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 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.
Claim1-15 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. Examiner points out that it is unclear what the applicants’ definition of enclosure is. In claim 1 enclosure seemingly is used to identify they walls of the device, while in claim 5 enclosure is seemingly used to claim the device as a whole. Clarification in the matter is requested.
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.
Claim4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). The claim language states "comprising a heating arrangement in thermal contact with the supported animals", examiner reccomends changing the claim language to state "comprising a heating arrangement configured to be in thermal contact with the supported animals"
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 2, 5-9, & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by US 2014/0270076 hereinafter Pelloski.
In regards to Claim 1: A device for containing animals during irradiation by a proton beam, comprising:
an enclosure delimiting, at least partially, several compartments, each compartment comprising an interior suitable for receiving an animal (Pelloski, Paragraphs 20 & 23; Figure 1D Item 100); and
a dispenser configured for dispensing an anesthetic gas into the compartments (Pelloski, Paragraph 20 & 33; Figure 1D Item 164),
wherein the device is sealed and configured in such a way that the interior of each compartment is reachable by the proton beam (Pelloski, Paragraph 20);
wherein the enclosure comprises a cover system (Pelloski, Paragraph 24; Figure 1D Item 122);
wherein the cover system comprises a decelerating arrangement configured to decrease the energy of the proton beam, the energy being adapted according to the depth of the tissue to irradiate (Pelloski, Paragraph 24; Figure 1D Item 112; “The shields used for the different treatment sessions would then have different size apertures to fully expose the tumor while protecting the healthy surrounding tissue, i.e. bigger sized aperture for swelled tumors and smaller sized aperture for shrunk tumors.”).
In regards to Claim 2: The device according to claim 1, wherein the enclosure comprises a base plate configured to support the animals and to close a lower side of the enclosure (Pelloski, Paragraph 23; Figure 1D Item 118), and a lateral enclosure system configured to create a partition between the compartments and to close the enclosure laterally (Pelloski, Figure 1 Item 116, 122, & 150).
In regards to Claim 5: The device according to claim 1,wherein cover system is configured to close a higher side of the (Pelloski, Figure 1 Items 114, 118, 112).
In regards to Claim 6: The device according to claim 1, wherein the cover system is, at least partially, movable (Pelloski, Paragraph 23; Figure 1 Item 122).
In regards to Claim 7: The device according to claim 1,wherein the decelerating arrangement comprises several decelerating elements of various thicknesses, configured in such a way that at least two of the compartments are covered by decelerating elements of different thicknesses (Pelloski, Paragraph 24).
In regards to Claim 8: The device according to claim 1,wherein the cover system comprises a shielding arrangement blocking the proton beam except in several holes (Pelloski, Paragraph 24; Figure 2A Item 112a1-4).
In regards to Claim 9: The device according to claim8,comprising proton beam collimators in the holes (Pelloski, Paragraph 24; “Specifically, the apertures 112a1, 112a2, 112a3, and 112a4 are shown as circular collimations with diameters ranging from 3 mm to 30 mm”).
In regards to Claim 15: Equipment comprising a device for containing animals during irradiation by a proton beam, the device comprising:
an enclosure delimiting, at least partially, several compartments, each compartment comprising an interior suitable for receiving an animal (Pelloski, Paragraph 20 & 23; Figure 1D Item 100); and
a dispenser configured for dispensing an anesthetic gas into the compartments (Pelloski, Paragraph 20 & 23; Figure 1D Item 164),
wherein the device is sealed and configured in such a way that the interior of each compartment is reachable by the proton beam (Pelloski, Paragraph 20);
wherein the enclosure comprises a cover system (Pelloski, Paragraph 24; Figure 1D Item 112);
the cover system comprises a decelerating arrangement configured to decrease the energy of the proton beam, the energy being adapted according to the depth of the tissue to irradiate (Pelloski, Paragraph 24 Figure 1D Item 112), and
transport arrangement configured to move the device (Pelloski, Figures 1D & 2D).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 4, 12, & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0270076 hereinafter Pelloski in view of US 4,721,060 hereinafter Cannon.
In regards to Claim 4: Pelloski teaches all of claims 1 & 2, but does not teach a heating arrangement in thermal contact with the supported animals through the base plate.
Cannon teaches a heating arrangement in thermal contact with the supported animals through the base plate (Cannon, Column 2 Lines 27-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the heating arrangement taught in Cannon to the Rodent Ionizing Radiation Treatment Device of Pelloski, the motivation being to keep the temperature of the subject stable during the treatment.
In regards to Claim 12: Pelloski teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the dispenser comprises a gas inlet and several gas outlets, each gas outlet opening into one of the compartments.
Cannon teaches wherein the dispenser comprises a gas inlet and several gas outlets, each gas outlet opening into one of the compartments (Cannon, Column 3 Lines 19-48; Figure 1 Items 29 & 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the gas inlet and multiple gas outlets taught in Cannon to the Rodent Ionizing Radiation Treatment Device of Pelloski, the motivation being to provide treatment to multiple subjects at the same time.
In regards to Claim 13: A modified Pelloski teaches all of claims 1 & 12, and wherein the dispenser comprises a gas inlet and several gas outlets, each gas outlet opening into one of the compartments (Cannon, Column 3 Lines 19-32; Figure 1 Items 29 & 30).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0270076 hereinafter Pelloski in view of US 2017/0035982 hereinafter Roseman.
In regards to Claim 14: Cannon teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach a suction system for the anesthetic gas, the suction system comprising several suction inlets and a suction outlet, each suction inlet opening into one of the compartments.
Roseman teaches of a teach a suction system for the anesthetic gas, the suction system comprising several suction inlets and a suction outlet, each suction inlet opening into one of the compartments (Roseman, Paragraph 47; Figure 1A Item 190).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the suction system taught in Roseman to the Rodent Ionizing Radiation Treatment Device of Pelloski, the motivation being to provide a method of reclaiming excess anesthetic from the enclosure.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0270076 hereinafter Pelloski in view of US 2014/0241508 hereinafter Agano.
In regards to Claim 10: Pelloski teaches all of claims 1 and 8, but does not teach wherein the holes are in a movable arrangement of the shielding arrangement, the movable arrangement being movable with respect to the dispenser in such a way that a motion of the movable arrangement moves the holes with respect to the animals.
Agano teaches wherein the holes are in a movable arrangement of the shielding arrangement, the movable arrangement being movable with respect to the dispenser in such a way that a motion of the movable arrangement moves the holes with respect to the animals (Agano, Paragraphs 55, 182, & 184).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the shielding being movable about the dispenser taught in Agano to the Rodent Ionizing Radiation Treatment Device of Pelloski, the motivation being to provide a more certain irradiation of a therapy radiation beam of high therapeutic effect.
In regards to Claim 11: a modified Pelloski teaches all of claim 1, 8, 10, and wherein the holes are in movable elements of the movable arrangement, the movable elements being rotatable around an axis parallel to the holes (Agano, Paragraphs 55, 182, & 184).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOE R DIETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1135. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)-272-4233. 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.
/N.R.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights