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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) 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), 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) 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) 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. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claims 1 and 11
Claims 1 and 11 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “stationary support structure” uses the generic placeholder “structure” 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. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to a drive stand (Applicant’s specification, ¶ 40) and equivalents thereof. Regarding the interpretations of claims using generic placeholders, see MPEP § 2181(I)(A).
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “couch-positioning system” uses the generic placeholder “system” 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. Accordingly, this limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as corresponding to a turntable that is coupled to the couch and rotates about the center of rotation (Applicant’s claim 14 as originally filed) and equivalents thereof.
Claims 2 and 17
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, each claim recites “congruent” in “a center line that is congruent with an axis of rotation”. However, the ordinary meaning of “congruent” is matching in size and shape. While Applicant is free to be his own lexicographer, terms used contrary to their ordinary meaning must be clearly redefined in the written description. See MPEP § 2173.05(a)(III). No such clear redefinition exists in the written description. In view of Applicant’s disclosure, Examiner has considered --coincident-- to be intended.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102–103) 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.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3 and 16-18
Claims 1-3 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer (US 2016/0303400 A1) in view of Bouchet (US 2016/0067525 A1) and Jensen (US 2019/0099623 A1).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Maurer discloses a radiation therapy system 200 comprising: a rotatable gantry 204 with a treatment-delivering radiation source (108, 210) and at least one X-ray imager 112 mounted thereon, wherein the treatment-delivering radiation source (108, 210) directs a treatment beam 203 through a treatment isocenter 216 of the radiation therapy system 200 and wherein the rotatable gantry 204 is rotatably coupled to a conical structure 202 and is configured to rotate about a bore 218 of the radiation therapy system 200, with the conical structure 202 for supporting the treatment-delivering radiation source (108, 210) and the at least one X-ray imager 112 (¶¶ 46-65; Figs. 1-2D; ¶ 60: “the gantry frame 202 is configured and dimensioned such that a conical tapering 221 is provided at one or both ends of the central bore 218”).
While Maurer discloses some elements may be truss-type structures (¶ 58), and while trusses were generally well-known, Maurer does not expressly disclose the conical structure is a conical truss. Bouchet discloses a radiation therapy system wherein a radiation source (particle accelerator) is supported by a truss (¶ 76).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have further modified the invention of Maurer, in view of the teachings of Bouchet, so that the conical structure is a conical truss.
One would have been motivated to do so to reduce weight as compared to using a solid structure.
Maurer modified does not expressly disclose a stationary support structure, which is a drive stand, the stationary support structure is fixed to a support surface external to the radiation therapy system, such that the rotatable gantry is further rotatably coupled to the support surface.
Jensen discloses a stationary support structure 210, which is a drive stand, the stationary support structure 210 is fixed to a support surface 202 (floor) that is external to a radiation therapy system 110, such that a rotatable gantry 220 is rotatably coupled to the support surface 202 (¶ 20; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have further modified the invention of Maurer, in view of the teachings of Jensen, to include a stationary support structure, which is a drive stand, the stationary support structure is fixed to a support surface external to the radiation therapy system, such that the rotatable gantry is further rotatably coupled to the support surface.
One would have been motivated to do so to provide more stability as compared to not having the radiation therapy fixed to the floor.
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Maurer modified teaches the radiation therapy system of claim 1, wherein the conical truss has a center line that is congruent with an axis of rotation of the rotatable gantry (Maurer, ¶¶ 46-65; Figs. 1-2D).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Maurer modified teaches the radiation therapy system of claim 1, wherein the conical truss comprises a truncated sheet metal (steel) cone (Bouchet, ¶ 76).
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, Maurer modified teaches a stationary support structure and a rotatable gantry for a radiation therapy system, the rotatable gantry configured to rotate about a bore of the radiation therapy system, the rotatable gantry comprising:
a treatment-delivering radiation source that is coupled to the rotatable gantry and directs a treatment beam through a treatment isocenter of the radiation therapy system;
at least one X-ray imager that is coupled to the rotatable gantry; and
a conical truss for supporting the treatment-delivering radiation source and the at least one
X-ray imager (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Maurer modified further teaches a rotatable coupling that couples the rotatable gantry to the stationary support structure of the radiation therapy system (Bouchet, ¶ 31, needed to use the drive stand identified in the rejection of claim 1 above);
the at least one X-ray imager has an X-ray receiving surface that is oriented at a non-orthogonal angle to X-rays received by the at least one X-ray imager (Maurer, ¶¶ 46-65, Fig. 1).
Claims 17-18
Regarding claims 17-18, see the rejections of claims 2-3 above, respectively, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 11 and 14-15
Claims 11 and 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer in view of Bouchet and Jensen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carol (US 5,037,374 A).
Claims 11 and 14
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Maurer modified teaches the radiation therapy system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a couch-positioning system that rotates a couch of the radiation therapy system about a center of rotation, wherein the couch positioning system comprises a turntable that is coupled to the couch and rotates about the center of rotation.
Carol discloses a couch-positioning system that rotates a couch 303 of a radiation therapy system about a center of rotation 307, wherein the couch positioning system comprises a turntable 302 that is coupled to the couch 303 and rotates about the center of rotation 307 (col. 1, ll. 1-12, col. 5, ll. 10-55; Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have further modified the invention of Maurer, in view of the teachings of Carol, to include a couch-positioning system that rotates a couch of the radiation therapy system about a center of rotation, wherein the couch positioning system comprises a turntable that is coupled to the couch and rotates about the center of rotation.
One would have been motivated to do so to provide convenient positioning of the patient.
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, Maurer modified teaches the radiation therapy system of claim 11, wherein the center of rotation is vertically aligned with a longitudinal axis of the bore (Jensen, col. 5, ll. 10-55; Figs. 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10, 12-13, and 19-20
Claims 4-10, 12-13, and 19-20 are 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 if terminal disclaimers are filed and accepted for the patents identified above in the double patenting rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 4, 12, and 19
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 19, with reference to representative claim 4, the cited prior art does not expressly disclose or suggest the claimed invention, particularly wherein the conical truss forms a funnel-shaped cavity between the bore and a rotatable couch of the radiation therapy system, in combination with the other elements of the claim.
The cited prior art discloses some elements of the claim. The cited prior art teaches claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
While various means for radiation therapy were generally known in the art, the cited prior art does not expressly disclose or suggest Applicant’s particularly claimed configuration. Accordingly, claims 4, 12, and 19 would be allowable.
Claims 5-10, 13, and 20
Regarding claims 5-10, 13, and 20, the claims would be allowable due to their dependence.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klimenko (US 2013/0317343 A1) discloses a radiation therapy system (¶ 2) and a patient couch supported by a turntable (¶ 41).
Gaderlund (US 2021/0196985 A1) discloses a radiation therapy system 100 comprising a drive stand 210, a gantry bearing 220, wherein the gantry bearing 220 is disposed on a surface 201 of the drive stand 210, and the drive stand 210 is fixed to a support surface 202 that is external to the radiation therapy system 100 (¶ 27; Figs. 2A-B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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 at 571-272-2995. 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.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights