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
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) 1-2, 4-7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Friedman (US 10525285).
Regarding claim 1, Friedman teaches a system comprising:
an accelerator configured to produce a pulsed radiation beam (col 7 lines 27-46);
an optically sealed enclosure comprising a plastic scintillator detector (PSD) 860 and a high-speed camera 840 (col 5 lines 14-23) (figure 8a); and a computing device in communication with the high-speed camera; wherein: the PSD is configured to receive the pulsed radiation beam (figure 8a) and to produce a scintillation signal received directly or indirectly at a shutter of the high-speed camera; and the shutter is time-gated such that one scintillation image frame is captured for each radiation beam pulse (col 12 lines 23-33).
Regarding claim 2 Friedman teaches a shutter speed of the high-speed camera is about equal to a pulse frequency of the accelerator (col 12 lines 23-33).
Regarding claim 4 Friedman teaches the pulsed radiation beam is selected from a proton beam, an electron beam, a photon beam, a carbon ion beam, and any other pulsed ionizing radiation beam (col 1 lines 36-53).
Regarding claim 5 Friedman teaches the high-speed camera is selected from a complimentary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) camera and a charged-coupled device (CCD) (col 33 line 10).
Regarding claim 6 Friedman teaches the computing device comprises a processor configured to execute, for each radiation beam pulse, a computer-implemented algorithm to correct for ionization quenching, to quantify a beam range and to quantify a spot intensity (col 5 lines 24 - col 6 line 21).
Regarding claim 7 Friedman teaches the scintillation signal is received indirectly at the shutter of the high-speed camera via a mirror 860 contained within the optically sealed enclosure such that the mirror reflects the scintillation signal from the PSD to the shutter (figure 8a).
Regarding claim 16, Friedman teaches a method for quantifying a dose of a radiation beam, the method comprising: directing a pulsed radiation beam toward a plastic scintillation detector (PSD) contained within an optically sealed enclosure, wherein the optically sealed enclosure further comprises a high-speed camera; and time-gating a shutter of the high-speed camera to capture one scintillation image frame for each radiation beam pulse directed toward the PSD (figure 8a, col 7 lines 27-46, col 5 liens 14-23, col 12 lines 23-33).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedman in view of Raymond et al. (US 20210387022).
Regarding claim 3 Friedman fails to teach the accelerator is selected from a synchrocyclotron and a linear accelerator.
Raymond teaches the accelerator is selected from a synchrocyclotron and a linear accelerator (para 197).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the accelerator of Friedman with the linear accelerator as taught by Raymond, since it would provide better modality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-15 allowed.
Claims 17-20 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:
Regarding claims 8-15, the prior art fails to teach a plastic scintillator detector (PSD), a mirror, a first high-speed camera, and a second high-speed camera; and a computing device in communication with each of the first and second high-speed cameras; wherein: the PSD is configured to receive the pulsed radiation beam and to produce a scintillation signal; a shutter of the first high-speed camera faces the PSD and receives the scintillation signal directly; a shutter of the second high-speed camera faces the mirror and receives the scintillation signal indirectly as reflected by the mirror; and wherein each shutter is time-gated such that one scintillation image frame is captured by each camera for each radiation beam pulse as claimed in independent claim 8.
Regarding claims 17-18, the prior art fails to teach the PSD is a first PSD; the directing comprises directing the pulsed radiation beam sequentially toward the first PSD and a second PSD contained within the optically sealed enclosure; and the time-gating comprises time-gating the shutter of the high-speed camera to sequentially capture a first scintillation image frame directly from the first PSD and a second scintillation image frame indirectly from the second PSD as reflected through a mirror contained within the optically sealed enclosure.
Regarding claims 19-20, the prior art fails to teach the high-speed camera is a first high-speed camera; and the time-gating comprises time-gating a shutter of the first high-speed camera to capture a first scintillation image frame directly from the PSD and simultaneously time-gating a shutter of a second high-speed camera to capture a second scintillation image indirectly from the PSD as reflected through a mirror contained within the optically sealed enclosure as claimed in claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm.
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.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884