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 .
Priority
Applicant is required to certify that the international application was not withdrawn or considered to be withdrawn, either generally or as to the United States, prior to the filing date of the national application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 365(c) to such international application (MPEP § 1895.01).
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it (e.g., paragraphs 27, 31, and 33) contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
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 Objections
Claim(s) 8, 12, 16, 17, and 23 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) in claim 8, “which has” on line 1 should probably be --wherein said sensor is--;
(b) in claim 12, “an at least one sensor” on line 4 should probably be --at least one additional sensor-- (to avoid antecedent basis confusion with “at least one sensor” recited in claim 1);
(c) in claim 16, “each of which” on line 3 should probably be --each of said calorimeters--;
(d) in claim 16, “the transmission calorimeter” on lines 7-8 should probably be --each of said calorimeters--;
(e) in claim 16, “each calorimeter” on lines 11-12 should probably be --each of said calorimeters--;
(f) in claim 17, “radiation,” on line 3 should probably be --said radiation,--;
(g) in claim 17, “radiation” on line 4 should probably be --said radiation--;
(h) in claim 23, “at least one sensor” on line 13 should probably be --at least one additional sensor-- (to avoid antecedent basis confusion with “an at least one sensor” recited on line 9); and
(i) in claim 23, “a temperature change of said body and using said change” on lines 22-23 should probably be --a body temperature change of said body and using said body temperature change-- (to avoid antecedent basis confusion with “a temperature change of the core” recited on line 21).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… p is the density of the material … µ is the mass attenuation coefficient, and I is a measurement of the intensity of the radiation. Equating the intensity loss for two different media, this can be rearranged as shown in equation 4:
∂
x
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
=
μ
w
a
t
e
r
μ
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
ρ
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
ρ
w
a
t
e
r
∂
x
w
a
t
e
r
(4) …” in paragraphs 28 and 32) serves as a glossary for the claim term “less than or equal to the energy that would be absorbed by transmitting said radiation through 2 mm of water”.
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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 11, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourgade et al. (US 4,765,749) in view of Hubbell et al. (Tables of x-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energyabsorption coefficients 1 keV to 20 meV for elements Z = 1 to 92 and 48 additional substances of dosimetric interest, NISTIR 5632 (May 1995), 120 pages).
In regard to claims 1-7, Bourgade et al. disclose a transmission calorimeter (e.g., see “… calorimeter 20 …” in Fig. 2 and the first column 4 paragraph) for measuring a dose of a beam of radiation comprising a core (e.g., see “… second coatings … 6 of absorbing element 2 are circular and have a thickness close to 0.5 mm and a diameter of approximately 30 mm … second coating 6 is an aluminium pellet … In the case of measuring energy transported by particle flux or X radiation, the first glass coating 4 can be eliminated … only coating 6 is left and serves both as an absorbent and as a heat equalizer …” in Fig. 2, the last complete column 4 paragraph, and the third column 5 paragraph) for receiving and transmitting (e.g., see “… lead screen 34 serving to stop parasitic radiation when measuring the energy transported or transmitted by X radiation …” in Fig. 1 and the last column 3 paragraph) said radiation along a radiation path which passes through said core and at least one sensor for measuring a temperature change of the core (e.g., see “… thermopile 10 has a measuring face 11 in contact with the inner face 9 of the second coating 6 … having 132 thermocouples …” in Fig. 2 and the first two column 6 paragraphs), wherein the core is formed from aluminum (e.g., “… second coating 6 is an aluminium pellet …” in the last complete column 4 paragraph), wherein the core has a thickness in the direction of the radiation path of 1 mm or less (e.g., “… second coatings … 6 of absorbing element 2 are circular and have a thickness close to 0.5 mm and a diameter of approximately 30 mm …” in the last complete column 4 paragraph), wherein the core has a thickness in the direction of the radiation path of 0.75 mm or less (e.g., “… second coatings … 6 of absorbing element 2 are circular and have a thickness close to 0.5 mm and a diameter of approximately 30 mm …” in the last complete column 4 paragraph), wherein the core is formed from aluminum with a thickness in the direction of the radiation path of 0.94 mm or less (e.g., “… second coatings … 6 of absorbing element 2 are circular and have a thickness close to 0.5 mm and a diameter of approximately 30 mm … second coating 6 is an aluminium pellet …” in the last complete column 4 paragraph), wherein the core has a diameter in a plane perpendicular to the radiation path of 5 mm or greater (e.g., “… second coatings … 6 of absorbing element 2 are circular and have a thickness close to 0.5 mm and a diameter of approximately 30 mm … second coating 6 is an aluminium pellet …” in the last complete column 4 paragraph), wherein the sensor is a thermistor (e.g., “… 132 thermocouples …” in the second column 6 paragraph), wherein the energy of said radiation absorbed by the transmission calorimeter is less than or equal to the energy that would be absorbed by transmitting said radiation through a thickness of water (e.g., “… calorimeter for measuring the energy transmitted by radiation comprising in known manner an absorbing element able to absorb said radiation …” in the last column 1 paragraph). The calorimeter of Bourgade et al. lacks comparing energy deposition in “aluminium” with water such as is (aluminum μ/ρ)*(0.5 mm thick aluminum) ≤ (water μ/ρ)*(2 mm thick water). However, energy deposition calculations using mass attenuation coefficients are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… values of µ/ρ and µe/ρ given in Hubbell (1982) which have been widely used as reference data in radiation shielding and dosimetry computations … ALUMINUM Z = 13 ENERGY (MeV) μ/ρ (cm2/g) … 2.00000E+01 2.168E-02 … WATER, LIQUID ENERGY (MeV) μ/ρ (cm2/g) … 2.00000E+01 1.813E-02 …” on pp. 1, 26, and 110 of Hubbell et al.). It should be noted that (aluminum μ/ρ)*(0.50 mm thick aluminum) = (0.02168 cm2/g)*(0.05 cm) = 0.001084 cm3/g, (water μ/ρ)*(2 mm thick water) = (0.01813 cm2/g)*(0.2 cm) = 0.003626 cm3/g, and 0.001084 cm3/g < 0.003626 cm3/g. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to covert the energy deposition in the “0.5 mm” thick “aluminium” coating 6 of Bourgade et al. into water equivalent units when it is desirable to compare to measurements.
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 1, Bourgade et al. also disclose (fifth column 2 paragraph) “… at least one thermopile having a measuring face in contact with the inner face of the absorbing element …”. In this case, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05) since the claimed four sensors lie inside the “at least one thermopile” range disclosed by the cited prior art.
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 1, Bourgade et al. also disclose that the core is substantially circular (e.g., “… second coatings … 6 of absorbing element 2 are circular …” in the last complete column 4 paragraph).
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 1, Bourgade et al. also disclose a housing, wherein the core is contained in the housing (e.g., see “… case 50 … second coatings … 6 of absorbing element 2 are circular and have a thickness close to 0.5 mm and a diameter of approximately 30 mm … second coating 6 is an aluminium pellet …” in Fig. 1, the last column 3 paragraph, and the last complete column 4 paragraph) and wherein the housing is substantially transparent to said radiation along said radiation path (e.g., see “… lead screen 34 serving to stop parasitic radiation when measuring the energy transported or transmitted by X radiation …” in Fig. 1 and the last column 3 paragraph). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a “lead screen 34” is not needed if “case 50” is not transparent to said radiation along said radiation path.
In regard to claim 21, Bourgade et al. disclose a method of measuring a dose of a beam of radiation, comprising the steps of:
(a) providing radiation (e.g., “… In the case of measuring energy transported by particle flux or X radiation, the first glass coating 4 can be eliminated … only coating 6 is left and serves both as an absorbent and as a heat equalizer …” in the third column 5 paragraph);
(b) directing the radiation at a transmission calorimeter (e.g., “… In the case of measuring energy transported by particle flux or X radiation, the first glass coating 4 can be eliminated … only coating 6 is left and serves both as an absorbent and as a heat equalizer …” in the third column 5 paragraph), wherein the transmission calorimeter comprises a core for receiving and transmitting said radiation (e.g., see “… second coatings … 6 of absorbing element 2 are circular and have a thickness close to 0.5 mm and a diameter of approximately 30 mm … second coating 6 is an aluminium pellet … In the case of measuring energy transported by particle flux or X radiation, the first glass coating 4 can be eliminated … only coating 6 is left and serves both as an absorbent and as a heat equalizer …” in Fig. 2, the last complete column 4 paragraph, and the third column 5 paragraph) and at least one sensor for measuring a temperature change of the core (e.g., see “… thermopile 10 has a measuring face 11 in contact with the inner face 9 of the second coating 6 … having 132 thermocouples …” in Fig. 2 and the first two column 6 paragraphs), wherein the energy of said radiation absorbed by the transmission calorimeter is less than or equal to the energy that would be absorbed by transmitting said radiation through a thickness of water (e.g., “… calorimeter for measuring the energy transmitted by radiation comprising in known manner an absorbing element able to absorb said radiation …” in the last column 1 paragraph), wherein the radiation passes through and exits the core of said transmission calorimeter (e.g., see “… lead screen 34 serving to stop parasitic radiation when measuring the energy transported or transmitted by X radiation …” in Fig. 1 and the last column 3 paragraph) and causes the temperature of the core to change (e.g., “… In the case of measuring energy transported by particle flux or X radiation, the first glass coating 4 can be eliminated … only coating 6 is left and serves both as an absorbent and as a heat equalizer …” in the third column 5 paragraph); and
(c) measuring said temperature change and using said change to calculate said dose of the radiation (e.g., “… calorimeter according to the invention equipped with a thermopile, a sensitivity of approximately 10 millivolts/Joule was obtained, whereas in the case of calorimeters only equipped with a thermocouple, the sensitivity was only roughly 5 microvolts/Joule …” in the third column 6 paragraph).
The method of Bourgade et al. lacks comparing energy deposition in “aluminium” with water such as is (aluminum μ/ρ)*(0.5 mm thick aluminum) ≤ (water μ/ρ)*(2 mm thick water). However, energy deposition calculations using mass attenuation coefficients are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… values of µ/ρ and µe/ρ given in Hubbell (1982) which have been widely used as reference data in radiation shielding and dosimetry computations … ALUMINUM Z = 13 ENERGY (MeV) μ/ρ (cm2/g) … 2.00000E+01 2.168E-02 … WATER, LIQUID ENERGY (MeV) μ/ρ (cm2/g) … 2.00000E+01 1.813E-02 …” on pp. 1, 26, and 110 of Hubbell et al.). It should be noted that (aluminum μ/ρ)*(0.50 mm thick aluminum) = (0.02168 cm2/g)*(0.05 cm) = 0.001084 cm3/g, (water μ/ρ)*(2 mm thick water) = (0.01813 cm2/g)*(0.2 cm) = 0.003626 cm3/g, and 0.001084 cm3/g < 0.003626 cm3/g. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to covert the energy deposition in the “0.5 mm” thick “aluminium” coating 6 of Bourgade et al. into water equivalent units when it is desirable to compare to measurements.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourgade et al. in view of Hubbell et al. as applied to claim(s) 8 above, and further in view of Seuntjens et al. (US 2015/0108356).
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 8, while Bourgade et al. also disclose (fifth column 6 paragraph) that “… it is possible to place several thermopiles 10 on the inner face 9 of absorbing element 2, the thermopiles being regularly distributed and covering at the most 20% of the surface of face 9 …”, the calorimeter of Bourgade et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… regularly distributed …” such as distributed at equal angles about the center of the core. However, “… regularly distributed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… it would be beneficial to provide clinical medical physicists with an alternative approach to ionization chambers for the calibration and quality assurance of radiation therapy equipment including standard as well as small radiation fields. It would be further beneficial for such novel clinical dosimeters to be capable of operating as self-calibrating secondary standards, which may be used routinely for measurements rather than calibration activities only … with improved response times calorimeters according to embodiments of the invention allow concurrent dose application and measurements in either continuous or pulsed approaches … Referring to FIGS. 5A through 7B, there are depicted alternative embodiments of the invention employing resistive heating elements within different portions of the GPC together with resistive sensing elements disposed upon or within the graphite core. FIG. 5A depicts a circularly symmetric GPC with resistive sensor elements deposited upon the outer surface of the graphite core …” in Fig. 5A and paragraphs 9, 59, 101, and 102 of Seuntjens et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional sensor distribution (e.g., comprising details such as “circularly symmetric” “resistive sensor elements deposited upon the outer surface of the graphite core”, in order to achieve “concurrent dose application and measurements”) for the unspecified sensor distribution of Bourgade et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional sensor distribution (e.g., comprising details such as the sensors are distributed at equal angles about the center of the core) as the unspecified sensor distribution of Bourgade et al.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourgade et al. in view of Hubbell et al. as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Pickrell et al. (The development of a virtual heat bath for calorimeters, LA-UR-98-3202 (July1998) doi.org/10.2172/335194, 12 pages).
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 1, while Bourgade et al. also disclose (last complete column 8 paragraph) that “… voltage supplied by the calorimeter can be displaced from zero, even in the absence of incident radiation, so that a means must be provided for correcting said displacement …”, the calorimeter of Bourgade et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… correcting …” such as compensate for ambient temperature changes with at least one temperature sensor measuring a body not located on or in the radiation path and thermally insulated from the core. However, “… correcting …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… All existing calorimeter systems for sensitive nuclear assay employ a heat bath surrounding the sample chamber. The purpose of the heat bath is to maintain a constant temperature so that a fixed temperature difference is maintained across the thermal resistance of the calorimeter. Present calorimeter systems all employ an active, feedback-controlled system to maintain a fixed temperature. An alternative would be to allow the heat-bath temperature to change, to measure it, and to compensate the assay for this change. Two significant observations make this approach possible: 1) the effect on the measurement of a temperature change in the heat bath is differential in form and 2) temperature measurement systems are very accurate when measuring differences in temperature (either in time or between two locations) …” in the abstract of Pickrell et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional correcting (e.g., comprising details such as “allow the heat-bath temperature to change, to measure it, and to compensate the assay for this change”, in order to achieve a “calorimeter”) for the unspecified correcting of Bourgade et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional correcting (e.g., comprising details such as a body which is not located on or in said radiation path and which is thermally insulated from the core; and an at least one sensor for measuring a temperature change of the body, wherein in use said temperature change of said body caused by ambient temperature changes is measured and the result is used to compensate for changes in ambient temperature) as the unspecified correcting of Bourgade et al.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourgade et al. in view of Hubbell et al. and Pickrell et al. as applied to claim(s) 12 above, and further in view of Seuntjens et al. (US 2015/0108356).
In regard to claims 13-15 which are dependent on claim 12, the calorimeter of Bourgade et al. lacks that the body has the same surface area as the core, the body is configured in the form of a torus, said torus being positioned around said core, and wherein the body is formed of the same material as the core. However, Seuntjens et al. teach (paragraphs 66, 67, and 72) “… Design Optimization: … heat simulations were conducted to determine the number and shape of the nested graphite components, namely core, jackets, and shields, to minimize the heat transfer experienced in the core … it would be evident to one skilled in the art that other design constraints may be applied according to the target GPC requirements …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the same core material (and same core surface area) as a torus body around the core of Bourgade et al., in order to achieve desired design constraints.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (A depth dose calorimeter for high intensity, low voltage flash X-ray machines, The Review Of Scientific Instruments Vol. 43, no 8 (August 1972), pp. 1094-1096) in view of Hubbell et al. (Tables of x-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energyabsorption coefficients 1 keV to 20 meV for elements Z = 1 to 92 and 48 additional substances of dosimetric interest, NISTIR 5632 (May 1995), 120 pages).
In regard to claim 16, Wood discloses an apparatus for measuring the intensity of radiation as a function of depth comprising a plurality of transmission calorimeters, each of which includes a core for receiving and transmitting said radiation along a radiation path which passes through said core and at least one sensor for measuring a temperature change of the core (e.g., “… active foils monitored with 25 μ iron-constantan thermocouples …” in the third paragraph on pg. 1095), wherein the energy of said radiation absorbed by the transmission calorimeter is less than or equal to the energy that would be absorbed by transmitting said radiation through a thickness of water (e.g., “… energy deposition in tantalum …” in the first paragraph on pg. 1095), wherein said plurality of transmission calorimeters (e.g., “Foil No.” “7 100” and “9 150” in Table I) are arranged in series along said radiation path and including a material (e.g., “Foil No.” “8b 380” “t (μ)” in Table I with “… b Unmonitored foils …”) between each calorimeter, and wherein the material has an absorption effect on the radiation (e.g., “… energy deposition in tantalum …” in the first paragraph on pg. 1095). The apparatus of Wood lacks comparing the “… energy deposition in tantalum …” with energy deposition in water such as is (tantalum μ/ρ)*(100 um thick tantalum) ≤ (water μ/ρ)*(2 mm thick water). However, energy deposition calculations using mass attenuation coefficients are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… values of µ/ρ and µe/ρ given in Hubbell (1982) which have been widely used as reference data in radiation shielding and dosimetry computations … TANTALUM Z = 73 ENERGY (MeV) μ/ρ (cm2/g) … 2.00000E+01 5.852E-02 … WATER, LIQUID ENERGY (MeV) μ/ρ (cm2/g) … 2.00000E+01 1.813E-02 …” on pp. 1, 66, and 110 of Hubbell et al.). It should be noted that (tantalum μ/ρ)*(100 μm thick tantalum) = (0.05852 cm2/g)*(0.01 cm) = 0.0005852 cm3/g, (water μ/ρ)*(2 mm thick water) = (0.01813 cm2/g)*(0.2 cm) = 0.003626 cm3/g, and 0.0005852 cm3/g < 0.003626 cm3/g. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to covert the “… energy deposition in tantalum …” of Wood (such as “100” μm thick tantalum foil No. 7) into water equivalent units when it is desirable to compare to water measurements.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McIntyre (US 3,852,610) in view of Seuntjens et al. (US 2015/0108356) and Hubbell et al. (Tables of x-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energyabsorption coefficients 1 keV to 20 meV for elements Z = 1 to 92 and 48 additional substances of dosimetric interest, NISTIR 5632 (May 1995), 120 pages).
In regard to claims 17-20, McIntyre discloses an apparatus for treating a patient with radiation comprising:
(a) an inlet for receiving radiation, an outlet for dispensing radiation, a radiation path from the inlet to the outlet, and a beam guide for guiding radiation through said apparatus from the inlet to the outlet along said radiation path (e.g., “… Modern methods of treating cancer and other related diseases demand high intensity levels of radiation for deep X-ray therapy application … Present day high energy X-ray systems generally comprise a charged particle accelerator which forms and projects a beam of charged particles onto a target for generating X-rays. The accelerated particles are focused and in some cases may be bent at 90° prior to being directed toward a target. A heavy metal primary collimator is generally located at the downstream side of the target and is used to obtain the desired X-ray beam configuration. A flattening filter and an ionization chamber are normally positioned in the X-ray beam to measure dose rate and to integrate the total dose in order to obtain uniform intensity of the beam across a plane normal to the beam path …” in the fifth, sixth, and seventh column 1 paragraphs);
(b) a detector located: (b1) between the inlet and the outlet along said radiation path; or (b2) downstream of the outlet (e.g., “… flattening filter and an ionization chamber are normally positioned in the X-ray beam to measure dose rate and to integrate the total dose in order to obtain uniform intensity of the beam across a plane normal to the beam path …” in the fifth, sixth, and seventh column 1 paragraphs or see 18 in Fig. 1);
(c) a beam bender located upstream of the outlet for bending said radiation around a corner (e.g., “… accelerated particles are focused and in some cases may be bent at 90° prior to being directed toward a target …” in the fifth, sixth, and seventh column 1 paragraphs or see 30 in Fig. 1); and
(d) a beam shaper for shaping the radiation before it is dispensed from the outlet (e.g., “… heavy metal primary collimator is generally located at the downstream side of the target and is used to obtain the desired X-ray beam configuration …” in the fifth, sixth, and seventh column 1 paragraphs or see 20 in Fig. 1),
wherein said detector is located between the beam bender and the beam shaper (e.g., “… flattening filter and an ionization chamber are normally positioned in the X-ray beam to measure dose rate and to integrate the total dose in order to obtain uniform intensity of the beam across a plane normal to the beam path …” in the fifth, sixth, and seventh column 1 paragraphs or see Fig. 1).
The apparatus of McIntyre lacks that the detector is a transmission calorimeter comprising a core for receiving and transmitting said radiation along said radiation path which passes through said core and at least one sensor for measuring a temperature change of the core, wherein the energy of said radiation absorbed by the transmission calorimeter is less than or equal to the energy that would be absorbed by transmitting said radiation through 2 mm of water. However, Seuntjens et al. teach (paragraphs 9, 59, 69, and 114) the “… it would be beneficial to provide clinical medical physicists with an alternative approach to ionization chambers for the calibration and quality assurance of radiation therapy equipment including standard as well as small radiation fields. It would be further beneficial for such novel clinical dosimeters to be capable of operating as self-calibrating secondary standards, which may be used routinely for measurements rather than calibration activities only … with improved response times calorimeters according to embodiments of the invention allow concurrent dose application and measurements in either continuous or pulsed approaches … minimum thickness of any given graphite or insulation layer was set to 0.5 mm to keep the demands of prototype fabrication and assembly at a reasonable level … multiple graphite cores may be disposed within a common jacket and shield, in this instance vertically although horizontally and/or 3D arrays may be also implemented. Each graphite core has disposed, in this instance, a resistive element upon the outer surface to provide temperature measurement (although as discussed supra other configurations may be employed together with others not presented in Figures) …”. Further, energy deposition calculations using mass attenuation coefficients are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… values of µ/ρ and µe/ρ given in Hubbell (1982) which have been widely used as reference data in radiation shielding and dosimetry computations … GRAPHITE Z = 6 ENERGY (MeV) μ/ρ (cm2/g) … 2.00000E+01 1.575E-02 … WATER, LIQUID ENERGY (MeV) μ/ρ (cm2/g) … 2.00000E+01 1.813E-02 …” on pp. 1, 20, and 110 of Hubbell et al.). It should be noted that (graphite μ/ρ)*(0.5 mm thick graphite) = (0.01575 cm2/g)*(0.05 cm) = 0.0007875 cm3/g, (water μ/ρ)*(2 mm thick water) = (0.01813 cm2/g)*(0.2 cm) = 0.003626 cm3/g, and 0.0007875 cm3/g < 0.003626 cm3/g. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a transmission calorimeter comprising a core for receiving and transmitting said radiation along said radiation path which passes through said core and at least one sensor for measuring a temperature change of the core, wherein the energy of said radiation absorbed by the transmission calorimeter is less than or equal to the energy that would be absorbed by transmitting said radiation through 2 mm of water as the detector of McIntyre, in order “to provide clinical medical physicists with an alternative approach to ionization chambers for the calibration and quality assurance of radiation therapy equipment” to achieve additional benefits.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourgade et al. in view of Hubbell et al. as applied to claim(s) 21 above, and further in view of Bourgouin et al. (Calorimeter for Real-Time Dosimetry of Pulsed Ultra-High Dose Rate Electron Beams, Frontiers in Physics Vol. 8 (October 2020), 567340, 10 pages).
In regard to claim 22 which is dependent on claim 21, the method of Bourgade et al. lacks in which the radiation is provided in the form of said beam, and wherein the diameter of the beam is less than the diameter of the core. However, Bourgouin et al. teach (pp. 5 and 8) that “… calorimeter was positioned at a distance of 0.9m from the beam exit window of the accelerator (Figure 3) … 10 × 10 cm standard clinical electron applicator from an Elekta Precise linear accelerator was used in order to generate a square radiation field … aluminum calorimeter used here can be optimized further. The current geometry is suitable for standard large fields (10 × 10 cm) but a smaller core or cylindrical, rather than plane-parallel geometry, may be better … could be used in small IMRT fields (3 × 3 cm or smaller) …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the aluminum calorimeter of Bourgade et al. for a desired beam diameter (e.g., core diameter optimize to be equal or greater than a desired beam diameter).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourgade et al. (US 4,765,749) in view of Pickrell et al. (The development of a virtual heat bath for calorimeters, LA-UR-98-3202 (July1998) doi.org/10.2172/335194, 12 pages) and Hubbell et al. (Tables of x-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energyabsorption coefficients 1 keV to 20 meV for elements Z = 1 to 92 and 48 additional substances of dosimetric interest, NISTIR 5632 (May 1995), 120 pages).
In regard to claim 23, Bourgade et al. disclose a method of measuring a dose of a beam of radiation comprising the steps of:
(a) providing radiation (e.g., “… In the case of measuring energy transported by particle flux or X radiation, the first glass coating 4 can be eliminated … only coating 6 is left and serves both as an absorbent and as a heat equalizer …” in the third column 5 paragraph);
(b) directing the radiation at a transmission calorimeter (e.g., “… In the case of measuring energy transported by particle flux or X radiation, the first glass coating 4 can be eliminated … only coating 6 is left and serves both as an absorbent and as a heat equalizer …” in the third column 5 paragraph), wherein the transmission calorimeter comprises a core for receiving and transmitting said radiation wherein the path of the radiation to and from said core defines a radiation path (e.g., see “… second coatings … 6 of absorbing element 2 are circular and have a thickness close to 0.5 mm and a diameter of approximately 30 mm … second coating 6 is an aluminium pellet … In the case of measuring energy transported by particle flux or X radiation, the first glass coating 4 can be eliminated … only coating 6 is left and serves both as an absorbent and as a heat equalizer …” in Fig. 2, the last complete column 4 paragraph, and the third column 5 paragraph) and an at least one sensor for measuring a temperature change of the core (e.g., see “… thermopile 10 has a measuring face 11 in contact with the inner face 9 of the second coating 6 … having 132 thermocouples …” in Fig. 2 and the first two column 6 paragraphs), wherein the energy of said radiation absorbed by the transmission calorimeter is less than or equal to the energy that would be absorbed by transmitting said radiation through a thickness of water (e.g., “… calorimeter for measuring the energy transmitted by radiation comprising in known manner an absorbing element able to absorb said radiation …” in the last column 1 paragraph), wherein the radiation passes through and exits the core of said transmission calorimeter (e.g., see “… lead screen 34 serving to stop parasitic radiation when measuring the energy transported or transmitted by X radiation …” in Fig. 1 and the last column 3 paragraph) and causes the temperature of the core to change (e.g., “… In the case of measuring energy transported by particle flux or X radiation, the first glass coating 4 can be eliminated … only coating 6 is left and serves both as an absorbent and as a heat equalizer …” in the third column 5 paragraph);
(c) measuring said temperature change (e.g., “… calorimeter according to the invention equipped with a thermopile, a sensitivity of approximately 10 millivolts/Joule was obtained, whereas in the case of calorimeters only equipped with a thermocouple, the sensitivity was only roughly 5 microvolts/Joule …” in the third column 6 paragraph); and
(d) calculating the dose of the radiation based on the change in temperature of the core caused by said radiation (e.g., “… calorimeter according to the invention equipped with a thermopile, a sensitivity of approximately 10 millivolts/Joule was obtained, whereas in the case of calorimeters only equipped with a thermocouple, the sensitivity was only roughly 5 microvolts/Joule …” in the third column 6 paragraph).
While Bourgade et al. also disclose (last complete column 8 paragraph) that “… voltage supplied by the calorimeter can be displaced from zero, even in the absence of incident radiation, so that a means must be provided for correcting said displacement …”, the calorimeter of Bourgade et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… correcting …” such as compensate for ambient temperature changes with at least one temperature sensor measuring a body not located on or in the radiation path and thermally insulated from the core and comparing energy deposition in “aluminium” with water such as is (aluminum μ/ρ)*(0.5 mm thick aluminum) ≤ (water μ/ρ)*(2 mm thick water). However, “… correcting …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… All existing calorimeter systems for sensitive nuclear assay employ a heat bath surrounding the sample chamber. The purpose of the heat bath is to maintain a constant temperature so that a fixed temperature difference is maintained across the thermal resistance of the calorimeter. Present calorimeter systems all employ an active, feedback-controlled system to maintain a fixed temperature. An alternative would be to allow the heat-bath temperature to change, to measure it, and to compensate the assay for this change. Two significant observations make this approach possible: 1) the effect on the measurement of a temperature change in the heat bath is differential in form and 2) temperature measurement systems are very accurate when measuring differences in temperature (either in time or between two locations) …” in the abstract of Pickrell et al.) and energy deposition calculations using mass attenuation coefficients are also known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… values of µ/ρ and µe/ρ given in Hubbell (1982) which have been widely used as reference data in radiation shielding and dosimetry computations … ALUMINUM Z = 13 ENERGY (MeV) μ/ρ (cm2/g) … 2.00000E+01 2.168E-02 … WATER, LIQUID ENERGY (MeV) μ/ρ (cm2/g) … 2.00000E+01 1.813E-02 …” on pp. 1, 26, and 110 of Hubbell et al.). It should be noted that (aluminum μ/ρ)*(0.50 mm thick aluminum) = (0.02168 cm2/g)*(0.05 cm) = 0.001084 cm3/g, (water μ/ρ)*(2 mm thick water) = (0.01813 cm2/g)*(0.2 cm) = 0.003626 cm3/g, and 0.001084 cm3/g < 0.003626 cm3/g and that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional correcting (e.g., comprising details such as “allow the heat-bath temperature to change, to measure it, and to compensate the assay for this change”, in order to achieve a “calorimeter”) for the unspecified correcting of Bourgade et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional correcting (e.g., comprising details such as a body which is not located on or in said radiation path and which is thermally insulated from the core; and an at least one sensor for measuring a temperature change of the body, wherein in use said temperature change of said body caused by ambient temperature changes is measured and the result is used to compensate for changes in ambient temperature) as the unspecified correcting of Bourgade et al. and it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to covert the energy deposition in the “0.5 mm” thick “aluminium” coating 6 of Bourgade et al. into water equivalent units when it is desirable to compare to measurements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4,312,224 teaches a calorimeter.
US 4,614,635 teaches a calorimeter.
US 4,620,800 teaches a calorimeter.
US 4,812,663 teaches a calorimeter.
US 2018/0250529 teaches a calorimeter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights