DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on August 7, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 7, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-7 are 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.
5. Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “a phase lead of a beta function representing a betatron oscillation.” The beta function is an envelope (amplitude) function. It does not possess a phase. The betatron phase advance is a distinct quantity related to the beta function. It is unclear whether applicant intends (i) the betatron phase advance computed from the beta function, or (ii) some other quantity attributed to the beta function itself (Spec [0037] repeats the same phrasing without sufficient clarification). A POSITA would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the recited quantity with reasonable certainty.
Claim 1 further recites “setting a beam shape such that respective beam optical parameters match at each boundary between a rotating portion and a fixed portion.” It is unclear what is being matched to what. The limitation is open to various interpretations: (i) the parameters on the rotating portion side match those on the fixed-portion side of the same boundary; (ii) the parameters at boundary B1 match those at boundaries B2 and B3 of the other gantries; or (iii) the parameters at each boundary match those at some other reference point (eg. isocenter as taught in Spec [0058]). Spec [0056] also uses ambiguous phrasing.
Claim 1 recites “a rotating portion and a fixed portion of each of the plurality of rotating gantries.” It is unclear whether these portions are portions of the gantry framework, of the vacuum duct (Spec [0029] describes the duct portion outside the rotation mechanism as stationary and the portion inside as rotating), or of the beam transport line. The structure defining the “boundary” is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites that each of the plurality of rotating gantries “has the respective treatment rooms inside”. Claim 1 earlier recites “a plurality of treatment rooms.” It is unclear whether each individual gantry contains all the plurality of treatment rooms, or a single respective room.
Claim 1 recites “match” without any standard of measurement. The scope of “match” is a term of degree of uncertain boundary (MPEP 2173.05(b)).
6. Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1 and are also rejected as indefinite.
7. Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 recites “the respective beam optical parameters match at the boundary,” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “each boundary between a rotating portion and a fixed portion.” It is unclear which of the plurality of boundaries is referenced.
Claim 2 recites that the parameters “match at the boundary and a position in each of the treatment rooms to be most concentratedly irradiated.” It is unclear whether the claim requires (i) the parameters at the boundary to match the parameters at that position, or (ii) the parameters of the X-axis match those of the Y-axis at each of the two recited locations.
8. Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 recites setting the beam shape “such that conditions under at least one of a symmetric beam method, a round beam method, and a rotator method are satisfied at each boundary.” The “conditions” that must be satisfied are never recited in the claim. Spec [0061]-[0062] describes various conditions, but the claim is not limited to the disclosed conditions. A POSITA cannot determine what must be satisfied to fall within the claim.
9. Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 recites “the beam optical parameters include a Twiss parameter”, then recites “Twiss parameters of an X-axis and a Y-axis.” The plural “Twiss parameters” lack antecedent basis. It is unclear whether one Twiss parameter or all Twiss parameters of the X- and Y-axes must be equal.
Claim 4 recites equality “at the boundary.” As in claim 2, claim 1 recites “each boundary”. It is unclear which boundary is intended.
10. Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 recites “the Twiss parameters of the first connection point and the second connection point”, which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, recites Twiss parameters of an X-axis and a Y-axis at the boundary.
11. Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 recites “a beta function.” Claim 1 already recites “a beta function.” It is unclear whether the beta function of claim 6 is the same beta function recited in claim 1 or a different one.
Claim 6 recites that “at least one of an alpha function, a beta function, a gamma function, an emittance, and a dispersion; and at least one of the alpha function, the beta function, the gamma function, the emittance, and the dispersion is matched at each boundary.” Claim 1 recites that “respective beam optical parameters match at each boundary.” It is unclear whether claim 6 requires only a single parameter to match, in which case it does not further limit claim 1, or whether all parameters encompassed by claim 1 must still match.
12. Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 recites “adjusting strength and arrangement of a bending electromagnet and a convergence electromagnet”. It is further unclear whether the recited “adjusting” is performed on physical electromagnets already installed or on design values for those electromagnets.
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.
13. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process and a mathematical concept without significantly more. The independent claim(s) recite(s) a mental process as two steps: 1) designing the main transport line such that a phase lead of a beta function representing a betatron oscillation of the charged particles passing through the main transport line from the first connection point to the second connection point is an integer multiple of π; 2) setting a beam shape such that respective beam optical parameters match at each boundary between a rotating portion and a fixed portion of each of the plurality of rotating gantries.
14. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Further, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
In the instant case, the two steps of the independent claim 1 can be performed by the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. For instance, the step of “designing the main transport line such that a phase lead of a beta function representing a betatron oscillation of the charged particles passing through the main transport line from the first connection point to the second connection point is an integer multiple of π” requires nothing more than evaluating a transport matrix relationship (Spec [0039]) and selecting values that satisfy various conditions, which is an evaluation a designer performs on paper, which Applicant’s specification attributes to a human designer (Spec [0045], [0048], [0056]). Likewise, the step of “setting a beam shape such that respective beam optical parameters match at each boundary between a rotating portion and a fixed portion of each of the plurality of rotating gantries” requires only that the practitioner determine values of the recited beam optical parameters and observe that they are equal at the recited locations. No beam is generated, no component is fabricated, positioned, or altered. The claim is satisfied by the act of design alone.
15. Furthermore, the dependent claims do not have any features that would change the abstract idea into something more. Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 6 describe the particular parameters to be evaluated and the particular locations at which they are to be equal, but each can also be performed mentally. Claim 2 adds that the parameters also match at a position to be most concentratedly irradiated. Claim 4 adds that Twiss parameters of an X-axis and a Y-axis become equal under an assumption that the traveling direction is a Z-axis, which recites only a frame of reference and a mathematical equality. Claim 5 adds that the Twiss parameters of the first and second connection points are so set, and claim 6 recites that the beam optical parameters are expressed by at least one of an alpha function, a beta function, a gamma function, an emittance, and a dispersion, and that at least one is matched. These are further details of the mathematical relationship and do not alter the fact that the underlying abstract idea may be performed as a mental process. Dependent claim 3 adds that conditions under at least one of a symmetric beam method, a round beam method, and a rotator method are satisfied at each boundary. However, reciting that a condition is satisfied is not an act performed on any structure. Determining whether a set of optical conditions holds is an evaluation performed in the mind or on paper and is therefore not significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claim 7 adds a step of “adjusting strength and arrangement of a bending electromagnet and a convergence electromagnet provided in the beam transport line such that the respective beam optical parameters match at each boundary”. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the step is also a mental process performed on paper. The claim does not require that any electromagnet be energized, moved, installed, or physically modified. “Arrangement” is a quantity fixed on a design drawing before any component exists, and “strength” is a magnitude selected during design. Accordingly, claim 7 merely identifies which design variables the practitioner selects, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
16. The claims recite various features, but none of them, taken alone or in an ordered combination, is significantly more than just the above noted mental process. Simply put, the claims do not require anything other than the abstract idea to occur. The recited circular accelerator, beam transport line, main transport line, subtransport lines, treatment rooms, and rotating gantries appear only in the preamble that describes the system about which the design is performed. The body of the claim performs no step on any of them. Reciting the physical environment in which a mathematical relationship is to be applied amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which does not render an abstract idea patent eligible. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014).
17. Finally, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it. The claims effect no transformation of any article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and do not use a particular machine to perform the recited steps (MPEP 2106.05(b)). The recitation of a particle beam therapy system serves only to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Claims 1, 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama (US 20180214715).
21. Regarding claim 1:
Takayama teaches a method for manufacturing a particle beam therapy system ([0058] teaches design of a particle beam treatment facility provided with plural treatment rooms accommodating irradiation equipments and to facilitate design and manufacture of the equipment) that comprises:
a circular accelerator configured to accelerate charged particles (The accelerator 13 is, e.g., a synchrotron, and causes a particle beam, which is generated by accelerating charged particles to be emitted from an exit deflector 14 to the main line 21. [0004] teaches circular extended surface of the accelerator); a beam transport line configured to guide the charged particles accelerated by the circular accelerator ([0024] teaches a main line 21 for transporting the particle beam generated by an accelerator 13 to the outside, and a branch line 22 that branches off from the main line 21. At the respective ends of the branch line 22, irradiation equipments 30 (30a to 30e) for irradiating a patient with a particle beam are provided. Main line 21 and branch line 22 together correspond to the beam transport line) to a plurality of treatment rooms ([0003] teaches plural treatment rooms and branch a particle beam transport system such that the particle beam transport system is connected to the respective treatment rooms); and a plurality of rotating gantries, each of which can change an irradiation direction of the charged particles guided by the beam transport line with respect to a patient and has the respective treatment rooms inside ([0054] teaches the gantry-type irradiation equipment 30 includes a gantry 32. The gantry 32 has a treatment space 38 therein, and is rotationally displaced about its rotation axis 31 by its rotation driver. [0055] teaches it is possible to bend the trajectory of the particle beam 41 and to irradiate the patient 35 with this particle beam 41 from an arbitrary direction orthogonal to the rotation axis 31. Gantries 32 of equipments 30a-30e are the plurality of rotating gantries), wherein the beam transport line includes a main transport line extending from the circular accelerator and a plurality of sub transport lines extending from the main transport line to the respective treatment rooms ([0024] figs. 1-2 show branch line 22 comprising plural separate branches running from main line 21 up to equipments 30a, 30b, 30c), the plurality of sub transport lines include one sub transport line and another sub transport line, the one sub transport line is connected to a first connection point of the main transport line, and the another sub transport line is connected to a second connection point of the main transport line, the second connection point being different from the first connection point (Figs. 1 and 2 show branch segments 20a, 20b, 20d, 20c, 20e each departing the main line 21 at distinct locations along the main line) (Note: the particle beam therapy system in the preamble establishes a physical environment and is treated as statement of intended use. See MPEP 2111.02), the method comprising steps of:
designing the main transport line such that a phase lead of a beta function representing a betatron oscillation of the charged particles passing through the main transport line from both ends of each of the plural segment is an integer multiple of π ([0048] teaches by setting the phase difference between the upstream end and the downstream end to be an integral multiple of 180 degrees, the phase at the end of the irradiation equipment can always be kept constant regardless of the number of segments. Claim 6 teaches wherein phase difference of the particle beam between both ends of each of the plural segment is adjusted to be an integral multiple of 180 degrees. 180 degrees is π radians. The phase quantity is that of the betatron oscillation. [0024] teaches beam characteristics being defined as a betatron function β, an a function, dispersion, change rate of dispersion, and emittance); and
setting a beam shape such that respective beam optical parameters match at each boundary between a rotating portion and a fixed portion of each of the plurality of rotating gantries ([0054] teaches that the beam transport system 33 is fixed to the gantry 32, and is rotatably provided at the end of the branch line 22 (FIG. 3) via a joint 39. [0056] teaches that since there is no anisotropy in the characteristics in the orthogonal directions (x, y) of the particle beam passing through the end of each segment 20 connected to the joint 39 and the cross-sectional shape of the particle beam is substantially circular, a constant beam quality is maintained independently of the rotation of the gantry 32. The joint 39 is the claimed boundary. Downstream of the joint 39, beam transport system 33 is fixed to and rotates with gantry 32 (rotating portion). Upstream of the joint 39, branch line 22 is stationary (fixed portion). [0052] teaches expressly setting the beam characteristics at the join via the scatterer 15 and the segment lattice so that they are isotropic in x and y, which is the claimed “beam optical parameters match at the boundary”. Because all of the plural irradiation equipments 30 are the gantry-type ([0057), the condition is satisfied at each such boundary).
In one embodiment where the segments 20 constitute a part of the main line and the branch line 22, Takayama does not specifically note the phase condition in terms of a first connection point and a second connection point of the main transport line, as opposed to from both ends of each of the plural segment.
However, Takayama teaches the condition per segment ([0048], claim 6) and that irradiation equipment attaches at segment terminals ([0057]). Takayama [0035] further teaches that the segments 20 can all of the main line 21 and the branch line 22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Takayama such that the phase condition of [0048] is applied to the span of main line 21 extending from the first branch point to the second branch point. The span would then be a whole number of the segments 20 so that the accumulated betatron phase lead between the two branch points is an integer multiple of π. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification because Takayama states the purpose of the phase condition is that the phase at the end of the irradiation equipment can always be kept constant regardless of the number of segments ([0048]). The benefit can be achieved if the condition holds cumulatively along the main line between successive branch points rather than locally within a single segment.
22. Regarding claim 3:
Takayama teaches the method for manufacturing a particle beam therapy system according to claim 1, wherein the beam shape is set such that conditions under at least one of a symmetric beam method, a round beam method, and a rotator method are satisfied at each boundary ([0052] teaches that the respective emittances in the orthogonal directions x and y of the particle beam are made uniform such that anisotropy of emittance is eliminated in the orthogonal directions (x, y) of the particle beam. Furthermore, by eliminating the anisotropy of the betatron function in the orthogonal directions (x, y) of the particle beam, it is possible to obtain beam characteristics in which the cross-sectional shape is substantially circular. Equal x/y emittance and equal x/y betatron function producing a circular cross-section satisfies the symmetric beam method as defined in the instant specification [0061]).
23. Regarding claim 4:
Takayama teaches the method for manufacturing a particle beam therapy system according to claim 1, wherein: the beam optical parameters include a Twiss parameter ([0024] teaches a characteristic of the particle beam is physical quantity representing the state of the particle beam, and means, e.g., a betatron function β, an a function, dispersion, change rate of dispersion, and emittance. The betatron function β and a function are Twiss parameters); and the beam shape is set such that Twiss parameters of an X-axis and a Y-axis become equal at the boundary ([0052] teaches anisotropy of emittance is eliminated in the orthogonal directions (x, y) of the particle beam. By eliminating the anisotropy of the betatron function in the orthogonal directions (x, y) of the particle beam, it is possible to obtain beam characteristics in which the cross-sectional shape is substantially circular, ie. βx = βy. [0056] teaches the condition obtains at the boundary, where there is no anisotropy in the characteristics in the orthogonal directions (x, y) of the particle beam passing through the end of each segment 20 connected to the joint 39) under an assumption that a traveling direction of the charged particles is a Z-axis ([0023] teaches the traveling direction of a particle beam is defined as the s-direction, and the respective two directions being orthogonal to the s-direction and being orthogonal to each other are defined as the x-direction and the y-direction).
24. Regarding claim 5:
Takayama teaches The method for manufacturing a particle beam therapy system according to claim 4, wherein the Twiss parameters of the first connection point and the second connection point are set ([0024] teaches that a characteristic of the particle beam is physical quantity representing the state of the particle beam, and means, e.g., a betatron function β, an a function, dispersion, change rate of dispersion, and emittance. [0047] teaches each segment 20 is configured such that the characteristics and cross-sectional shape of the particle beam are substantially the same at both ends) such that the Twiss parameters of the X-axis and the Y-axis are equal at each boundary ([0047] teaches the current values of the respective electromagnets in each segment are adjusted to each other in such a manner that the beam parameters such as the betatron function, dispersion and its change rate are equal at the upstream end and the downstream end. [0052], [0056] teaches elimination of x/y anisotropy in the betatron function at joint 39, which corresponds to the equality of the x-axis and y-axis Twiss parameters at the boundary. Since [0057] teaches all of the plural irradiation equipments 30 to be disposed are the gantry-type, such equality is obtained at each boundary). [Note: once the connection points are located at segment boundaries, which would have been obvious as discussed in claim 1, the equality of connection-point Twiss parameters and the resulting X/Y equality at each joint 39 follow from Takayama’s segment architecture]
25. Regarding claim 6:
Takayama teaches the method for manufacturing a particle beam therapy system according to claim 1, wherein: the beam optical parameters are expressed by at least one of an alpha function, a beta function, a gamma function, an emittance, and a dispersion ([0024] teaches a characteristic of the particle beam is physical quantity representing the state of the particle beam, and means, e.g., a betatron function β, an a function, dispersion, change rate of dispersion, and emittance); and at least one of the alpha function, the beta function, the gamma function, the emittance, and the dispersion is matched at each boundary ([0045], [0047] teaches the current values of the respective electromagnets in each segment are adjusted to each other in such a manner that the beam parameters such as the betatron function, dispersion and its change rate are equal at the upstream end and the downstream end. [0056] teaches since there is no anisotropy in the characteristics in the orthogonal directions (x, y) of the particle beam passing through the end of each segment 20 connected to the joint 39 and the cross-sectional shape of the particle beam is substantially circular. Since [0057] teaches all of the plural irradiation equipments 30 to be disposed are the gantry-type, such equality is obtained at each boundary).
26. Regarding claim 7:
Takayama teaches the method for manufacturing a particle beam therapy system according to claim 1, further comprising a step of adjusting strength and arrangement of a bending electromagnet and a convergence electromagnet provided in the beam transport line such that the respective beam optical parameters match at each boundary ([0024] fig. 1 to fig. 3 teaches focus electromagnets 11 for converging the outer diameter of a passing particle beam by the action of a magnetic field, bending electromagnets 12 for bending the traveling direction of the passing particle beam by the action of a magnetic field. Both are provided in main line 21 and branch line 22. As to arrangement, [0045] teaches arrangement conditions of respective components including arrangement order, placement positions, and arrangement angles are determined in such a manner that the betatron function β (βx, βy) in the orthogonal direction (x, y) of the passing particle beam is equal at the upstream end and the downstream end. As of strength, [0040] fig. 7 teaches intensity of focusing/defocusing a beam can be controlled by intensity of direct current applied to the exciting coils 53. [0047] teaches the current values of the respective electromagnets in each segment are adjusted to each other in such a manner that the beam parameters such as the betatron function, dispersion and its change rate are equal at the upstream end and the downstream end. Since [0057] teaches all of the plural irradiation equipments 30 to be disposed are the gantry-type, such equality is obtained at each boundary).
27. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama in view of Jongen (US 20140145090).
28. Regarding claim 2:
Takayama teaches the method for manufacturing a particle beam therapy system according to claim 1.
Takayama [0056] teaches setting the beam shape so that the beam optical parameters match at the joint 39. Takayama does not specifically note that wherein the beam shape is set such that the respective beam optical parameters match at the boundary and a position in each of the treatment rooms to be most concentratedly irradiated with the charged particles.
Jongen teaches that the beam enters the gantry essentially parallel with the axis of rotation at the coupling point or entrance point 11. This coupling point or entrance point is defined as the transition between the fixed part of a beam line and the beam line of the rotating gantry ([0006]). The transition is the boundary between the rotating portion and fixed portion. Jongen teaches that the target to be irradiated is positioned at the treatment isocenter ([0007]), corresponding to the position most concentratedly irradiated. Jongen further teaches that at the gantry entrance the beam must have the same emittance in X and Y. In addition to the same emittance in X and Y, a waist of identical size in X and Y is specified at the entry point 25 ([0036]). Starting with these beam conditions at the gantry entrance, additional conditions need to be met: at the isocenter 27, the beam must have a small waist, of identical size in X and Y ([0037]). A beam having equal emittance and a waist of equal size in X and Y has its Twiss parameters matched between the transverse planes at that location. The waist condition gives α = 0 in both planes, and equal size at equal emittance gives equal β. [0037] also teaches that at the gantry entrance point one starts with a circular beam having a double waist with size of 12.5 mm and a divergence of 0.6 mrad. This size and divergence corresponds with an emittance of 7.5 Pi mm mrad. At the isocenter 27, a circular beam spot, with an X and Y waist having a size of about 3.5 mm and a divergence of about 2.2 mrad is obtained which is a beam size adequate for pencil beam scanning (3.5mm x 2.2 mrad= 7.7 Pi mm mrad). The beam emittance thus is matched. [0040] teaches a double waist at the entry point and [0037] teaches at the isocenter 27, the beam must have a small waist, of identical size in X and Y. A waist is the longitudinal position at which the envelope is stationary, so α match at the boundary and the isocenter.
Takayama already sets the beam shape at the joint 39 boundary so that x/y anisotropy is eliminated and the cross-section is substantially circular ([0056]). Jongen’s teaching modifies Takayama by carrying that same optical conditions through the in-gantry beam transport system to the irradiation point. Jongen specifies that in addition to Takayam boundary condition, the beam optical parameters also match at the irradiation point. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Takayama to additionally set the beam shape such that the beam optical parameters match at the boundary and isocenter, as taught by Jongen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification to have a gantry beam optics solution that is independent from the gantry rotation angle (Jongen [0036]) and to obtain at the isocenter a circular beam spot which is a beam size adequate for pencil beam scanning (Jongen [0040]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights