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.
Claims 94-101 and 109-113 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 94 recites the limitation "the detector" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection may be overcome by inserting --, wherein the phantom comprises a detector-- after “the patient rotation system” as recited in line 5. Claims 95-101 are also rejected for the above reason by virtue of their claim dependency.
Claim 109 recites the limitation "the detector" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection may be overcome by inserting --, wherein the phantom comprises a detector-- after “patient rotation system” as recited in line 6. Claims 110-113 are also rejected for the above reason by virtue of their claim dependency.
Claims 94-101 and 109-113 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: wherein the phantom comprises a detector.
Claims 94 and 109 recite “the detector”. However, “the detector” is not in any structural cooperative relationship with the other elements of the claim. A structural relationship is needed in order to allow the detector to detect the radiation beam. Without the relationship, it is unclear how any random detector that can be at another location, like 100 miles away, would be able to detect the radiation beam. Therefore, the claims are incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of the elements. This rejection may be overcome by inserting --, wherein the phantom comprises a detector-- after “the patient rotation system” as recited in line 5 of claim 94 and by inserting --, wherein the phantom comprises a detector-- after “patient rotation system” as recited in line 6 of claim 109. Claims 95-101 and 110-113 are also rejected for the above reason by virtue of their claim dependency.
Claims 109-113 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the electrometer in communication with the detector.
Claim 109 recites “producing, by an electrometer, an electrical signal”. However, the electrometer needs an input in order to produce an electrical signal. Due to the lack of input from the detector, the claim omits structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. Therefore, the claims are incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of the elements. This rejection may be overcome by inserting -- in communication with the detector-- after “an electrometer” as recited in line 9 of claim 109. Claims 110-113 are also rejected for the above reason by virtue of their claim dependency.
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) 94-99 and 101 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feain et al. (US 2020/0268327; hereinafter Feain) in view of Engler et al. (US 2005/0077459; hereinafter Engler).
Regarding claim 94, Feain discloses a method comprising: locating an object on a patient support assembly of the patient rotation system (with 6); moving the object (figs. 2-6) relative to a radiation beam generated by the radiation source (11); and detecting, using the detector (12), the radiation beam (from 11).
However, Feain fails to disclose a phantom.
Engler teaches a phantom (title).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Feain with the teaching of Engler, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for assuring quality (Engler: par. 7).
Also note that the preamble recitations have not been given patentable weight because a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the method not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause.
Regarding claim 95, Feain discloses wherein the object is located on the patient support assembly such that the rotation axis passes through the object (figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 96, Feain discloses wherein the object is located on the patient support assembly such that a sidewall or external surface of the object faces the radiation source and the radiation beam passes through the sidewall or external surface (figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 97, Feain discloses wherein the detector is moveable within the phantom (par. 13).
Regarding claim 98, Feain discloses wherein detecting the radiation beam comprises detecting (with 12) the radiation beam at a plurality of locations within the object (9).
Regarding claim 99, Feain discloses wherein the radiation source is one of an imaging radiation source or a therapeutical radiation source (11).
Regarding claim 101, Feain discloses wherein moving the object comprises rotating the object by rotating the patient rotation system about the rotation axis (figs. 3-4).
Claim(s) 100 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feain and Engler as applied to claim 94 above, and further in view of Meir et al. (US 2016/0129283; hereinafter Meir).
Feain as modified above suggests claim 94.
However, Feain fails to disclose wherein the phantom is securely attached to the patient support assembly.
Meir teaches wherein the phantom is securely attached to the patient support assembly (par. 68). It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to further modify the prior art with the teaching of Meir, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for allowing adjustments and repositioning (Meir: par. 68).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 102-108 are allowed. Claims 109-113 would be allowable if rewritten or amended, as proposed above, to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 102, Engler discloses a phantom system comprising: a phantom comprising a detector (par. 13).
However, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a phantom system for measuring a radiation dose, said system including: an electrometer in electronic or electric communication with the detector through a cable and in electronic or electric communication with the microprocessor through the slip ring, in combination with all of the other limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 109, the above prior art discloses a similar method.
However, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest a method of measuring a radiation dose provided by a medical radiation system comprising a patient rotation system and a radiation source, the patient rotation system being adapted to rotate about a rotation axis, the method including: producing, by an electrometer in communication with the detector, an electrical signal characterizing the radiation beam; and communicating the electrical signal from the electrometer through a slip ring to a microprocessor, in combination with all of the other limitations in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights