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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. An apparatus for “a treatment-table controller,” or “a pre-image acquisition apparatus” is NOT found in the original disclosure.
Claims 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation:
“a treatment-table controller;” recited in claims 1, 10 and dependent claims thereafter has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “controller” coupled with functional language “control” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“a pre-image acquisition apparatus” recited in claims 1, 10 and dependent claims thereafter has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “apparatus” coupled with functional language “acquire” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Although, Applicant describes that: “[0030] The radiotherapy system 1 further includes: a pre-CT apparatus 10 that is for treatment planning and provided as a pre-image acquisition apparatus for the treatment planning and acquires CT images of the patient P during the planning stage for treatment; and a pre-treatment table 16 for the treatment planning and for placing the patient P thereon. The pre-CT apparatus 10 and the pre-treatment table 16 are provided inside a planning room 17, which is a room different from the treatment room 15.” But it is NOT clear, what a Pre-CT apparatus is. Is it just a computer, a software, a hand that is capable of obtaining CT images, or is it a CT apparatus?
Claim elements a, b, are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. It is unclear what the structure would be for each of the claim element above. It is unclear whether they are circuits, processor, software, etc. For the purpose of the examination, examiner interprets as processor circuits or the like.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda et al.(US 2011/0121197, hereinafter Maeda ‘197).
In re claim 1, Maeda ‘197 teaches a radiotherapy system comprising:
a radioactive-ray irradiation apparatus configured to irradiate an irradiation target existing at an irradiation position with therapeutic radioactive rays (0032-0033);
a 3D image acquisition apparatus configured to acquire a 3D image of the irradiation target at a position different from the irradiation position (0034, 0036, 0037);
a treatment table on which the irradiation target is placed (0022);
a treatment-table controller configured to control a position of the treatment table (0037-0040, 0065); and
a memory configured to store the position of the treatment table for acquiring the 3D image as an imaging position (0037-0040, 0065).
In re claim 2, Maeda ‘197 teaches wherein the treatment-table controller is configured to move the treatment table in accordance with the imaging position stored in the memory (0065).
In re claim 4, Maeda ‘197 teaches wherein the memory is configured to store, as the imaging position, the position of the treatment table at a time at which the 3D image is acquired by the 3D image acquisition apparatus (0065).
In re claim 5, Maeada ‘197 teaches further comprising processing circuitry configured to calculate movement amount and rotation amount of the treatment table for aligning the position of the treatment table with the irradiation position when the radioactive-ray irradiation apparatus radiates the therapeutic radioactive rays, wherein the memory is configured to reflect a calculation result obtained by the processing circuitry in a stored imaging position (0024, 0025, 0027, 0030, 0031, 0034, 0035, 0040, 0042, 0054, 0061, figs. 5-10).
In re claim 7, Maeda ‘197 teaches wherein: the 3D image acquisition apparatus is configured to be movable; and the memory is configured to store, as an installation position, a position of the 3D image acquisition apparatus at a time at which the 3D image is acquired (0039, 0040).
In re claim 8, Maeda ‘197 teaches wherein the 3D image acquisition apparatus is configured to perform movement in accordance with the installation position stored in the memory at a time of acquiring the 3D image (0039, 0040).
In re claim 9, Maeda ‘197 teaches further comprising processing circuitry, wherein, when one of both the imaging position of the treatment table and the installation position of the 3D image acquisition apparatus is stored in the memory, the processing circuitry calculates a position of another of the both by using storage contents in the memory and then stores the position of another of the both in the memory (0040).
In re claim 10, Maeda ‘197 teaches a method for controlling a radiotherapy system by using: a radioactive-ray irradiation apparatus configured to irradiate an irradiation target existing at an irradiation position with therapeutic radioactive rays (0032-0033); a 3D image acquisition apparatus configured to acquire a 3D image of the irradiation target at a position different from the irradiation position (0034, 0036, 0037); a treatment table on which the irradiation target is placed; a treatment-table controller configured to control a position of the treatment table (0037-0040, 0065); and a memory, the method comprising a step of causing the memory to store the position of the treatment table for acquiring the 3D image as an imaging position (0037-0040, 0065).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda ‘197 alone and/or in view of Myles (US 2008/0240353, hereinafter Myles ‘353).
In re claim 6, Maeda ‘197 teaches further comprising: a
Furthermore, Myles ‘353 teaches further comprising: a pre-image acquisition apparatus configured to acquire the 3D image of the irradiation target during a planning stage for treatment; and a pre-treatment table on which the irradiation target is placed during the planning stage for treatment, wherein the memory is configured to store, as the imaging position, a position of the pre-treatment table at a time at which the 3D image is acquired by the pre-image acquisition apparatus during the planning stage for treatment (0026, 0036, 0039-0041, 0057, 0063).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Maeda ‘197 to include the features of Myles ‘353 in order to allow a physician to do image-guided radiotherapy using on-line verification of the patient's treatment position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and while resolving any other rejections and objections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO JOSEPH PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BO JOSEPH PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights