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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is 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.
Regarding Claim 14: It is not clear if the lead-out member and lead-out magnet are the same element. For examination purposes, the lead-out member is treated as the same element as the lead-out magnet.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 depends from claim 19 which is directed to a method, while claim 20 is directed to an apparatus. A claim in dependent form must further limit the same statutory class of subject matter as the claim form which it depends. Applicant is required to rewrite claim 20 in independent form. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-7, 9, 13-14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 18/673,403 in view of Tantawi (US-10485991-B2).
Regarding Claim 1: Co-pending application 18/673,403 claims an apparatus for flash treatment comprising an electron beam emitter, a deflection member, a deflection mechanism, and a radiation delivery device, wherein
the electron beam emitter is configured to emit an accelerated electron beam;
the deflection member is configured to be capable of performing first deflection processing on the accelerated electron beam; and
the deflection mechanism is configured to perform second deflection processing on the electron beam after the first deflection processing (claim 1).
The co-pending application does not claim the radiation delivery device is configured to form a photon beam from the electron beam after the first deflection processing or after the second deflection processing.
However, Tantawi discloses a similar apparatus wherein the radiation delivery device is configured to form a photon beam from the electron beam after the first deflection processing or after the second deflection processing (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.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the co-pending application and add a target to convert the electron beam into a photon beam. One would be motivated to make such a modification to achieve greater penetration depth.
Regarding Claim 2: The co-pending application does not claim wherein the deflection member is separated from the deflection mechanism by a distance in a planar direction of the deflection mechanism.
Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the deflection member is separated from the deflection mechanism by a distance in a planar direction of the deflection mechanism (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have separated the deflection member and deflection mechanism by a distance in a planar direction of the deflection mechanism as taught by Tantawi in order to improve beam control and minimize interference.
Regarding Claim 3: The co-pending application does not claim wherein the deflection member is separated from the deflection mechanism by a distance along an axial direction of the deflection mechanism.
Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the deflection member is separated from the deflection mechanism by a distance in a planar direction of the deflection mechanism (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have separated the deflection member and deflection mechanism by a distance along an axial direction of the deflection mechanism as taught by Tantawi in order to control field overlap and improve beam deflection predictability.
Regarding Claim 4: Co-pending application does not claim wherein the deflection mechanism is configured to be distributed around a ring.
Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the deflection mechanism is configured to be distributed around a ring (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have distributed the deflection mechanism around a ring. One would be motivated to do so to produce an azimuthally symmetric magnetic field and reduce beam aberrations.
Regarding Claim 5: Co-pending application fails to claim wherein the radiation delivery device further comprises either or both of a target assembly and a multi-leaf collimator, the target assembly is configured to form the photon beam by receiving the electron beam after the first deflection processing or after the second deflection processing, and the multi-leaf collimator is configured to adjust a beam shape of the photon beam from the target assembly.
Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the radiation delivery device further comprises either or both of a target assembly and a multi-leaf collimator, the target assembly is configured to form the photon beam by receiving the electron beam after the first deflection processing or after the second deflection processing, and the multi-leaf collimator is configured to adjust a beam shape of the photon beam from the target assembly (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.”; Col. 16, lines 55-58: “…the treatment head may include any number of beam shaping or collimation devices or a beam monitoring or verification device to ensure the beam or an associated pattern is within acceptable parameters before delivery to the targeted tissue.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to collimate the beam in order to control angular spread and achieve predictable, precise beam behavior.
Regarding Claim 6: Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and adds wherein the apparatus comprises one radiation delivery device capable of moving around a target region.
Co-pending application claim 13 recites an irradiation direction of the electron beam towards the target region is changeable.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to implement the changeable irradiation direction of the co-pending application by providing a radiation delivery device capable of moving around a target region since rotational movement is a conventional way to achieve irradiation variation.
Regarding Claim 7: Co-pending application claims wherein the electron beam emitter further comprises an electron beam generator and an electron cyclotron; the electron beam generator is configured to generate an electron beam; and the electron cyclotron is configured to accelerate the electron beam (claim 3).
Regarding Claim 8: Co-pending application does not claim wherein the apparatus comprises two groups of deflection mechanisms, which are arranged at both sides of the target region symmetrically.
Tantawi discloses wherein the apparatus comprises two groups of deflection mechanisms, which are arranged at both sides of the target region symmetrically (Fig. 9A, bending structures 30).
It would have been obvious to arrange multiple deflection mechanisms around the target region symmetrically to provide greater coverage of the target region.
Regarding Claim 9: Co-pending application claims further comprising a beam splitter configured to direct the electron beam to two deflection members through different paths, wherein the two deflection members are corresponding to the two groups of deflection mechanisms, respectively (claim 14).
Regarding Claim 10: Co-pending application claims wherein the electron cyclotron further comprises an acceleration cavity and two groups of vector magnets, and the two groups of vector magnets are arranged at both sides of the acceleration cavity symmetrically (claim 4).
Regarding Claim 13: Co-pending application does not claim wherein energy of the photon beam is in a range of 6MeV to 10MeV.
Tantawi discloses wherein energy of the photon beam is in a range of 6MeV to 10MeV (Fig. 2a).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to use a photon beam in the range of 6MeV to 10MeV. One would be motivated to use a photon beam in this energy range because it provides sufficient penetration to treat tumors several centimeters beneath the surface.
Regarding Claim 14: Co-pending application claims 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 (claim 5).
Regarding Claim 15: Co-pending application claims wherein the electron cyclotron further comprises at least one of a betatron, a petal-shaped accelerator, or a race-track microtron (claim 6).
Regarding Claim 16: Co-pending application claims wherein a generated magnetic field strength or a generated electric field strength of the deflection member is capable of being adjusted when the deflection member is powered on, so that the electron beam after the first deflection processing is capable of entering the deflection mechanism at different angles (claim 7).
Regarding Claim 17: Co-pending application claims wherein the deflection member further comprises either or both of a vector magnet and a deflection resonant cavity (claim 9).
Regarding Claim 18: Co-pending application does not claim further comprising a vacuum pump which is disposed in an electron transport path.
Tantawi teaches a vacuum pump which is disposed in an electron transport path (Col. 11, lines 48-51: “In the arrangement shown in FIG. 3b, a 50-μm vacuum window made of stainless steel was used to interface the accelerator line with open air, in which the dose phantom (FIG. 2a) was placed.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have used a vacuum pump. One would be motivated to do so to prevent scattering and energy loss by removing air so the electrons can travel without colliding with gas particles.
Regarding Claim 19: Co-pending application claims a method for beam formation, comprising:
emitting an accelerated electron beam by an electron beam emitter;
performing first deflection processing on the accelerated electron beam by a deflection member, and directing the electron beam after the first deflection processing to a deflection mechanism;
performing second deflection processing on the electron beam after the first deflection processing by the deflection mechanism, and directing the electron beam after the second deflection processing to a radiation delivery device (17).
Co-pending application does not claim forming a photon beam via the radiation delivery device by receiving the electron beam after the first deflection processing or after the second deflection processing
However, Tantawi discloses a similar apparatus wherein the radiation delivery device is configured to form a photon beam from the electron beam after the first deflection processing or after the second deflection processing (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.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the co-pending application and add a target to convert the electron beam into a photon beam. One would be motivated to make such a modification to achieve greater penetration depth.
Regarding Claim 20: Co-pending application does not claim a computer readable storage medium on which an instruction is stored, wherein when executed by a processor, the instruction implements the method of claim 19.
Tantawi discloses a computer readable storage medium on which an instruction is stored, wherein when executed by a processor, the instruction implements the method of claim 19 (Col. 4, lines 1-5: “the controller is configured to receive information from an imaging device and use the information from the imaging device to control the directions in which the beam steering device steers the beam to the target”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a computer readable storage medium to reliably store, access, and execute the operations needed.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 18/673,403 in view of Song (US 20200215353 A1).
Regarding Claim 11: Co-pending application does not claim wherein the acceleration cavity further comprises a waveguide resonant cavity or a coaxial linear resonant cavity.
Song teaches a cyclotron comprising a waveguide resonant cavity (Fig. 2, 1061).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a waveguide resonant cavity into a cyclotron to provide stable and efficient particle acceleration.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 18/673,403 in view of Besson (US 10390774 B2).
Regarding Claim 12: Co-pending application does not claim wherein the target assembly is distributed in an annular manner.
Besson teaches an annular ring target to generate x-rays.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a target assembly distributed in an annular manner. One would be motivated to do so to provide compatibility with rotation and allow for heat to be distributed over the circumference.
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.
(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) 1-8, 13, 15, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tantawi (US 10485991 B2).
Regarding Claim 1: Tantawi discloses an apparatus for photon flash treatment (Figs. 1 and 8), comprising an electron beam emitter (7), a deflection member (Fig. 8, 13), a deflection mechanism (14, 16, and 18), and a radiation delivery device (Fig. 9A: 31), wherein
the electron beam emitter is configured to emit an accelerated electron beam (Col. 15, lines 39-41: “The gun creates an electric field on the photocathode which accelerates the transverse-modulated electron beam.”);
the deflection member is configured to be capable of performing first deflection processing on the accelerated 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.”);
the deflection mechanism is configured to perform second deflection processing on the electron beam after the first deflection processing (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.”); and
the radiation delivery device is configured to form a photon beam from the electron beam after the first deflection processing or after the second deflection processing (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 2: Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the deflection member is separated from the deflection mechanism by a distance in a planar direction of the deflection mechanism (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 3: Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the deflection member is separated from the deflection mechanism by a distance along an axial direction of the deflection mechanism (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 4: Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the deflection mechanism is configured to be distributed around a ring (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 5: Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the radiation delivery device further comprises either or both of a target assembly and a multi-leaf collimator, the target assembly is configured to form the photon beam by receiving the electron beam after the first deflection processing or after the second deflection processing, and the multi-leaf collimator is configured to adjust a beam shape of the photon beam from the target assembly (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.”; Col. 16, lines 55-58: “…the treatment head may include any number of beam shaping or collimation devices or a beam monitoring or verification device to ensure the beam or an associated pattern is within acceptable parameters before delivery to the targeted tissue.”).
Regarding Claim 6: Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the apparatus comprises one radiation delivery device capable of moving around a target region (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.”); or
the apparatus comprises a plurality of radiation delivery devices arranged at intervals around the target region, wherein each of the plurality of radiation delivery devices is fixed or movable relative to the target region (Fig. 14B).
Regarding Claim 7: Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electron beam emitter further 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); and
the electron cyclotron is configured to accelerate the electron beam (Col. 13, lines 10-12).
Regarding Claim 8: Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the apparatus comprises two groups of deflection mechanisms, which are arranged at both sides of the target region symmetrically (Fig. 9A, bending structures 30).
Regarding Claim 13: Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein energy of the photon beam is in a range of 6MeV to 10MeV (Fig. 2a).
Regarding Claim 15: Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the electron cyclotron further comprises at least one of a betatron, a petal-shaped accelerator, or a race-track microtron (Col. 13, lines 12-14: “A non-exhaustive list includes…racetrack microtrons…”).
Regarding Claim 16: Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a generated magnetic field strength or a generated electric field strength of the deflection member is capable of being adjusted when the deflection member is powered on, so that the electron beam after the first deflection processing is capable of entering the 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 18: Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a vacuum pump which is disposed in an electron transport path (Col. 11, lines 48-51: “In the arrangement shown in FIG. 3b, a 50-μm vacuum window made of stainless steel was used to interface the accelerator line with open air, in which the dose phantom (FIG. 2a) was placed.”).
Regarding Claim 19: Tantawi discloses a method for photon beam formation, comprising:
emitting an accelerated electron beam by an electron beam emitter (Fig. 8, 7);
performing first deflection processing on the accelerated electron beam by a deflection member (13), and directing the electron beam after the first deflection processing to a deflection mechanism (Fig. 8);
performing second deflection processing on the electron beam after the first deflection processing by the deflection mechanism (14, 16, 18), and directing the electron beam after the second deflection processing to a radiation delivery device; and
forming a photon beam via the radiation delivery device by receiving the electron beam after the first deflection processing or after the second deflection processing (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 20: Tantawi discloses a computer readable storage medium on which an instruction is stored, wherein when executed by a processor, the instruction implements the method of claim 19 (Col. 4, lines 1-5: “the controller is configured to receive information from an imaging device and use the information from the imaging device to control the directions in which the beam steering device steers the beam to the target”).
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tantawi in view of Sahadevan (US 10413755 B1) .
Regarding Claim 9: Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 8, but Tantawi fails to teach further comprising a beam splitter configured to direct the electron beam to two deflection members through different paths, wherein the two deflection members are corresponding to the two groups of deflection mechanisms, respectively.
Sahadevan teaches a beam splitter configured to direct the electron beam to two deflection members through different paths, wherein the two deflection members are corresponding to the two groups of deflection mechanisms, respectively (Fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tantawi in view of Sahadevan, in further view of Symons (US 20030141448 A1).
Regarding Claim 10: Tantawi in view of Sahadevan discloses the apparatus of claim 9, but both fail to teach wherein the electron cyclotron further comprises an acceleration cavity and two groups of vector magnets, and the two groups of vector magnets are arranged at both sides of the acceleration cavity symmetrically.
Tantawi and Sahadevan are silent with respect to the structure of the cyclotron, thereby allowing for that which is known in the art.
Symons teaches a cyclotron wherein the electron cyclotron further comprises an acceleration cavity and two groups of vector magnets, and the two groups of vector magnets are arranged at both sides of the acceleration cavity symmetrically (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 the combination of Tantawi and Sahadevan to incorporate the teachings of Symons 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 11: Tantawi in view of Sahadevan, in further view of Symons, discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the acceleration cavity further comprises a waveguide resonant cavity or a coaxial linear resonant cavity (Tantawi: Col. 13, lines 12-14: “A non-exhaustive list includes…racetrack microtrons…”; racetrack microtron will have a waveguide resonant cavity).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tantawi in view of Besson (US 10390774 B2).
Regarding Claim 12: Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 5, but Tantawi fails to teach wherein the target assembly is distributed in an annular manner.
Besson teaches an annular ring target to generate x-rays.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a target assembly distributed in an annular manner. One would be motivated to do so to provide compatibility with rotation and allow for heat to be distributed over the circumference.
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tantawi in view of Teng (US 2922061 A).
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood: Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 7, but Tantawi fails to teach 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.
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.
Regarding Claim 17: Tantawi discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but Tantawi fails to teach wherein the deflection member further comprises either or both of a vector magnet and a deflection resonant cavity.
Teng teaches a particle accelerator wherein the deflection member further comprises either or both of a vector magnet and a deflection resonant cavity (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 deflection member comprising either or both of a vector magnet and a deflection resonant cavity. One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of improving flexibility and precision of the beam.
Conclusion
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