DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 17, and 18 are amended.
Claims 3 and 4 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1, 2, 6-13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tantawi (US-10485991-B2) in view of Koubychine (US 20110092759 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Tantawi discloses an electron beam treatment device (Figs. 1 and 8), configured to generate and deliver a high-energy electron beam that is applicable to flash therapy, wherein the electron beam treatment device comprises an electron beam emitter (7), a first deflection member (13), and an annular deflection mechanism (14); and wherein
the electron beam emitter is configured to emit a high-energy electron beam (Col. 15, lines 39-41: “The gun creates an electric field on the photocathode which accelerates the transverse-modulated electron beam.”);
the first deflection member is configured to be capable of performing first deflection processing on the high-energy electron beam (Col. 8, lines 1-4: “…the steering system of the electron beam starts at the end of the accelerator structure with a two-dimensional deflector, which guides the beam into one of multiple channels.”; Col. 15, lines 45-49: “The electron beam then passes through focusing optics 11 toward horizontal 12 and vertical 13 fast deflectors. The deflectors are controlled by a computer and are able to send the electron beam in different directions for each consecutive accelerator pulse.”); and
the annular deflection mechanism is configured to receive the high-energy electron beam deflected by the first deflection member, and perform second deflection processing on the high-energy electron beam, so that the high-energy electron beam is emitted towards a target region (Col. 15, lines 53-56: “After the deflectors, the electron beam passes through bending magnets 14, 16, 18 and electron optics 15, 17 and is directed through electron-beam monitoring system 19 toward the target 20.”);
the electron beam emitter comprises an electron beam generator and an electron cyclotron (Col. 13, lines 10-12: “There are a number of potential sources of very high-energy electrons in the range of, for example, up to about 250 MeV. A non-exhaustive list includes cyclotrons…”);
the electron beam generator is configured to generate an electron beam (Fig. 8, electron gun 7);
the electron cyclotron is configured to receive the electron beam from the electron beam generator, and perform cyclotron acceleration processing on the electron beam, so that the electron beam is formed into the high-energy electron beam (Col. 13, lines 10-12).
Tantawi fails to teach: the electron cyclotron comprises an acceleration cavity and two groups of vector magnets, the two groups of vector magnets are symmetrically disposed at both sides of the acceleration cavity and are configured to guide the electron beam emitted from the acceleration cavity to re-enter the acceleration cavity, and the acceleration cavity is capable of performing continuous multi-circle acceleration processing on the electron beam in the acceleration cavity.
However, Tantawi is silent with respect to the structure of the cyclotron, thereby allowing for that which is known in the art.
Koubychine teaches a cyclotron comprising an acceleration cavity (Fig. 1, 2) and two groups of vector magnets (3 and 4), and the two groups of vector magnets are arranged at both sides of the acceleration cavity symmetrically (Fig. 1) and configured to guide the electron beam emitted from the acceleration cavity to re-enter the acceleration cavity (Fig. 1), and the acceleration cavity is capable of performing continuous multi-circle acceleration processing on the electron beam in the acceleration cavity (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tantawi to incorporate the teachings of Koubychine and provide a cyclotron with a cavity and vector magnets arranged at both sides of the cavity symmetrically. One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of providing balanced beam steering.
Regarding Claim 2: Tantawi in view of Koubychine discloses the electron beam treatment device of claim 1, wherein energy of the high-energy electron beam is in a range of 100MeV to 200MeV (Figs. 3c-e, 50 MeV and 70 MeV).
Regarding Claim 6: Tantawi in view of Koubychine discloses the electron beam treatment device of claim 3, wherein the electron cyclotron comprises at least one of a race-track microtron, a betatron, or a petal-shaped accelerator (Col. 13, lines 12-14: “A non-exhaustive list includes…racetrack microtrons…”).
Regarding Claim 7: Tantawi in view of Koubychine discloses the electron beam treatment device of claim 1, wherein a generated magnetic field strength of the first deflection member is capable of being adjusted when the first deflection member is powered on, so that the high-energy electron beam passing through the first deflection member is capable of entering the annular deflection mechanism at different angles (Col. 7, lines 52-59: “As a preliminary matter, at the end of the accelerator structure the beam must be deflected and then transported to the exit port and toward a target in or on the patient, such as a tumor in the patient. At the exit port the beam must be steered again to change the exit angle and/or beam size to adapt to the treatment plan. Electro-magnetic and/or RF deflector steering systems will manipulate the electron beam.”).
Regarding Claim 8: Tantawi in view of Koubychine discloses the electron beam treatment device of claim 1, further comprising a second deflection member, wherein the second deflection member is configured to receive the high-energy electron beam emitted from the annular deflection mechanism and perform third deflection processing on the high-energy electron beam (Fig. 8, 16), and a generated magnetic field strength of the second deflection member is capable of being adjusted when the second deflection member is powered on (Col. 7, lines 52-59: “As a preliminary matter, at the end of the accelerator structure the beam must be deflected and then transported to the exit port and toward a target in or on the patient, such as a tumor in the patient. At the exit port the beam must be steered again to change the exit angle and/or beam size to adapt to the treatment plan. Electro-magnetic and/or RF deflector steering systems will manipulate the electron beam.”).
Regarding Claim 9: Tantawi in view of Koubychine discloses the electron beam treatment device of claim 1, wherein the first deflection member comprises either or both of a vector magnet and a deflection resonant cavity (“A non-exhaustive list includes…racetrack microtrons…”; racetrack microtron will have a waveguide resonant cavity).
Regarding Claim 10: Tantawi in view of Koubychine discloses the electron beam treatment device of claim 1, further comprising a movable supporting device configured for supporting a target subject, wherein the movable supporting device is configured to adjust a position of the target region relative to the annular deflection mechanism during an electron beam flash therapy (Col. 23, lines 27-30: “…an imaging system 70, such as a full CT ring and a beam dump 80 to absorb any remaining radiation after the treatment beam passes through the target tissue 20 of the patient.”).
Regarding Claim 11: Tantawi in view of Koubychine discloses the electron beam treatment device of claim 10, wherein the movable supporting device is rotatable so that the target region is able to be irradiated by the high-energy electron beam from any angle (Col. 23, lines 27-30: “…an imaging system 70, such as a full CT ring and a beam dump 80 to absorb any remaining radiation after the treatment beam passes through the target tissue 20 of the patient.”).
Regarding Claim 12: Tantawi in view of Koubychine discloses the electron beam treatment device of claim 1, but Tantawi does not explicitly teach wherein a position of the target region relative to the electron beam treatment device is capable of being changed during a treatment.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to make the target region relative to the treatment device adjustable during treatment because varying relative position is a known method for controlling dose distribution.
Regarding Claim 13: Tantawi in view of Koubychine discloses the electron beam treatment device of claim 1, wherein an irradiation direction of the electron beam towards the target region is changeable (Col. 6, lines 60-64: “One embodiment is shown in FIG. 1, which shows a system wherein beam access from a large number of axial directions is achieved by electromagnetic steering without moving parts or with a minimum of moving parts, for extremely fast highly conformal radiotherapy.”).
Regarding Claim 16: Tantawi in view of Koubychine discloses the electron beam treatment device of claim 1, further comprising a converter and a collimator, wherein the converter is configured to convert the electron beam into a third radiation beam, and the collimator is configured to adjust the third radiation beam to align to the target region (Col. 9, lines 14-20: “…an array of high density targets and collimator grid in place of a single target/multi-leaf collimator combination, one per beam port in the case of discrete beam ports, or mounted on a rapidly rotating closed ring and targeted by the scanned electron beam in the case of an annular beam port, in order to produce rapidly scanned, multidirectional photon beams.”).
Regarding Claim 17: Tantawi discloses a method for electron beam flash therapy, comprising:
emitting a high-energy electron beam by an electron beam emitter (Fig. 8, 7);
directing the high-energy electron beam to a first deflection member (13), and performing first deflection processing on the high-energy electron beam by the first deflection member (Fig. 8); and
directing the high-energy electron beam processed by the first deflection processing to an annular deflection mechanism (14), and performing second deflection processing on the high-energy electron beam by the annular deflection mechanism, so that the high-energy electron beam is emitted towards a target region (Fig. 8);
wherein the electron beam emitter comprises an electron beam generator and an electron cyclotron (Col. 13, lines 10-12: “There are a number of potential sources of very high-energy electrons in the range of, for example, up to about 250 MeV. A non-exhaustive list includes cyclotrons…”);
the electron beam generator is configured to generate an electron beam (Fig. 8, electron gun 7);
the electron cyclotron is configured to receive the electron beam from the electron beam generator, and perform cyclotron acceleration processing on the electron beam, so that the electron beam is formed into the high-energy electron beam (Col. 13, lines 10-12).
Tantawi fails to teach: the electron cyclotron comprises an acceleration cavity and two groups of vector magnets, the two groups of vector magnets are symmetrically disposed at both sides of the acceleration cavity and are configured to guide the electron beam emitted from the acceleration cavity to re-enter the acceleration cavity, and the acceleration cavity is capable of performing continuous multi-circle acceleration processing on the electron beam in the acceleration cavity.
However, Tantawi is silent with respect to the structure of the cyclotron, thereby allowing for that which is known in the art.
Koubychine teaches a cyclotron comprising an acceleration cavity (Fig. 1, 2) and two groups of vector magnets (3 and 4), and the two groups of vector magnets are arranged at both sides of the acceleration cavity symmetrically (Fig. 1) and configured to guide the electron beam emitted from the acceleration cavity to re-enter the acceleration cavity (Fig. 1), and the acceleration cavity is capable of performing continuous multi-circle acceleration processing on the electron beam in the acceleration cavity (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tantawi to incorporate the teachings of Koubychine and provide a cyclotron with a cavity and vector magnets arranged at both sides of the cavity symmetrically. One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of providing balanced beam steering.
Regarding Claim 18: Tantawi discloses a system for flash therapy, comprising:
an electron beam treatment device configured to generate and deliver a high-energy electron beam that is applicable to flash therapy (Figs. 1 and 8),
wherein the electron beam treatment device comprises an electron beam emitter (7), a first deflection member (13), and an annular deflection mechanism (14); and
wherein the electron beam emitter is configured to emit a high-energy electron beam (Col. 15, lines 39-41: “The gun creates an electric field on the photocathode which accelerates the transverse-modulated electron beam.”);
the first deflection member is configured to be capable of performing first deflection processing on the high-energy electron beam (Col. 8, lines 1-4: “…the steering system of the electron beam starts at the end of the accelerator structure with a two-dimensional deflector, which guides the beam into one of multiple channels.”; Col. 15, lines 45-49: “The electron beam then passes through focusing optics 11 toward horizontal 12 and vertical 13 fast deflectors. The deflectors are controlled by a computer and are able to send the electron beam in different directions for each consecutive accelerator pulse.”); and
the annular deflection mechanism is configured to receive the high-energy electron beam deflected by the first deflection member, and perform second deflection processing on the high-energy electron beam, so that the high-energy electron beam is emitted towards a target region (Col. 15, lines 53-56: “After the deflectors, the electron beam passes through bending magnets 14, 16, 18 and electron optics 15, 17 and is directed through electron-beam monitoring system 19 toward the target 20.”);
the electron beam emitter comprises an electron beam generator and an electron cyclotron (Col. 13, lines 10-12: “There are a number of potential sources of very high-energy electrons in the range of, for example, up to about 250 MeV. A non-exhaustive list includes cyclotrons…”);
the electron beam generator is configured to generate an electron beam (Fig. 8, electron gun 7);
the electron cyclotron is configured to receive the electron beam from the electron beam generator, and perform cyclotron acceleration processing on the electron beam, so that the electron beam is formed into the high-energy electron beam (Col. 13, lines 10-12).
Tantawi fails to teach: the electron cyclotron comprises an acceleration cavity and two groups of vector magnets, the two groups of vector magnets are symmetrically disposed at both sides of the acceleration cavity and are configured to guide the electron beam emitted from the acceleration cavity to re-enter the acceleration cavity, and the acceleration cavity is capable of performing continuous multi-circle acceleration processing on the electron beam in the acceleration cavity.
However, Tantawi is silent with respect to the structure of the cyclotron, thereby allowing for that which is known in the art.
Koubychine teaches a cyclotron comprising an acceleration cavity (Fig. 1, 2) and two groups of vector magnets (3 and 4), and the two groups of vector magnets are arranged at both sides of the acceleration cavity symmetrically (Fig. 1) and configured to guide the electron beam emitted from the acceleration cavity to re-enter the acceleration cavity (Fig. 1), and the acceleration cavity is capable of performing continuous multi-circle acceleration processing on the electron beam in the acceleration cavity (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tantawi to incorporate the teachings of Koubychine and provide a cyclotron with a cavity and vector magnets arranged at both sides of the cavity symmetrically. One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of providing balanced beam steering.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tantawi in view of Koubychine, in further view of Teng ((US 2922061 A).
Regarding Claim 5: Tantawi in view of Koubychine discloses the electron beam treatment device of claim 3, but both fail to teach wherein the electron cyclotron comprises a lead-out magnet, the lead-out magnet is disposed on a cyclic path of the electron beam in the electron cyclotron, the lead-out magnet is configured to lead out the high-energy electron beam formed after acceleration, and a position of the lead-out magnet is capable of being adjusted relative to the electron cyclotron.
Teng teaches a particle accelerator wherein the electron cyclotron further
comprises a lead-out member, the lead-out member is disposed on a cyclic path of the
electron beam in the electron cyclotron, the lead-out magnet is configured to lead out
the accelerated electron beam, and a position of the lead-out magnet is capable of
being adjusted relative to the electron cyclotron (Col. 3, lines 62-69: “The deflector 46
consists of two magnetic members 48 and 50, the members 48 and 50 being secured to
opposite sides of the housing 14 and having protruding ridges 52 in spaced confronting
relationship generally aligned parallel to the outer orbit. The deflector 46 intensifies the
magnetic field between the ridges 52 to displace the outer orbit of the cyclotron 10 and
direct it through the aperture 32.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a lead-out member configured to
lead out the accelerated electron beam. One would be motivated to make such a
modification on the basis of controlling the particle trajectory.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tantawi in view of Sahadevan (US 10413755 B1).
Regarding Claim 14: Tantawi in view of Koubychine discloses the electron beam treatment device of claim 1, but both fail to teach further comprising a beam regulator configured to split the electron beam into a plurality of sub-beams transmitting along different directions,
wherein the electron beam treatment device comprises a plurality of groups of the first deflection member and the annular deflection mechanism, which are configured to adjust the sub-beams, respectively, to generate a plurality of high-energy electron beams, and the plurality of high-energy electron beams are capable of irradiating the target region from different directions.
Sahadevan teaches a beam regulator configured to split the electron beam into a plurality of sub-beams transmitting along different directions (Figs. 3 and 4),
wherein the electron beam treatment device comprises a plurality of groups of the first deflection member and the annular deflection mechanism, which are configured to adjust the sub-beams, respectively, to generate a plurality of high-energy electron beams, and the plurality of high-energy electron beams are capable of irradiating the target region from different directions (Col. 43, lines 8-9: “…beam steering system magnets consisting of 76, 80 and 84 on the right side and by, 78, 82 and 86 in the left side.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tantawi and provide a beam splitter. One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of
delivering beams simultaneously to different targets and treating multiple patients in
different rooms.
Regarding Claim 15: Tantawi in view of Koubychine, in further view of Sahadevan discloses the electron beam treatment device of claim 14, wherein the beam regulator further comprises a beam splitting element and a plurality of constraint elements, (Sahadevan: Fig. 3)
the beam splitting element is configured to split the electron beam into the plurality of sub-beams (Sahadevan: Fig. 4, 96 and 98); and
the plurality of constraint elements are configured to constrain transmission directions of the plurality of sub-beams, so that each of the plurality of sub-beams enters into one of the plurality of groups of the first deflection member and the annular deflection mechanism (Sahadevan: Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tantawi in view of Ni (US 20230113808 A1).
Regarding Claim 19: Tantawi in view of Koubychine discloses the system of claim 18, but both fail to teach further comprising a second radiation treatment device configured to emit a second radiation beam towards the target region for radiation treatment, wherein the high-energy electron beam and the second radiation beam are configured for irradiating the target region from different directions.
Ni teaches multiple treatment heads ([0074]: “In some embodiments, the radiation therapy apparatus may include a plurality of treatment heads, each of which may be equipped with a beam control device 254.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Tantawi to incorporate the teachings of Ni and provide a second treatment head to emit a second radiation beam towards the target region for radiation treatment, wherein the high-energy electron beam and the second radiation beam are configured for irradiating the target region from different directions. One would be motivated to make such a modification to provide better dose distribution.
Regarding Claim 20: Tantawi in view of Koubychine, in further view of Ni discloses the system of claim 19, but all fail to explicitly teach wherein energy levels of the high-energy electron beam and the second radiation beam are determined based on a position of the target region relative to the electron beam treatment device and the second radiation treatment device.
It would have been obvious to determine the energy levels of the beams based on a position of the target region relative to the treatment devices because it is known that penetration and dose deposition are based on beam energy. One would be motivated to do so on the basis of applying known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA DOWNING whose telephone number is (703)756-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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.
/MIYA DOWNING/Examiner, Art Unit 2884 /DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights