches that leaf movement time is a variable which achieves a recognized result. In particular, Orton demonstrates that faster leaves provide improved therapy results (para 12). Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting leaf speed and identifies said speed as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the fast electromagnetic actuator of Orton for the actuator of Sayeh, and to optimize the speed of the modified invention to open or close in less than 7 milliseconds. This would have been obvious because Sayeh teaches that the faster movement improves shaping and modulation, and since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,757,881 (Hughes) in view of US 2014/0239204 (Orton) as applied to claim 48 above, and further in view of US 2010/0061511 (Heid).
In regards to claim 49, Hughes and Orton disclose the limitations of claim 48. However, they do not state that the actuator of the collimator is a pneumatic actuator. In a related area Heid discloses a modulatable radiation collimator (title and abstract). Heid states in paragraph 43 that the actuators used can be electromagnetic, piezoelectric, or pneumatic. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the actuator of Hughes and Orton with the pneumatic actuator as taught by Heid because it would have been mere substitution of components that produce the same result of actuating a collimator.
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,757,881 (Hughes) in view of US 2014/0239204 (Orton) as applied to claim 48 above, and further in view of RobIves.com.
In regards to claim 50, Hughes and Orton disclose the limitations of claim 48 but does not state that the actuator includes a slotted-link mechanism (also known as a scotch yoke). RobIves.com describes the scotch yoke actuation mechanism and states that it has the advantage of being very simple and direct. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use a slotted-link mechanism as taught by RobIves.com in the device of Hughes and Orton in order to have a simple and direct actuation mechanism.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DARYL DEANON LANNU whose telephone number is (571)270-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 5 PM, Friday 8 AM -12 PM.
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, Charles Marmor can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/JOSHUA DARYL D LANNU/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights