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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0001] should include U. S. Patent No. 12,005,274 B2 issued on 11 June 2024.
Paragraph [0029], lines 3-4, “source” after “X-ray” should be replaced by --target 50--.
Paragraph [0029], line 5, “target” should be replaced by --X-ray target 50--.
Paragraph [0029], line 7, “electron source” should be replaced by --electron gun--. See paragraph [0028].
Paragraph [0029], line 8, “central axis of beam 122” should be replaced by --central axis 122 of the divergent beam 104--.
Paragraph [0029], line 11, “central beam axis” should be replaced by --central axis 122 of the divergent beam 104--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Please note that paragraph numbers in a U. S. Patent Application Publication do not correspond to paragraph numbers in the originally-filed specification. The paragraph numbers mentioned above refer to the originally-filed specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
14. (Proposed Amendments) The radiotherapy system of Claim 1, wherein the radiotherapy system is configured for FLASH radiotherapy and the [[x-ray]] X-ray target [[is]] comprises a bremsstrahlung X-ray target.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites a limitation “positrons” in line 2. However, it is not described in the specification how positrons, either passing through or produced by the X-ray target, without causing catastrophic annihilations to create gamma-ray photons when colliding with electrons.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12, 14-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Björn Andreassen et al., Development of an efficient scanning and purging magnet system for IMRT with narrow high energy photon beams, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 612 (2009), 201-208.
With respect to claim 1, Björn Andreassen et al. disclosed a radiotherapy system comprising:
an X-ray target (a Bremsstrahlung target) configured to convert an incident electron beam into an X-ray beam;
a purging magnet configured to redirect unwanted particles emitted from said X-ray target away from said X-ray beam (Fig. 1); and
a particle collector (an electron collector) configured to absorb said unwanted particles subsequent to a redirection by said purging magnet (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 3, Björn Andreassen et al. disclosed the radiotherapy system of Claim 1, wherein the X-ray target is less than 3.5 mm thick (a 3 mm beryllium Bremsstrahlung target).
With respect to claim 4, Björn Andreassen et al. disclosed the radiotherapy system of Claim 1, wherein the X-ray target comprises metals (tungsten) having an atomic number greater than or equal to 42.
With respect to claim 5, Björn Andreassen et al. disclosed the radiotherapy system of Claim 1, wherein the X-ray target comprises tungsten (W) (WCu).
With respect to claim 10, Björn Andreassen et al. disclosed the radiotherapy system of Claim 1, wherein the incident electron beam comprises an electron energy of at least 50 MeV (50-75 MeV).
With respect to claim 12, Björn Andreassen et al. disclosed the radiotherapy system of Claim 1, wherein the X-ray beam delivers a radiation rate of greater than or equal to a threshold radiation rate (a threshold radiation rate of 0).
With respect to claim 14, Björn Andreassen et al. disclosed the radiotherapy system of Claim 1, wherein the radiotherapy system is configured for FLASH radiotherapy and the X-ray target is a bremsstrahlung X-ray target (a beryllium Bremsstrahlung target).
With respect to claim 15, Björn Andreassen et al. disclosed the radiotherapy system of Claim 1, further comprising:
a linear accelerator configured to accelerate the incident electron beam to an energy of at least 50 MeV (50-75 MeV).
With respect to claim 16, Björn Andreassen et al. disclosed the radiotherapy system of Claim 1, further comprising:
a plurality of scanning magnets (two scanning magnets) configured to adjust a location of the incident electron beam,
wherein the plurality of scanning magnets are configured to modify a beam profile of said X-ray beam.
With respect to claim 17, Björn Andreassen et al. disclosed the radiotherapy system of Claim 16, wherein the purging magnet (a movable purging magnet) is configured to adjust to changes in the location of said incident electron beam due to actions of the plurality of scanning magnets.
With respect to claim 21, Björn Andreassen et al. disclosed the radiotherapy system of Claim 1, wherein the unwanted particles include at least one of electrons or positrons that pass through or are produced by said X-ray target.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,005,274 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 are anticipated by claims 1-22 of U. S. Patent No. 12,005,274 B2.
With respect to claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,005,274 B2 claims a radiotherapy system comprising:
an X-ray target configured to convert an incident electron beam into an X-ray beam;
a purging magnet configured to redirect unwanted particles emitted from said X-ray target away from said X-ray beam; and
a particle collector configured to absorb said unwanted particles subsequent to a redirection by said purging magnet.
With respect to claim 1, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,005,274 B2 claims a radiotherapy system comprising:
an X-ray target (a Bremsstrahlung X-ray target) configured to convert an incident electron beam (a stream of electrons) into an X-ray beam (X-rays);
a purging magnet configured to redirect unwanted particles emitted from said X-ray target away from said X-ray beam; and
a particle collector configured to absorb said unwanted particles (escaping particles) subsequent to a redirection by said purging magnet.
With respect to claim 14, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,005,274 B2 claims the radiotherapy system of Claim 1, wherein the radiotherapy system is configured for FLASH radiotherapy and the X-ray target is a bremsstrahlung X-ray target.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shinton et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,382,571 B2) disclosed a radiotherapy device.
Doherty et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,245,256 B2) disclosed a radiotherapy device.
Clayton (U. S. Patent No. 12,005,274 B2) disclosed a high dose rate radiotherapy, a system, and a method.
Whitham (U. S. Patent No. 6,445,766 B1) disclosed a radiation treatment system and a method for improved diagnostic imaging.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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 J. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Allen.Ho@uspto.gov