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 Objections
Claim 67 is objected to because of the following informalities: “fluence map per beam station” is recited twice. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The scope of claim 65 is indefinite as the claim recites the limitation “about 2 cm or more”. The claim fails to set forth an upper limit.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 63-68, and 72-73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Harper et al. (US 2018/0133518).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Harper et al. discloses a radiation therapy system comprising: a rotatable gantry (102); a therapeutic radiation source mounted on the gantry and configured to generate radiation (112); a beam-shaping module coupled to the therapeutic radiation source and comprising jaws having an adjustable jaw opening therethrough ([0052]); a patient platform movable to a plurality of beam stations at predetermined locations (106); and a controller in communication with the gantry, radiation source, beam-shaping module, and patient platform, wherein the controller is configured to adjust a width of the jaw opening for each beam station and to stop the patient platform at each beam station before emitting radiation from the therapeutic radiation source ([0059]).
With respect to claims 64-66, Harper et al. discloses adjusting the jaw opening ([0131]; field size).
With respect to claim 67, Harper et al. discloses a memory configured to store treatment plan data, wherein treatment plan data comprises a set of beam stations and one or more of dwell time per beam station, fluence map per beam station, dose map per beam station, fluence map per beam station, jaw opening width per beam station, and therapeutic radiation source pulse parameters per beam station ([0059]).
With respect to claim 68, the Examiner’s position is that jaw width during treatment is interpreted to be fixed.
With respect to claims 72-73, Harper et al. discloses wherein the beam-shaping module further comprises a multi-leaf collimator having a plurality of independently movable leaves, and wherein an arrangement of the multi-collimator leaves define a radiation field of the generated radiation in a first axis and the width of the jaw opening defines the radiation field in a second axis ([0011]; [0052]).
Claim(s) 63, 67-68, 70, and 72-73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schnarr (US 2018/0078784).
Schnarr discloses a radiation therapy system comprising: a rotatable gantry (18); a therapeutic radiation source mounted on the gantry and configured to generate radiation (24); a beam-shaping module (34) coupled to the therapeutic radiation source and comprising jaws (46) having an adjustable opening therethrough ([0026]); a patient platform movable to a plurality of beam stations at predetermined locations (82); and a controller (74; 75) in communication with the gantry, radiation source, beam-shaping module, and patient platform, wherein the controller is configured to adjust a width of the jaw opening for each beam station ([0026]) and to stop the patient platform at each beam station before emitting radiation from the therapeutic radiation source ([0032]).
With respect to claim 67, Schnarr discloses a memory (81; [0043]).
With respect to claim 68, the Examiner’s position is that jaw width during treatment is interpreted to be fixed.
With respect to claim 70, Schnarr discloses wherein the jaw opening width is selected by a user ([0056]).
With respect to claims 72-73, Schnarr discloses a multi-leaf collimator ([0027]).
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) 64-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnarr (US 2018/0078784) in view of Lu et al. (US 2009/0116616).
Schnarr discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for the range of the jaw width. However, Lu et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor widths of about 1 cm or less, about 2 cm or more, and about 1 cm to about 2 cm ([0126]; [0137]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Schnarr with the range of widths as taught by Lu et al. as they are previously known in the art.
Claim 69 and 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Harper et al. (US 2018/0133518) in view of Chin et al. (US 2012/0294424).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Harper et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for wherein the jaw opening width varies for each beam station in the set of beam stations or wherein the controller is configured to increase the width of the jaw opening for a first portion of a treatment session and decrease the width of the jaw opening for a second portion of the treatment session. However, Chin et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor time variable shaping of beam with during operation according to a treatment plan ([0045]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Harper et al. with varying the jaw opening width in order provide time variable shaping of the beam as taught by Chin et al. ([0045]).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim 69 and 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Schnarr (US 2018/0078784) in view of Chin et al. (US 2012/0294424).
Schnarr discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for wherein the jaw opening width varies for each beam station in the set of beam stations or wherein the controller is configured to increase the width of the jaw opening for a first portion of a treatment session and decrease the width of the jaw opening for a second portion of the treatment session. However, Chin et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor time variable shaping of beam with during operation according to a treatment plan ([0045]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Schnarr with varying the jaw opening width in order provide time variable shaping of the beam as taught by Chin et al. ([0045]).
Claim 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Harper et al. (US 2018/0133518) in view of Schnarr (US 2018/0078784).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Harper et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for wherein the jaw opening width is selected by a user. However, Schnarr teaches in the same field of endeavor user input for controlling machine parameters ([0056]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Harper et al. with user selected machine parameters as taught by Schnarr as it is well known in the art for the user to adjust machine parameters for an examination ([0056]).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 74-82 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to disclose the claimed combination of subject matter particularly generating a planned fluence map by an iterative optimization method that varies a dwell time of the patient platform at each beam station and a jaw opening width for each beam station to minimize a dose penalty function; and defining a treatment plan for delivering the planned fluence map, wherein the treatment plan specifies the jaw opening width for each beam station in the set of beam stations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/PETER LUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights