Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/004,531

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ADJUSTING BEAM-LIMITING DEVICES

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Dec 30, 2024
Examiner
REMALY, MARK DONALD
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Shanghai United Imaging Healthcare Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
492 granted / 709 resolved
-0.6% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
733
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.8%
-33.2% vs TC avg
§103
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
§102
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 709 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION The previous action is withdrawn/superseded. 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 . Election/Restrictions Restriction of claims 1-20 is withdrawn since the claims have been cancelled before an action on the merits. All pending claims 21-40 have been examined in this office action. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (US 2020/0061390 A1). Regarding claim 21, Ma et al. (‘390) teach a system for adjusting a beam-limiting device, the beam-limiting device including a plurality of movable components for shaping a radiation beam, the system comprising: at least one storage device including a set of instructions (see [0051]; and Fig. 2C); and at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations (see [0051]; and Fig. 2C) including: for each of the plurality movable components, determining an initial location and a target location of the movable component (see [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 6); and determining, based on the initial location and the target location, a moving route of the movable component, wherein the movable component moves along a compound direction of a first direction and a second direction, the first direction being parallel to a center axis of the radiation beam emitted from the radiation source, and the second direction being in a plane perpendicular to the first direction (see [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 6); and causing the plurality of movable components to move along their respective moving routes (see [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 6). Regarding claim 22, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 21, wherein during the movement of the plurality of movable components along their respective moving routes, the shape of an irradiation region of the radiation beam passing through the beam-limiting device remains unchanged (see [0117]-[0120]). Regarding claim 23, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 21, wherein for each of the plurality of movable components, its initial location includes a first initial location along the center axis and a second initial location on the plane perpendicular to the center axis, and its target location includes a first target location along the center axis and a second target location on the plane (see [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 6). Regarding claim 24, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 21, wherein for each of the plurality of movable components, the determining a target location of the movable component includes: determining a region of interest (ROI) planned to be radiated; and determining the target location of each of the plurality of movable components based on the ROI and the initial locations of the plurality of movable components such that during the movement of the plurality of movable components, the irradiation region is the same as the ROI (see [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 6). Regarding claim 25, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 21, wherein the target location of each of the plurality of movable components is determined according to a principle of similar triangles (see [0117]-[0120]). Regarding claim 26, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 21, wherein the beam-limiting device is mounted on a gantry of a radiotherapy device, the initial location and the target location of each of the plurality of movable components correspond to a first gantry angle, and during the movement of the plurality of movable components, the gantry remains at the first gantry angle (see [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 6). Regarding claim 27, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 21, wherein when the plurality of movable components are at their respective initial locations, the beam-limiting device has a first resolution, and when the plurality of movable components are at their respective target locations, the beam-limiting device has a second resolution that is greater than the first resolution (see [0117]-[0120]). Regarding claim 28, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 21, wherein during the movement of the plurality of movable components along their respective moving routes, the size of an irradiation region of the radiation beam passing through the beam-limiting device remains unchanged (see [0117]-[0120]). Regarding claim 29, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 21, wherein the irradiation region is formed by one or more actuated movable components of the plurality of movable components, and during the movement of the plurality of movable components along their respective moving routes, a count of the one or more actuated movable components increases (see [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 6). Regarding claim 30, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 21, wherein the radiation beam is emitted from a radiation source and has a cone-shape, and the compound direction is parallel to a generatrix of the cone-shape (see [0117]-[0120]). Regarding claim 31, Ma et al. (‘390) teach a system for adjusting a beam-limiting device, the beam-limiting device including a plurality of movable components for shaping a radiation beam, the system comprising: at least one storage device including a set of instructions (see [0051]; and Fig. 2C); and at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device (see [0051]; and Fig. 2C), wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations including: for each of the plurality movable components, determining a first initial location of the movable component along a center axis of the radiation beam and a second initial location of the movable component on a plane perpendicular to the center axis (see [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 6); determining a first target location of the movable component along the center axis and a second target location of the movable component on the plane; and causing the movable component to have a compound movement to simultaneously move from the first initial location to the first target location along the central axis and move from the second initial location to the second target location on the plane (see [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 6). Regarding claim 32, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 31, wherein during the compound movements of the plurality of movable components, the shape of an irradiation region of the radiation beam passing through the beam-limiting device remains unchanged (see [0117]-[0120]). Regarding claim 33, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 31, wherein for each of the plurality of movable components, the determining a first target location of the movable component along the center axis and a second target location of the movable component on the plane includes: determining a region of interest (ROI) planned to be radiated; and determining the first target location and the second target location of each of the plurality of movable components based on the ROI and the first initial location and the second initial location of each of the plurality of movable components such that during the movement of the plurality of movable components, the irradiation region is the same as the ROI (see [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 6). Regarding claim 34, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 33, wherein the first target location and the second target location of each of the plurality of movable components are determined according to a principle of similar triangles. Regarding claim 35, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 31, wherein the beam-limiting device is mounted on a gantry of a radiotherapy device, the first initial location, the second initial location, the first target location, and the second target location of each of the plurality of movable components correspond to a gantry angle, and during the compound movements of the plurality of movable components, the gantry remains at the gantry angle (see [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 6). Regarding claim 36, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 31, wherein when the plurality of movable components are at their respective first initial locations and second initial locations, the beam-limiting device has a first resolution, and when the plurality of movable components are at their respective first target locations and second target locations, the beam-limiting device has a second resolution that is greater than the first resolution (see [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 6). Regarding claim 37, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 31, wherein during the compound movements of the plurality of movable components, the size of an irradiation region of the radiation beam passing through the beam-limiting device remains unchanged (see [0117]-[0120]). Regarding claim 38, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 31, wherein the irradiation region is formed by one or more actuated movable components of the plurality of movable components, and during the compound movements of the plurality of movable components, a count of the one or more actuated movable components increases (see [0062]-[0064]; and Fig. 6). Regarding claim 39, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 31, wherein the radiation beam is emitted from a radiation source and has a cone-shape, and a compound direction of a first direction and a second direction is parallel to a generatrix of the cone-shape, the first direction being parallel to the center axis of the radiation beam emitted from the radiation source, and the second direction being in the plane (see [0117]-[0120]). Regarding claim 40, Ma et al. (‘390) teach the system of claim 31, wherein the radiation beam is emitted from a radiation source and has a cone-shape, and the compound movements are parallel to a generatrix of the cone-shape (see [0117]-[0120]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK REMALY whose telephone number is (571)270-1491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 6:00. 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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. /MARK D REMALY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 30, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599361
ULTRASONIC IMAGING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588848
DEVICES AND SYSTEMS FOR MEASURING MAGNETIC FIELDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12549866
LIGHT FIELD CAPTURE, COMPRESSION, TRANSMISSION AND RECONSTRUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12543940
ATHERECTOMY CATHETER DRIVE ASSEMBLIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539086
METHOD, APPARATUS AND SYSTEM FOR FILTERING PULSE SIGNAL MOTION INTERFERENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+15.8%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 709 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month