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 .
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 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.
In addressing the rejection ground, each claim may not have been separately discussed to the extent the claimed features are the same as or similar to the previously-discussed features; the previous discussion is construed to apply for the other claims in the same or similar way.
In the office action, “/” should be read as and/or as generally understood. For example, “A/B” means A and B, or A or B.
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.
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the third linear accelerator" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-10 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6,844,689) in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0312753).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses a multifrequency linear accelerator system [e.g. fig. 2], comprising: an electromagnetic ‘EM’ source [e.g. 111] configured to supply EM power for a linear accelerator; a first linear accelerator [e.g. 124a] operable [interpreted as operated] at a first frequency; a second linear accelerator [e.g. 124b] operable [interpreted as operated] at a second frequency different to the first frequency [see at least Col. 2, lines 35-49]; a first circulator; wherein the first linear accelerator is disposed to received EM power supplied from the EM source at the first frequency via the first circulator, and the second linear accelerator is disposed to receive EM power supplied by the EM source at the second frequency via the first circulator. Brown discloses a 4-pot circulator [e.g. 122] or a network of circulators [see at least claim 13]. Brown does not explicitly disclose a series connected circulators including a first circulator and a second circulator. However, Wang discloses to utilize a plurality of 3-port circulators in series to replace a 4-port circulator [see at least para. 0065]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Brown in accordance with the teaching of Wang regarding a 4-port circulator in order to provide a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the combination discussed above discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the EM source is configured to transmit EM power at the first frequency and EM power at the second frequency as separate EM pulses [see at least Col. 2, lines 50-64].
Regarding claim 4, the combination discussed above discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first circulator is a three-port circulator [see at least para. 0065 Wang].
Regarding claim 5, the combination discussed above discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the second circulator is a three-port circulator [see at least para. 0065 Wang].
Regarding claim 8, the combination discussed above discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first linear accelerator and second linear accelerator are arranged to generate orthogonal particle beams [see at least para. 0078 Wang].
Regarding claim 9, the combination discussed above discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a third linear accelerator operable at a third frequency different to both the first and second frequencies, and wherein the third linear accelerator is arranged to receive EM power supplied from the EM source at the third frequency via the first circulator, the second circulator, and a third circulator [see at least Col. 2, lines 50-64, claim 13 Brown and para. 0065 Wang].
Regarding claim 10, the combination discussed above discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the third circulator is a three-port circulator.
Regarding claim 14 (as best understood), the combination discussed above discloses the system of claim 1, except wherein the third linear accelerator is arranged to generate a particle beam orthogonal to a plane in which the first and second linear accelerator generate particle beams. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would consider it as a straightforward way to implement a 3D scanning. For example, see paras. 0072, 0096 of US 2016/0114192 by Lachaine et al. and para. 0078 Wang.
Regarding claim 15, the combination discussed above discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a load arranged to receive, via each of the circulators in the system, EM power rejected from all of the linear accelerators [each circulator has a load port].
Regarding claim 16, the combination discussed above discloses an X-ray imaging apparatus comprising the multifrequency linear accelerator system of claim 1 [see at least background of the invention of Brown, para. 0068 of Wang].
Regarding claim 17, the combination discussed above discloses a radiotherapy apparatus comprising the multifrequency linear accelerator system of claim 1 [see at least background of the invention of Brown; paras. 0006-0007 of Wang].
Claims 6-7 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6,844,689) in view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0312753) and Shinton et al. (GB 2597783).
Regarding claim 6, the combination discussed above discloses the system of claim 1, except further comprising a filter between the first circulator and first linear accelerator configured to transmit EM power at the first frequency and reflect EM power at the second frequency. However, it’s well-known to utilize a filter before an input of a linear accelerator to obtain the desirable RF frequencies. For example, page 7 of GB 2597783 by Shinton discloses to utilize a filter [e.g. 403] before an input of a linear accelerator [e.g. linac] to obtain the desirable RF frequencies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Brown and Wang in accordance with the teaching of Shinton regarding a linac (linear accelerator) in order to provide the desirable RF frequencies [page 7].
Regarding claim 7, the combination discussed above discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a filter between the second circulator and the second linear accelerator configured to transmit EM power at the second frequency.
Regarding claim 11, the combination discussed above discloses the system of claim 9, except further comprising a filter between the third circulator and the third linear accelerator configured to transmit EM power at the third frequency. However, it’s well-known to utilize a filter before an input of a linear accelerator to obtain the desirable RF frequencies. For example, page 7 of GB 2597783 by Shinton discloses to utilize a filter [e.g. 403] before an input of a linear accelerator [e.g. linac] to obtain the desirable RF frequencies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Brown and Wang in accordance with the teaching of Shinton regarding a linac (linear accelerator) in order to provide the desirable RF frequencies [page 7].
Regarding claim 12, the combination discussed above discloses the system of claim 11, further comprising a filter between the second circulator and the second linear accelerator configured to transmit EM power at the second frequency, wherein the filter between the second circulator and the second linear accelerator is further configured to reflect EM power at the third frequency.
Regarding claim 13, the combination discussed above discloses the system of claim 11, further comprising a filter between the first circulator and first linear accelerator configured to transmit EM power at the first frequency and reflect EM power at the second frequency, wherein the filter between the first circulator and first linear accelerator is further configured to reflect EM power at the third frequency.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7207. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Flexible 8:00-16:30.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at 571-270-7101. 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.
/PATRICK C CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842