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 .
Response to the arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in Nikipelov, the undulator is a separate element from the linear accelerator and thus the pipe of the undulator is unrelated to the linear accelerator.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
According to the paragraph [0009], the pipe in Nikipelov allows the electron beam to pass through. It serves the same purpose to allow electron beam to pass through in the linear accelerator.
Similarly, according to the paragraph [0039] of the current application, the channel also allows the electron beam to pass through. Therefore, the pipe of the Nikipelov is closely related and also serves as a passage for electron beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a pipe to allow the electron beam to pass through in order to secure the quality of the electron beam and prevent damages on other surrounding elements caused by the electron beam in Whitman as taught by Nikipelov.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman et al. (6,465,957) in view of Nikipelov et al. (2017/0184975).
Regarding Claim 1, Whitman et al. (6,465,957) discloses a linear accelerator ("linac") for a radiation therapy system, the linac comprising:
a plurality of cavities (72) aligned along a length of the linac (10); and
a channel (annotated in figure 3 below) extending between adjacent cavities (each cavity) of the plurality of cavities (72).
As discussed above, Whitman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of cavities includes a first material and the channel includes a second material different from the first material.
However, Nikipelov et al. (2017/0184975) discloses a linear accelerator comprising cavities formed from copper to provide conduction in order to cause electron acceleration (paragraph [0082]) and the pipe of the undulator as channel formed from stainless steel or aluminum to allow electron beam to enter through (paragraph [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided copper cavities in Whitman in order to provide desired conduction and a stainless steel or aluminum pipe to allow the electron beam to pass through in order to secure the quality of the electron beam and prevent damages on other surrounding elements caused by the electron beam in Whitman as taught by Nikipelov.
PNG
media_image1.png
595
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Whitman discloses the linac of claim 1, wherein the channel includes an insert (the portion between the tip cap and the nose) extending along a length of the channel (the passage of the electron beam) and coupled between adjacent cavities of the plurality of cavities (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
478
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Whitman discloses the linac of claim 1, wherein each cavity of the plurality of cavities (72) includes a nose (right side of the “T” shape portion) on each side of the cavity adjacent to a next cavity along the length of the linac (10) (annotated fig. 3 below).
Regarding Claim 5, Whitman discloses the linac of claim 4, wherein the channel extends between noses (right side of the “T” shape portion) of adjacent cavities of the plurality of cavities (72) (annotated fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
195
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Whitman discloses the linac of claim 4, wherein the channel includes a tip cap (left side of the “T” shape portion) abutting each nose (right side of the “T” shape portion) of each cavity (72) (annotated fig. 3 above).
Regarding Claim 7, as discussed above, Whitman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the linac of claim 6, wherein the channel is formed from the first material and the tip caps are formed from the second material.
However, Nikipelov et al. (2017/0184975) discloses a linear accelerator comprising cavities formed from copper to provide conduction in order to cause electron acceleration (paragraph [0082]) and the pipe of the undulator as channel formed from stainless steel or aluminium to allow electron beam to enter (paragraph [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have formed the channel from a different material such as stainless steel or aluminum and tip cap as part of cavity from copper in Whitman in order to accelerate the electron as taught by Nikipelov.
Regarding Claim 9, Whitman discloses the linac of claim 4, wherein each nose of each cavity of the plurality of cavities (72) is squared such that the channel extends perpendicularly from each nose (the nose is square shape).
Regarding Claim 10, Whitman in view of Nikipelov et al. (2017/0184975) discloses the linac of claim 1, wherein the first material is at least one of copper or a copper- silver alloy (copper, paragraph [0082] of Nikipelov).
Regarding Claim 11, Whitman in view of Nikipelov et discloses the linac of claim 1, wherein the second material is stainless steel (paragraph [0098] of Nikipelov).
Regarding Claim 13, Whitman discloses a method of manufacturing a linear accelerator ("linac"), the method comprising:
forming a plurality of cavities (72) each cavity of the plurality of cavities (72) including a nose (right side of the “T” shape portion) on each side of the cavity adjacent to a next cavity along a length of the linac (10); and
forming a channel extending between the noses of the plurality of cavities (72), the channel (annotated fig. 3 below).
As discussed above, Whitman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of cavities includes a first material and the channel includes a second material different from the first material.
However, Nikipelov et al. (2017/0184975) discloses a linear accelerator comprising cavities formed from copper to provide conduction in order to cause electron acceleration (paragraph [0082]) and the pipe of the undulator as channel formed from stainless steel or aluminum to allow electron beam to enter through (paragraph [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided copper cavities in Whitman in order to provide desired conduction and a stainless steel or aluminum pipe to allow the electron beam to pass through in order to secure the quality of the electron beam and prevent damages on other surrounding elements caused by the electron beam in Whitman as taught by Nikipelov.
PNG
media_image1.png
595
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, as discussed above, Whitman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the forming the channel includes forming the channel from the first material and coating the channel with the second material.
However, Nikipelov et al. (2017/0184975) discloses a linear accelerator comprising cavities formed from copper to provide conduction in order to cause electron acceleration (paragraph [0082]) and the pipe of undulator as channel formed from stainless steel or aluminum to allow electron beam to enter through (paragraph [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have formed the channel (pipe) from a material and coated with stainless steel or aluminum in Whitman in order to secure the electron beam as taught by Nikipelov.
Regarding Claim 18, Whitman in view of Nikipelov et al. (2017/0184975) discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the first material is at least one of copper or a copper-silver alloy. (copper, paragraph [0082] of Nikipelov).
Regarding Claim 19, Whitman in view of Nikipelov et al. (2017/0184975) discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the second material is stainless steel (paragraph [0098] of Nikipelov).
Claim(s) 3, 8, 12, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman et al. (6,465,957) in view of Nikipelov et al. (2017/0184975), further in view of Dondokovich (2015/0043719).
Regarding Claim 3, Whitman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the linac of claim 1, wherein the channel is formed from the first material and includes a coating of the second material.
However, Dondokovich (2015/0043719) discloses channel including molybdenum due to its thermo-resistant and resistant to cracking (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used molybdenum for forming the channel in Whitman in order to obtain the advantages of thermo-resistant and resistant to cracking as taught by Dondokovich.
Regarding Claim 8, as discussed above, Whitman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the linac of claim 6, wherein the channel is formed from the first material and the tip caps are formed by coating a portion of the channel abutting each nose with the second material.
However, Dondokovich (2015/0043719) discloses channel including molybdenum due to its thermo-resistant and resistant to cracking (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used molybdenum for coating the tip caps abutting the nose in Whitman in order to obtain the advantages of thermo-resistant and resistant to cracking as taught by Dondokovich.
Regarding Claim 12, as discussed above, Whitman in Nikipelov essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the linac of claim 1, wherein the second material is at least one of titanium, vanadium, cobalt 31, or Molybdenum.
However, Dondokovich (2015/0043719) discloses channel including molybdenum due to its thermo-resistant and resistant to cracking (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used molybdenum for forming the channel in Whitman in order to obtain the advantages of thermo-resistant and resistant to cracking as taught by Dondokovich.
Regarding Claim 16, as discussed above, Whitman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 14, wherein the coating the channel with the second material includes forming a tip cap abutting each nose with the second material, and a portion of the channel of the first material extends between a first tip cap of a first nose of a first cavity and a second tip cap of a second nose of a second cavity.
However, Dondokovich (2015/0043719) discloses channel including molybdenum due to its thermo-resistant and resistant to cracking (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used molybdenum for forming the channel including the tip cap and nose in Whitman in order to obtain the advantages of thermo-resistant and resistant to cracking as taught by Dondokovich.
Regarding Claim 20, as discussed above, Whitman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the second material is at least one of titanium, vanadium, cobalt 31, or Molybdenum.
However, Dondokovich (2015/0043719) discloses channel including molybdenum due to its thermo-resistant and resistant to cracking (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used molybdenum for forming the channel including the tip cap and nose in Whitman in order to obtain the advantages of thermo-resistant and resistant to cracking as taught by Dondokovich.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman et al. (6,465,957) in view of Nikipelov et al. (2017/0184975), further in view of Hosaka (2017/0330739).
Regarding Claim 15, as discussed above, Whitman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 14, wherein the coating the channel with the second material includes at least one of electroplating or sputtering the second material onto the first material of the channel.
However, Hosaka (2017/0330739) discloses coating the inside wall of cavities in a particle accelerator by sputtering film, preferably Cu, Au, Ag, Al, W, Co, etc to protect the inside wall (paragraph [0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have coated the inside wall including the channel which is part of the interior of the accelerator of Whitman in order to protect the inside wall as taught by Hosaka.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman et al. (6,465,957) in view of Nikipelov et al. (2017/0184975), further in view of Hanna (2007/0120508).
Regarding Claim 17, as discussed above, Whitman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the forming the channel includes coupling the channel to each nose of each cavity by at least one of brazing or cryogenic shrink fitting.
However, Hanna (2007/0120508) discloses conventionally method such as brazing to form the linac and the inside cavities in order to ensure vacuum tight joints (paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used brazing method to form the linac including the channel and the noses in Whitman in order to ensure vacuum tight joints as taught by Hanna.
Claim(s) 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitman et al. (6,465,957) in view of Nikipelov et al. (2017/0184975), further in view of Zhan et al. (2025/0376748).
Regarding Claim 21, as discussed above, Whitman essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 13, further comprising: treating at least a portion of each of the plurality of cavities with a surface treatment configured to harden the portion of each of the plurality of cavities treated with the surface treatment.
However, Zhan et al. (2025/0376748) discloses a well-known surface treatment such as laser peening to strengthen the surface (paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have hardened the surface of cavities in Whitman with a surface treatment such as laser peening in order to strengthen the surface as taught by Zhan.
Regarding Claim 21, Whitman in view of Nikipelov further in view of Zhan discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the surface treatment is laser peening (paragraph [0044] of Zhan).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Wilson Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-1824. Proposed amendment and interview agenda can be submitted to Examiner’s direct fax at (571) 273-1824.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. Papers related to the application may be submitted by facsimile transmission. Any transmission not to be considered an official response must be clearly marked "DRAFT". The official fax number is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/WILSON LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights