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 § 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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 (US 20230031538 A1).
With regards to claim 1, D1 discloses a radiotherapy apparatus and method comprising:
a stationary support structure fixed to a support surface external to the radiation therapy system (Fig. 3) [0028-0030];
a rotatable gantry 116 with a treatment-delivering radiation source 106 and at least one X-ray imager mounted thereon [0031], wherein the treatment-delivering radiation source directs a treatment beam through a treatment isocenter of the radiation therapy system [0032] and wherein the rotatable gantry is rotatably coupled to the support structure (Fig. 3) [0032] and is configured to rotate about a bore of the radiation therapy system [0032]; and
a couch-positioning system 120 for rotating a couch about a center of rotation, wherein the couch-positioning system is rotatably coupled to the support surface and the center of rotation is vertically aligned with the treatment isocenter (Fig. 3; Abstract) [0028].
With regards to claim 3, D1 discloses wherein an axis of rotation of the rotatable gantry is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the bore [0032].
With regards to claim 4, D1 discloses wherein the bore comprises an open bore [0032] (Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 15, D1 discloses wherein the couch positioning system comprises a turntable that is coupled to the couch and rotates about the center of rotation (Abstract; Fig. 3) [0028].
With regards to claim 16, D1 discloses wherein the center of rotation is vertically aligned with a longitudinal axis of the bore (Abstract) [0032, 0040].
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 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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 2 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 (US 20210031055 A1).
With regards to claims 2, 17, and 19, D1 discloses the invention according to claim 1, but does not teach the claimed X-ray source/imager. However, D2 teaches the claimed configuration [0066] (Fig. 9). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed configuration as taught by D2 in order to provide volumetric image guidance and patient positioning verification prior to or during treatment, improving treatment accuracy.
With regards to claim 18, the combination of D1 and D2 does not explicitly teach a second additional imager as claimed. However, those skilled in the art recognize that such a modification would have been known. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of D1 and D2, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and provide the benefit of faster image acquisition times.
With regards to claim 20, although not specifically taught, those skilled in the art recognize kV sources are generally used for imaging due to the low penetration. Therefore, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of D1 and D2 with the claimed source in view of the recited benefit.
Claims 5-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D3 (US 20220305292 A1).
With regards to claims 5 and 6, D1 does not teach the claimed conical truss. However, D3 teaches an RT system comprising a gantry defining a tapered bore [0092] (Fig. 1C), wherein the centerline of the tapered bore is coaxial with the rotational axis of the gantry since the imaging and treatment components are arranged symmetrically about the central longitudinal axis of the bore such that the centerline is congruent with an axis of rotation. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed configuration as taught by D3 to provide improved accommodation of imaging and treatment hardware while maintaining access to the treatment region.
With regards to claim 7, D3 does not specify the material as claimed. Nevertheless, sheet metal bore walls were generally known. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D3 with the claimed configuration to provide a lightweight, low attenuating material to provide a protective housing for the internal components.
With regards to claim 8, D3 teaches wherein the conical truss forms a funnel-shaped cavity between the bore and the rotatable couch (Fig. 1C).
With regards to claim 9, D3 teaches wherein the treatment isocenter 150 is disposed within the funnel-shaped cavity [0093] (Fig. 1C).
With regards to claim 10, D3 teaches wherein the funnel-shaped cavity is defined at least in part by a cone angle of the conical truss [0092-0093] (Fig. 1C).
With regards to claim 11, D1 does not teach the claimed configuration. However, such a modification would have been known. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to position the imaging detector on the gantry outside the funnel shaped treatment cavity to preserve treatment space within the cavity while maintaining imaging functionality.
With regards to claim 12, D1 teaches an imaging detector [0031]. Although not explicitly taught, flat panel detectors are conventionally oriented perpendicular to the incoming beam to maximize detector efficiency. As such, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D1 with the claimed configuration in view of the recited benefit.
With regards to claim 13, D3 teaches wherein the couch positioning system is configured to rotate the couch about the center of rotation to a maximum rotated position of the couch that is within a funnel-shaped cavity of the radiation therapy system [0010] (Fig. 1C).
With regards to claim 14, D3 teaches a patient platform having multiple degrees of freedom and rotational adjustment capability [0094]. Although D3 does not teach the claimed configuration, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify D3 with the claimed configuration such that the maximum rotational travel of a lterally displaced couch would be determined by the available clearance between the couch and surrounding treatment structure in order to avoid collision between the patient support and the treatment apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm 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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 571-272-3995. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights