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 .
Drawings
Figures 1-2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
FIG. 11A: NM
FIGs. 11B, 11C: M
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1:
“an electron ray output unit configured to generate, accelerate, and output an electron ray”;
“a catheter unit…which receives the electron ray…and allows the electron ray to pass through a hollow tunnel of a catheter…[and] adjusts movement and a rotational angle of the catheter”;
“a magnetic field generator configured to generate a magnetic field”
“a joint driving part configured to provide a degree of freedom of organic movement”.
Claim 8:
“an electron ray treatment apparatus configured to generate and accelerate an electron ray”
Claim 9:
“a magnetic field generator [which generates a magnetic field]”
Claim 15:
“an electron ray output unit…configured to output the electron ray”.
The corresponding structures in the disclosure for performing the claimed functions are:
Claim 1:
See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below;
See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below;
“a first magnetic pole…and a second magnetic pole” (paragraph 0068); “a permanent magnet, an electromagnet, or a hybrid magnet in which the permanent magnet and the electromagnet are used together” (paragraph 0089); or “a pulsed electromagnet” (paragraph 0093).
See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below.
Claim 8:
See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below.
Claim 9:
“a first magnetic pole…and a second magnetic pole” (paragraph 0068); “a permanent magnet, an electromagnet, or a hybrid magnet in which the permanent magnet and the electromagnet are used together” (paragraph 0089); or “a pulsed electromagnet” (paragraph 0093).
Claim 15:
See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are further 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.
The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see Claim Interpretation supra) and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the specification fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to claims 1-15; and claims 1-15 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 1:
“an electron ray output unit configured to generate, accelerate, and output an electron ray”;
“a catheter unit…which receives the electron ray…and allows the electron ray to pass through a hollow tunnel of a catheter…[and] adjusts movement and a rotational angle of the catheter”; and
“a joint driving part configured to provide a degree of freedom of organic movement”.
Claim 8:
“an electron ray treatment apparatus configured to generate and accelerate an electron ray”.
Claim 15:
“an electron ray output unit…configured to output the electron ray”.
Claims 2-7 and 9-15 are rejected because of their dependence on claims 1 and 8, respectively.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted these limitations as being met by any structure(s) which is/are capable of performing the claimed function(s).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, 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 and clearly links them to the function 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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiffel (U.S. Patent No. 6,575,889 B1), hereinafter Reiffel, in view of Goer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0054318 A1), hereinafter Goer.
Regarding claim 1, Reiffel discloses an electron ray magnetic adjustment electron ray treatment apparatus comprising:
an electron ray output unit configured to generate and output an electron ray (column 1, lines 54-56; column 2, lines 35-37);
a catheter unit of which one side is connected to the electron ray output unit and which receives the electron ray output from the electron ray output unit (FIG. 3: electron beam enters catheter unit along beam axis 101d at side 12d) and allows the electron ray to pass through a hollow tunnel of a catheter (column 3, lines 7-8; and FIG. 3, catheter 11d, 11c, 11b);
a magnetic field generator (FIG. 3, magnets 21c, 22c, 21d, 22d) configured to generate a magnetic field for refracting the electron ray passing through the hollow tunnel of the catheter (column 2, lines 40-45; column 3, lines 5-15); and
a joint driving part (column 3, lines 60-65; rotation of the sleeves (FIG. 3, catheters 11d, 11c, 11b) is achieved through the use of electric and/or mechanical devices) configured to provide a degree of freedom of organic movement of the catheter (FIG. 3, joints 61c, 61d; column 2, lines 63-65 discloses that rotation of the sleeves occurs through the joints 61) and the magnetic field generator (column 4, lines 1-3 discloses that the magnets are rotated with the rotation of the sleeves),
wherein the catheter unit adjusts movement and a rotational angle of the catheter (column 2, lines 60-62) in response to control of a controller (column 4, lines 1-19: actuators and control devices are used to move magnets and control other devices affecting the beam; the magnets may be moved by rotation with the sleeves (catheters) 11b, 11c).
Reiffel fails to disclose that the apparatus is pencil beam-based; the electron ray output unit is configured to accelerate the electron ray; and the joint driving part is configured to provide a degree of freedom of organic movement of the electron ray output unit.
However, Goer discloses that the apparatus is pencil beam-based (paragraph 0089, lines 3-5);
the electron ray output unit is configured to accelerate the electron ray (paragraph 0091, lines 1-3); and
the joint driving part is configured to provide a degree of freedom of organic movement of the electron ray output unit (paragraph 0171).
Therefore, 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 Reiffel to include that the apparatus is pencil beam-based; the electron ray output unit is configured to accelerate the electron ray; and the joint driving part is configured to provide a degree of freedom of organic movement of the electron ray output unit, based on the teachings of Goer that a narrow radiation treatment field is achievable with high precision due to the narrow beam (Goer, paragraph 0089); the acceleration of the electron ray allows adjustment of the beam to desired energy levels (Goer, paragraph 0091); and movement of the electron ray output unit provides greater flexibility in treatment configuration (Goer, paragraph 0171).
Regarding claim 2, Reiffel in view of Goer as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron ray pencil beam-based magnetic adjustment electron ray treatment apparatus of claim 1.
In addition, Reiffel discloses that the catheter unit adjusts distribution of the electron ray irradiated to a treatment target by adjusting a refraction angle of the magnetic field generator (column 2, lines 15-29) in a state in which a position of the catheter is fixed at a certain depth (column 2, lines 4-7: the catheter (“sleeve”) is fixed at a location of a target volume within a body) in response to the control of the controller (column 2, lines 29-33).
Regarding claim 3, Reiffel in view of Goer as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron ray pencil beam-based magnetic adjustment electron ray treatment apparatus of claim 1.
In addition, Reiffel discloses that the catheter unit adjusts distribution of the electron ray irradiated to a treatment target (column 2, lines 15-29) while moving the magnetic field generator together according to vertical movement, left-right movement, and rotation of the catheter in response to the control of the controller (column 3, line 66 to column 4, line 9).
Regarding claim 4, Reiffel in view of Goer as applied to claim 1 discloses the electron ray pencil beam-based magnetic adjustment electron ray treatment apparatus of claim 1.
In addition, Goer discloses that the electron ray output unit outputs a pencil beam-shaped electron ray (paragraph 0089, lines 3-5).
Therefore, 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 Reiffel in view of Goer to include that the electron ray output unit outputs a pencil beam-shaped electron ray, based on the additional teachings of Goer that a narrow radiation treatment field is achievable with high precision due to the narrow beam (Goer, paragraph 0089).
Regarding claim 5, Reiffel in view of Goer as applied to claim 2 discloses the electron ray pencil beam-based magnetic adjustment electron ray treatment apparatus of claim 2.
In addition, Reiffel discloses that the magnetic field generator is equipped with a first magnetic pole and a second magnetic pole (column 3, lines 35-37) in the form of one of a permanent magnet (column 4, lines 1-2), an electromagnet (column 3, lines 49-50), or a hybrid magnet in which the permanent magnet and the electromagnet are used together, at both ends of one side of the catheter.
Regarding claim 6, Reiffel in view of Goer as applied to claim 5 discloses the electron ray pencil beam-based magnetic adjustment electron ray treatment apparatus of claim 5.
In addition, Reiffel discloses that, when the magnetic field generator is in form of the permanent magnet (column 3, lines 40-50), the magnetic field generator adjusts a refraction angle of the electron ray (column 2, lines 15-29) by adjusting positions of the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole and a distance between the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole (column 4, lines 1-9, magnetic poles 21c, 22c).
Regarding claim 7, Reiffel in view of Goer as applied to claim 5 discloses the electron ray pencil beam-based magnetic adjustment electron ray treatment apparatus of claim 5.
In addition, Reiffel discloses that, when the magnetic field generator is in the form of the electromagnet, the magnetic field generator is a pulsed electromagnet, generates a magnetic field in synchronization with an electron ray pulse (column 3, lines 49-54), and adjusts a refraction angle of the electron ray (column 2, lines 15-29) by adjusting an intensity and direction of the generated magnetic field (column 2, lines 15-29).
Regarding claim 8, Reiffel discloses an electron ray magnetic adjustment electron ray treatment system comprising:
an electron ray treatment apparatus configured to generate an electron ray (column 1, lines 54-56; column 2, lines 35-37), output the electron ray, and allow the output electron ray to pass through a hollow tunnel of a catheter (column 3, lines 7-8; and FIG. 3, catheter 11d, 11c, 11b) and to be irradiated to a treatment target (column 2, lines 4-7); and
a controller configured to control the electron ray treatment apparatus (column 4, lines 1-19: actuators and control devices are used to move magnets and control other devices affecting the beam; the magnets may be moved by rotation with the sleeves (catheters) 11b, 11c);
wherein the electron ray treatment apparatus adjusts movement and a rotational angle of the catheter (column 2, lines 60-62) in response to the control of the controller (column 4, lines 1-19: actuators and control devices are used to move magnets and control other devices affecting the beam; the magnets may be moved by rotation with the sleeves (catheters) 11b, 11c).
Reiffel fails to disclose that the treatment system is pencil beam-based; the electron ray treatment apparatus is configured to accelerate the electron ray and output the electron ray in the form of a pencil beam; the controller is spaced apart from the electron ray treatment apparatus and configured to remotely control the electron ray treatment apparatus; and a power supply unit configured to supply a power voltage required for the electron ray treatment apparatus in response to control of the controller.
However, Goer discloses that the treatment system is pencil beam-based (paragraph 0089, lines 3-5);
the electron ray treatment apparatus is configured to accelerate the electron ray (paragraph 0091, lines 1-3) and output the electron ray in the form of a pencil beam (paragraph 0089, lines 3-5);
the controller (FIG. 1, element 38) is spaced apart from the electron ray treatment apparatus (FIG. 1, element 10) and configured to remotely control the electron ray treatment apparatus (FIG. 1: control signal 40 is sent from controller 38 to electron ray treatment apparatus 10); and
a power supply unit (FIG. 2, element 72) configured to supply a power voltage required for the electron ray treatment apparatus in response to control of the controller (paragraph 0148).
Therefore, 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 Reiffel to include that the treatment system is pencil beam-based; the electron ray treatment apparatus is configured to accelerate the electron ray and output the electron ray in the form of a pencil beam; the controller is spaced apart from the electron ray treatment apparatus and configured to remotely control the electron ray treatment apparatus; and a power supply unit configured to supply a power voltage required for the electron ray treatment apparatus in response to control of the controller, based on the teachings of Goer that a narrow radiation treatment field is achievable with high precision due to the narrow beam (Goer, paragraph 0089); the acceleration of the electron ray allows adjustment of the beam to desired energy levels (Goer, paragraph 0091); and the control of the power supply unit provides flexibility in energy level and penetration depth of the radiation for different applications with high precision (Goer, paragraph 0098).
Regarding claim 9, Reiffel in view of Goer as applied to claim 8 discloses the electron ray pencil beam-based magnetic adjustment electron ray treatment system of claim 8.
In addition, Reiffel discloses that the controller (column 4, lines 10-19) controls an energy intensity (column 2, lines 23-25), a dose (column 2, lines 29-30), a speed (column 2, lines 29-30), and an output timing of the electron ray (column 3, lines 49-53) and a magnitude (column 2, lines 15-20), a direction (column 3, lines 60-65), and an output timing of a magnetic field generated by a magnetic field generator inside the electron ray treatment apparatus (column 3, lines 49-53).
Regarding claim 10, Reiffel in view of Goer as applied to claim 9 discloses the electron ray pencil beam-based magnetic adjustment electron ray treatment system of claim 9.
In addition, Reiffel discloses that the controller performs a control (column 2, lines 29-33) to adjust distribution of the electron ray irradiated to the treatment target by adjusting a refraction angle of the magnetic field generator (column 2, lines 15-29) in a state in which a position of the catheter is fixed at a certain depth (column 2, lines 4-7: the catheter (“sleeve”) is fixed at a location of a target volume within a body).
Regarding claim 11, Reiffel in view of Goer as applied to claim 9 discloses the electron ray pencil beam-based magnetic adjustment electron ray treatment system of claim 9.
In addition, Reiffel discloses that the controller performs a control to adjust distribution of the electron ray irradiated to the treatment target (column 2, lines 15-29) while moving the magnetic field generator together according to vertical movement, left-right movement, and rotation of the catheter (column 3, line 66 to column 4, line 9).
Regarding claim 12, Reiffel in view of Goer as applied to claim 9 discloses the electron ray pencil beam-based magnetic adjustment electron ray treatment system of claim 9.
In addition, Reiffel discloses that the magnetic field generator is equipped with a first magnetic pole and a second magnetic pole (column 3, lines 35-37) in the form of one of a permanent magnet (column 4, lines 1-2), an electromagnet (column 3, lines 49-50), or a hybrid magnet in which the permanent magnet and the electromagnet are used together, at both ends of one side of the catheter.
Regarding claim 13, Reiffel in view of Goer as applied to claim 12 discloses the electron ray pencil beam-based magnetic adjustment electron ray treatment system of claim 12.
In addition, Reiffel discloses that, when the magnetic field generator is in form of the permanent magnet (column 3, lines 40-50), the magnetic field generator adjusts a refraction angle of the electron ray (column 2, lines 15-29) by adjusting positions of the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole and a distance between the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole (column 4, lines 1-9, magnetic poles 21c, 22c).
Regarding claim 14, Reiffel in view of Goer as applied to claim 12 discloses the electron ray pencil beam-based magnetic adjustment electron ray treatment system of claim 12.
In addition, Reiffel discloses that, when the magnetic field generator is in the form of the electromagnet, the magnetic field generator is a pulsed electromagnet, generates a magnetic field in synchronization with an electron ray pulse (column 3, lines 49-54), and adjusts a refraction angle of the electron ray (column 2, lines 15-29) by adjusting an intensity and direction of the generated magnetic field (column 2, lines 15-29).
Regarding claim 15, Reiffel in view of Goer as applied to claim 8 discloses the electron ray pencil beam-based magnetic adjustment electron ray treatment system of claim 8.
In addition, Reiffel discloses that the electron ray treatment apparatus is manufactured as a modular apparatus configured to receive the electron ray through an electron ray output unit while spaced apart from the electron ray output unit configured to output the electron ray (column 3, lines 6-7; the electron ray treatment apparatus receives the electron ray at input end 12d from a separate electron ray output unit).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nagumo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0175950 A1), hereinafter Nagumo, teaches a controller spaced apart from the electron ray treatment apparatus and configured to remotely control the electron ray treatment apparatus; and a power supply unit configured to supply a power voltage required for the electron ray treatment apparatus in response to control of the controller.
Nunan (U.S. Patent No. 4,726,046 A), hereinafter Nunan, teaches an electron ray pencil beam-based magnetic adjustment electron ray treatment apparatus comprising: an electron ray output unit configured to generate, accelerate, and output an electron ray; and a magnetic field generator configured to generate a magnetic field for refracting the electron ray.
Bischoff et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,816,999 A), hereinafter Bischoff, teaches a catheter unit of which one side is connected to an electron ray output unit and which receives the electron ray output from the electron ray output unit and allows the electron ray to pass through a hollow tunnel of a catheter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights