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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 21-27, 32-35 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kuduvalli et al. (US 20120035470).
Regarding claim 21, Kuduvalli teaches a radiation system, comprising:
a first rotation portion 216;
a second rotation portion 218, wherein both the first rotation portion and the second rotation portion are coplanar and rotatable in a first plane (figure 2a-b);
a treatment head 206 including a first portion configured to emit a treatment beam towards an object and a second portion configured to adjust a radiation range of the treatment beam, wherein the first portion of the treatment head is disposed in the first rotation portion;
one or more imaging sources 213, wherein at least one of the one or more imaging sources is disposed in the second rotation portion, and both the treatment head and the at least one of the one or more imaging sources are coplanar and rotatable in the first plane (figure 2a-b); and
at least one detector 112.
Regarding claim 22, Kuduvalli teaches the first rotation portion rotates around a first ring, the second rotation portion rotates around a second ring different from the first ring, the first ring and the second ring are coplanar, and the radius of the first ring is greater than the radius of the second ring (figure 2a-b).
Regarding claim 23, Kuduvalli teaches the first ring and the second ring are concentric (figure 2a-b).
Regarding claim 24, Kuduvalli teaches the second portion of the treatment head is disposed on the second rotation portion (figure 2a-b).
Regarding claim 25, Kuduvalli teaches the one or more imaging sources and the first portion of the treatment head are configured to make a treatment region of the radiation system and an imaging region of the radiation system at least partially overlap (figure 2a-b).
Regarding claim 26, Kuduvalli teaches the first rotation portion is configured to move independently from the second rotation portion (figure 2a-b).
Regarding claim 27, Kuduvalli teaches the one or more imaging sources include a CT imaging source, and the CT imaging source is disposed on the second rotation portion (para 30).
Regarding claim 32, Kuduvalli teaches a locking component or at least one control component, the locking component or the at least one control component being configured to cause the first rotation portion and the second rotation portion to rotate synchronously or independently (para 38).
Regarding claim 33, Kuduvalli teaches the first rotation portion includes a first rotor and a first component assembly mounted on the first rotor, the first rotor being configured to rotate the first component assembly; and the second rotation portion includes a second rotor and a second component assembly mounted on the second rotor, the second rotor being configured to rotate the second assembly (figure 2a-b).
Regarding claim 34, Kuduvalli teaches a radiation system, comprising: a first rotation portion; a second rotation portion; and a treatment head; wherein: the treatment head includes a first portion configured to emit a treatment beam towards an object and a second portion configured to adjust a radiation range of the treatment beam, the first portion is disposed in the first rotation portion, and the second portion is disposed in the second rotation portion and is movable relative to the first rotation portion in the rotation direction of the second rotation portion (figure 2a-b).
Regarding claim 35, Kuduvalli teaches one or more imaging sources, wherein the one or more imaging sources include at least one of: a first imaging source configured to emit a first imaging beam towards an object, the first imaging source being disposed in the second rotation portion; and at least one second imaging source configured to emit at least one second imaging beam towards an object (figure 2a-b).
Regarding claim 40, Kuduvalli teaches a system, comprising: at least one storage device including a set of instructions; at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device and a radiation system, wherein the radiation system includes: a first rotation portion; a second rotation portion; a treatment head, at least a portion of the treatment head being disposed in the first rotation portion; one or more imaging sources, at least one of the one or more imaging sources being disposed in the second rotation portion; and at least one detector, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including: causing the second rotation portion to rotate independently from the first rotation portion; generating an image by causing at least one of the one or more imaging sources to emit at least one imaging beam toward an object; causing a region of the object to be positioned at an isocenter of the radiation system based on the image; causing the first rotation portion and the second rotation portion to rotate synchronously; and causing the treatment head to emit a treatment beam to the region of the object (figure 2a-b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuduvalli in view of Distler et al.(US 20170258428).
Regarding claim 31, Kuduvalli teaches a stationary portion.
However Kuduvalli fails to teach the first rotation portion is connected to the stationary portion via a first bearing, and the second rotation portion is connected to the first rotation portion via a second bearing.
Distler teaches rotation portion is connected to the stationary portion via a bearing (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the rotating portions of Kuduvalli with the bearing as taught by Distler, since it would better movement.
Claim(s) 36-and 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuduvalli in view of Lee et al. (US 20150063537).
Regarding claim 36, Kuduvalli teaches at least one detector.
However Kuduvalli fails to teach at least two of the one or more imaging sources share one of the at least one detector.
Lee teaches at least two of the one or more imaging sources share one of the at least one detector (figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the source of Kuduvalli with the sources as taught by Lee, since it would better patient image.
Regarding claim 37, Kuduvalli teaches the treatment head, the first imaging source, and the at least one second imaging source are located in a same plane (figure 2a-b).
Regarding claim 39, Kuduvalli teaches imaging beams emitted by the first imaging source and the at least one second imaging source cover an imaging region, and the treatment beam emitted by a first head portion covers a treatment region; the first imaging source, the at least one second imaging source, and the first head portion are configured such that the treatment region and the imaging region at least partially overlap (figure 2a-b).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-27 and 31-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,213,818. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the claims of the patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-30 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:
Regarding claims 28-30, the prior art fails to teach the one or more imaging sources include a first imaging source, a second imaging source, and a third imaging source; the first portion of the treatment head, the first imaging source, and the second imaging source are disposed on the first rotation portion; and the at least one detector, the third imaging source, and the second portion of the treatment head are disposed on the second rotation portion as claimed in claim 28.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm.
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 at 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.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights