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 § 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 (US 20190076673 A1).
With regards to claim 1, 7, and 8, D1 discloses a system (Fig. 9) and method (Fig. 4) for particle beam therapy comprising:
an irradiation device 940 configured to emit a particle beam [0059];
a detection device 930 configured to detect an irradiation area of the particle beam [0059]; and
circuitry 910, wherein the circuitry is configured to
identify an attention area (location of the probing spots) within an irradiation range (tumor volume) in a treatment plan for a patient [0034-0037, 0041] (Figs. 1-4),
specify an irradiation position for first irradiation in the attention area (selecting treatment spots) [0034-0037, 0041],
instruct the irradiation device to perform the first irradiation with an irradiation energy (partial therapeutic dose) in the treatment plan at the irradiation position [0037-0039, 0041] (Fig. 4; 420),
acquire an irradiation area of the first irradiation detected by the detection device (Fig. 4; 430),
adjust an irradiation condition of the treatment plan depending on the irradiation area of the first irradiation [0043], and
instruct the irradiation device to perform second irradiation under the adjusted irradiation condition (repeating steps to further modify treatment plan) [0043].
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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4, 6, 9-11, 13, 14-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
With regards to claims 2, 9, and 14, D1 discloses the invention according to claim 1, but does not specify a detection condition depending on complexity of tissue of a human body. However, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1’s attention area based on an image derived detection condition representing tissue complexity since D1 teaches wherein different tissue structures an anatomical variation cause differing particle beam range shifts and create uncertainty concerning where the therapeutic dose will be deposited [0040-0057]. Such a modification would improve range verification accuracy and reduce the likelihood of damaging healthy tissue.
With regards to claims 3, 10, and 15, D1 discloses the invention according to claim 1, but does not specify a detection condition corresponding to a possibility of a composition change caused by a state of a patient. However, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1’s attention area based on whether the patient’s current condition indicated a possible anatomical or compositional change such as filling of a nasal cavity, formation or movement of an air pocket, weight loss, tumor shrinkage, or deformation [0004, 0037-0040, 0055-0057]. Such a modification would improve the likelihood of detecting a clinically relevant beam range shift.
With regards to claims 4, 11, and 16, D1 discloses the invention according to claim 1, but does not specify a detection condition corresponding to presence of an organ. However, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 to designate an area near or along a beam path associated with an organ at risk since D1 teaches that particle beam range uncertainty may cause radiation to be delivered to sensitive tissue or organs and that probing spot location and beam angles may be selected to reduce that risk [0034-0037, 0050-0053]. Such a modification would have predictably allowed the system to reduce radiation exposure to sensitive organs.
With regards to claims 6, 13, and 18, D1 teaches a plurality of probing or irradiation positions within the tumor, and further wherein the positions may include multiple spots, layers or spots, multiple beam angles, and multiple probing configuration [0035-0044]. Lu does not teach wherein an irradiation direction of the particle beam of the first irradiation at least irradiation position does not overlap with other irradiation positions when viewed from a normal direction of the measurement surface. However, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 such that a plurality of directional paths relative to a detector do not overlap. Spatially separating the projections on a detector measurement surface do not overlap in order to allow the detected activity associated with each probing position to be individually distinguished rather than superimposed with activity from another position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten 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:
None of the prior art teach or reasonable suggest: wherein the circuitry is configured to score the plurality of attention areas depending on a detection condition, and specify an attention area where the first irradiation is performed depending on a result of the scoring.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm 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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 571-272-3995. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights