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 (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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 12-15, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fahrig et al (US 8,331,531 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Fahrig et al discloses a treatment system, comprising : a radiotherapy device configured to emit a radiation beam; a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device including a magnet assembly (integrated MRI-linear accelerator (Linac)) (col. 4, lines 55-56) for providing a magnet field in an accommodation space (col. 4, lines 59-60); and a support (rotating gantry) (See Fig. 2a and col. 5, lines 26-32) configured to be connected with the radiotherapy device, wherein the radiotherapy device is configured to rotate around at least one rotation axis (col. 7, lines 12-25).
Regarding claim 3, Fahrig et al discloses wherein the at least one rotation axis includes at least one of a first axis parallel with an extension direction of a table (207) of the MRI device in the accommodation space (See Figs. 5a-5b).
Regarding claim 4, Fahrig et al discloses wherein a rotation angle of the radiotherapy device rotating around the first axis is 360 degrees (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Fahrig et al discloses wherein the radiotherapy device is configured to rotate around the first axis with a rotation of the support (See Fig. 2a and col. 5, lines 26-32).
Regarding claim 6, Fahrig et al discloses wherein the radiotherapy device is configured to rotate around the first axis with a rotation of the MRI device (col. 5, lines 52-57).
Regarding claim 9, Fahrig et al discloses wherein the second axis is perpendicular or parallel to a surface of the table where a subject to be treated and the radiotherapy device is arranged on the support such that a direction of the radiation beam is perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to a plane defined by the second axis and the first axis (See Figs. 2a-2b and col. 5, lines 62-col. 6, line 11).
Regarding claim 12, Fahrig et al discloses wherein the magnet assembly includes a first magnet section (202) and a second magnet section (202) separately provided at two sides of the accommodation space along a direction parallel to a direction of the magnet field (See Fig. 2(a)).
Regarding claim 13, Fahrig et al discloses wherein a direction of the radiation beam is parallel to or substantially parallel to the direction of the magnet field (col. 4, lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 14, Fahrig et al discloses wherein a direction of the radiation beam is parallel to or substantially perpendicular to the direction of the magnet field (col. 5, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 15, Fahrig et al discloses wherein the at least one rotation axis includes a first axis perpendicular to a direction of the magnet field in the accommodation space and a second axis perpendicular to or parallel with the direction of the magnet field in the accommodation space (See Figs. 2a-2b and col. 5, lines 62-col. 6, line 11).
Regarding claim 17, Fahrig et al discloses wherein the magnet assembly includes one or more magnets (202) each of which is tubular structure and surrounds the accommodation space (See Fig. 2b, 5a-5b and col. 5, lines 33-40).
Regarding claim 18, Fahrig et al discloses wherein the at least one rotation axis includes a first axis parallel with a direction of the magnet field in the accommodation space and a second axis perpendicular to the direction of the magnet field in the accommodation space (See Figs. 2a-2b).
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 (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 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) 2, 7-8, 10-11, 16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahrig et al (US 8,331,531 B2) in view of Amies et al (US 8,958,864 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Fahrig et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1, as describes supra however, Fahrig et al is silent with regards to accommodation space and a direction of the radiation of the radiation beam as claimed. Amies et al discloses a combined radiation therapy and magnetic resonance unit comprising: wherein an angle between a direction of the magnet field in the accommodation space and a direction of the radiation of the radiation beam is equal to or less than 90 degrees (col. 4, lines 60-col. 5, line 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Fahrig et al with the teaching of Ameis et al, so as to preserve intended dose distribution.
Regarding claim 7, Fahrig et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1, as describes supra however, Fahrig et al is silent with regards to rotations as claimed. Amies et al discloses a combined radiation therapy and magnetic resonance unit comprising: radiation therapy device rotating around one of the at least one rotation axis independently of the support (col. 3, lines 31-37). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Fahrig et al with the teaching of Ameis et al, so as to prevent magnetic interference with radiation beam and allow non-coplanar beam delivery.
Regarding claim 8, Fahrig et al in view of Amies et al discloses wherein a rotational angle of the radiotherapy device rotating around the second axis is less than 180 degrees (col. 5, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 10, Fahrig et al in view of Amies et al discloses wherein the at least one axis (15) includes a third axis and angle between third axis (26) and second axis is less than 90 degrees (col. 4, lines 60-col. 5, line 40).
Regarding claim 11, Fahrig et al in view of Amies et al discloses wherein the support includes a rotating shell, wherein the rotating shell in a semicircular shape (7) is configured to provide the support to the radiotherapy device (col. 4, lines 7-17). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Fahrig et al with the teaching of Amies et al, so as to enable 360 beam delivery while avoiding collision with MRI cylindrical magnet.
Regarding claim 16, Fahrig et al in view of Amies et al discloses wherein recess is provided on each of magnets which are configured to pass the radiation beam (adjusters (24) of collimator (23)) (col. 5, lines 21-32).
Regarding claim 19, Fahrig et al in view of Amies et al discloses wherein the magnet assembly includes a first section and a second section, a size of the first section is smaller than a size of the second section (See Fig. 8)
Regarding claim 20, Fahrig et al in view of Amies et al discloses wherein the magnet assembly includes one or more magnets each of which is in a tubular structure to form the accommodation space and a third magnet, the one or more magnets and the third magnet are located on two sides of the radiotherapy device and the support along a direction of the magnet field (See Fig. 8 and col. 8, lines 62-col. 9, line 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANI POLYZOS BOOSALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 PM.
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 at Uzma.Alam@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/F.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights