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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boisseau (US 2016/0250500 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Boisseau discloses a method for determining dosimetry of a radiation beam propagating along an axis (Figs.1-4), including:
a) positioning, normal to the axis, a dose detector 325, the dose detector 325 having a first detector device 340 and a second detector device 360;
b) propagating the radiation beam along the axis crossing the dose detector 325;
c) measuring doses with the first and second detector devices 340 and 360; and
d) determining a distribution of doses as a function of the measured doses (Fig.13).
Claims 1-6, 12, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marash (CN 214912772 U).
Regarding claim 1, Marash discloses a detector system (Figs.1-8), including:
a) a first detector 70 configured for determining dosimetry of a radiation beam propagating along an axis, the first detector 70 having a matrix of ionization chambers 701 distributed over a plane normal to the axis, each of the ionization chambers 701 having first and second electrodes separated by a medium, where the first detector 70 has a first spatial resolution over the plane (Fig.5); and
b) a second detector 60, different from the first detector and having a second spatial resolution over the plane finer than the first spatial resolution over the plane, is positioned in series along the axis relative to the first detector 70 (Figs.1-4 and 6-8; p.8: “In some other embodiments, the first detector 20 and/or the second detector 21 may also be a semiconductor detector, and the semiconductor detector has good spatial resolution, high sensitivity and so on.”); where
c) the first and second detectors 70, 60 are configured for coupling to a computing device, the computing device configured to determine a distribution of doses calculated from doses measured by the first detector and doses measured by the second detector (determines and adjusts beam intensity as well as position from one or both detectors, see at least bottom of p.4 to top of p.5, and top of p.7).
With respect to claim 2, Marash further discloses that the second detector 60 is a scintillating detector (scintillator 62 and photodetector array 61).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Marash further discloses (Figs.1, 2 and 4):
d) the first detector 70 has a first physical thickness measured along the axis; and
e) the second detector 60 has a second physical thickness measured along the axis; where
f) one of the first detector 70 and the second detector 60 having a lower water equivalent thickness than the other (inherent since ionization chambers and scintillator-based photodiode detectors have fundamentally different material properties and correspondingly different radiation absorption characteristics); and where
g) the second detector 60 is a scintillation detector positioned downstream of the first detector 70.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Marash further discloses that the radiation beam is a beam of charged particles, including protons, carbon ions, or helium ions (p.9: “The invention further claims a particle beam treatment device, particle beam treatment device comprises a particle accelerator…can generate high energy particle beam of accelerator, particle beam can be proton, carbon ion; helium ions and so on high energy particles; the example is a synchronous accelerator.”).
With respect to claim 12, Marash further teaches calculating the linear energy transfer distribution of the radiation from the doses measured by the first detector device 70 and the second detector device 60 (determines angular deviation as well as intensity differences as a function of distance, Figs.6-8).
With respect to claim 17, Marash further discloses that the first and second detector devices 70, 60 are configured to determine the dosimetry of the radiation beam at a plurality of positions along the axis, the plurality of positions being separated from one another by a distance (Figs.6-8 and corresponding description).
Regarding claim 18, Marash discloses an apparatus for determining dosimetry in a plane of a radiation beam at a plurality of positions along an axis normal to the plane, where the radiation beam propagates along the axis, and the plurality of positions are separated from one another by a distance; the apparatus including:
a) a plurality of detectors 70 and 60 arranged at the plurality of positions and configured to determine the dosimetry in the plane of the radiation beam at the plurality of positions (determines and adjusts beam intensity as well as position from one or both detectors, see at least bottom of p.4 to top of p.5, and top of p.7); where the plurality of detectors includes:
b) a first detector 70 configured for determining dosimetry of a radiation beam propagating along an axis, the first detector 70 having a matrix of ionization chambers 701 distributed over the plane, each of the ionization chambers 701 having first and second electrodes separated by a medium, where the first detector 70 has a first spatial resolution over the plane (Fig.5); and
c) a second detector device 60, different from the first detector device 70, and having a second spatial resolution over the plane finer than the first spatial resolution, and positioned in series along the axis relative to the first detector device 70 (Figs.1-4 and 6-8; p.8: “In some other embodiments, the first detector 20 and/or the second detector 21 may also be a semiconductor detector, and the semiconductor detector has good spatial resolution, high sensitivity and so on.”); where
d) the first and second detector devices 70, 60 are configured for coupling to a computing device, the computing device configured to determine a distribution of doses calculated from doses measured by the first detector and doses measured by the second detector (determines and adjusts beam intensity as well as position from one or both detectors, see at least bottom of p.4 to top of p.5, and top of p.7).
Regarding claim 20, Marash discloses a method for determining dosimetry of a radiation beam propagating along an axis (Figs.1-8), including:
a) positioning, normal to the axis, a dose detector, the dose detector having a first detector device 70 and a second detector device 60;
b) propagating the radiation beam along the axis crossing the dose detector;
c) measuring doses with the first detector device 70 and the second detector device 60; and
d) determining a distribution of doses as a function of the measured doses (determines and adjusts beam intensity and position, where the intensity may be determined from one or both detectors, see at least bottom of p.4 to top of p.5, and top of p.7).
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, 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 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marash, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Boisseau (US 2016/0250500 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Marash does not specifically disclose the dimensional details of the detector system, though there are embodiments where the first and second detector systems are kept within a fixed distance of one another, providing a fairly compact overall physical length of the entire detector system (detectors 70 and 60) as measured along the axis (Figs.6-8).
Boisseau teaches the practice of providing a dose detector system 325 (Figs.3 and 4) with a first detector 340 having a first resolution and a second detector 360 having a finer resolution than the first detector, where the combination of the dose measurements of both detectors determine a more precise dose cross section of the radiation beam (Figs.7-13). Boisseau teaches a center-to-center distance between the radiation sensitive regions of the first and second detectors along the axis of radiation beam propagation being between 5 mm and 25 mm, where the entire thickness of the detector system is far less than 100 cm (Fig.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Marash to have the physical thickness of the detector system measured along the axis is lower than 100 cm, as suggested by Boisseau for acquiring superior accurate and precise dose maps of the cross section of the radiation beam for safer radiation treatments.
With respect to claim 8, Marash does not specifically disclose the dimensional details of the detector system, though there are embodiments where the first and second detector systems are kept within a fixed distance of one another, providing a fairly compact overall physical system (detectors 70(21) and 60(20), Figs.6-8).
Boisseau teaches the practice of providing a dose detector system 325 (Figs.3 and 4) with a first detector 340 having a first resolution and a second detector 360 having a finer resolution than the first detector, where the combination of the dose measurements of both detectors determine a more precise dose cross section of the radiation beam (Figs.7-13). Boisseau teaches a center-to-center distance between the radiation sensitive regions of the first and second detectors along the axis of radiation beam propagation being between 5 mm and 25 mm in order to ensure that the spatial variation caused by the beam angle may be considered negligible within the spatial resolution of the system (par.0051 and Fig.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Marash to have a distance between an effective point of measurement of the first detector device and an effective point of measurement of the second detector device is not more than 5 cm, as suggested by Boisseau for acquiring accurate and precise dose maps of the cross section of the radiation beam for safer radiation treatments.
With respect to claim 9, Marash further has, based on having the distance between effective points of measurement of the two detector devices as measured along the axis being less than 5 cm, as taught by Boisseau for superior beam characterization, results in having a water equivalent thickness of not more than 5 g/cm2 (since Marash teaches air between the two detectors 20 and 21, Figs.6-8, over such a short distance as taught by Boisseau, will have a water equivalent thickness much less than water itself).
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Marash does not specifically disclose the resolutions of the first and second detector devices 70 and 60.
Boisseau teaches a first detector device 340 and a second detector device 360 where the resolution of the first detector device has a pixel pitch of 5 mm to 10 mm, and the second detector device has a pixel pitch of 1 mm to 5 mm, in order to provide sufficient spatial resolution in the plane for precise beam dosage calculations by using the advantages of the differing resolutions of both detectors (pars.0053-0054 and 0065). As known in the art, scintillator-based photoelectric detectors for particle beams are commercially available with comparable resolutions to that of the higher resolution detector of Boisseau.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for Marash to have ionization chambers distributed over the plane with a resolution of at least 1.5 ionization chambers per cm2, where the second detector has a pixel resolution of at least twice the resolution of the first detector, in order to provide a more precise beam intensity cross section measurement for improved safety and feedback control, as taught by Boisseau.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 13 and 19, the prior art neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the additional combination of features, where:
a) each of the ionization chambers is separated from an adjacent one of the ionization chambers by an inter-chamber space;
b) one or more sensors of the second detector device face one of the ionization chambers of the first detection device;
c) one or more sensors of the second detector device face one of the inter-chamber spaces;
d) the sensors of the second detector device have a higher energy dependence than the ionization chambers of the first detector device; and
e) the calculated doses in a unit volume enclosing or intersecting one of the ionization chambers are a function of a dose measured by the one of the ionization chambers and a dose measured by one of the sensors of the second detector device facing the one of the ionization chambers along the axis.
While scintillator detectors generally have a higher energy dependence on the detection of incident radiation over that of ionization chambers, Marash does not disclose sufficient details of the relationship between the 2D ionization chamber arrangement 70 and the scintillator detector array 60 to determine whether any of the sensors of the second detector 60 coincide with interstitial gaps in the first detector 70. Further, Marash does not provide any details of how the doses are calculated from the first and second detector outputs.
The next-closest prior art, Boisseau (cited in the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection above) teaches pixelated first and second ionization chambers 340 and 360 having different resolutions. While the dose calculations are similar to that claimed (Figs.7-10), the detectors are of the same type, contrary to parent claims 1 and 18, respectively (both being ionization chambers), and both detectors are pixelated rather than providing discrete chambers with inter-chamber spacings. As such, there are no inter-chamber gaps for which any pixels of the second detector 360 may be interstitially arranged, nor is there a difference in energy dependence, both as required by claims 13 and 19.
Beyond that, US patent documents to Otani (Figs.3-6) teach discrete ionization chambers 38 arranged as required by parent claims 1 and 18, respectively, for correcting the doses measured by the first detector 26. Again, both detectors are ionization detectors, and most importantly, the first detector 26 has no pixelation whatsoever. As such, there are no discrete sensors arranged along the axis corresponding to the spaces between the ionization chambers 38, as required by claims 13 and 19.
Claims 14-16 are objected to by virtue of their dependence upon claim 13, thus incorporating the combination of allowable features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US patent documents to Natori teach a stack of detectors performing a variety of position and or dosimetric measurements on the radiation beam (Fig.2); and US patent documents to Dolney teach the practice of providing water-equivalent material compensation in a multi-detector stack for ensuring accurate dosage and linear energy transfer measurements (Fig.3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS R ARTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2485. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6:30pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached on 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.
THOMAS R. ARTMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/THOMAS R ARTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights