DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 December 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20, 22 and 23 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15, 16, 20 and 22, as well as the cancellation of claim 21. Claim 18 remains withdrawn from consideration.
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
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: at line 7 of claims 9 and 10, “a patient” should apparently read –the patient--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-11, 13-17, 19, 20, 22 and 23 are 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite. The claim is directed to a “non-transitory storage medium storing instructions readable and executable by a console, wherein the console includes a display, at least one user input device, and an electronic processor to perform a method comprising:” which grammatically appears to read on limiting the claim to method steps performed by the electronic processor; however the claim is directed to “non-transitory storage medium” as recited in the preamble (and not just method steps performed by the electronic processor).
At line 13 of claim 1, it is unclear if “the deformation scenario” refers to “one of a plurality of simulated deformation scenarios “(lines 11-12) or “an individual simulated deformation scenario” (line 12). If it is the latter, a suggested amendment (to line 13) is –the individual simulated deformation scenario--.
Claim 1 at line 18 recites “at least one corresponding score”. It is unclear what “at least one corresponding score” is corresponding with in that particular clause of the claim.
Claim 1 at lines 14-18 recites “computing an adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score…the computing of the…recommendation score produced from applying at least one radiation therapy plan-specific perturbation model that outputs at least one corresponding score”. If the computing of the score is performed by applying the recited perturbation model, and the perturbation model “outputs at least one corresponding score,” it is unclear if the “at least one corresponding score” is the same as or different than “an adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score” recited at line 14.
Claim 1 at lines 27-30 recites “causing a radiation therapy delivery device to deliver therapeutic radiation to a patient in accordance with the radiation therapy plan, based on (i) radiotherapy performed without adaptive radiotherapy in accordance with the adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score, or (ii) adaptive radiotherapy performed in accordance with the adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score.” This recitation is unclear as it appears to reference “(i) radiotherapy performed without adaptive radiotherapy” and “(ii) adaptive radiotherapy performed,” neither of which is previously referenced in the claim. A suggested amendment is -- causing a radiation therapy delivery device to deliver therapeutic radiation to a patient in accordance with the radiation therapy plan, wherein the therapeutic radiation is (i) radiotherapy performed without adaptive radiotherapy in accordance with the adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score, or (ii) adaptive radiotherapy performed in accordance with the adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score.—
At line 6 of claim 3, it is unclear if “a score output” is the same as or different than the outputted “at least one corresponding score” recited at line 18 of claim 1.
At line 8 of claim 4, it is unclear if “recommendation scores output” is the same as or different than the outputted “at least one corresponding score” recited at line 18 of claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “non-transitory storage medium storing instructions readable and executable by the electronic processor to control a radiation therapy delivery device operatively connected with the console and to perform a method including:…”. It is unclear, based on the grammar of this clause, what recited element is “perform[ing] a method including:…”.
At line 17 of claim 11, it is unclear if “the deformation scenario” refers to “one of a plurality of simulated deformation scenarios “(lines 15-16) or “an individual simulated deformation scenario” (line 16). If it is the latter, a suggested amendment (to line 17) is –the individual simulated deformation scenario--.
Claim 11 at lines 18-21 recites “computing an adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score…the computing of the…recommendation score produced from applying at least one radiation therapy plan-specific perturbation model that outputs at least one corresponding score”. If the computing of the score is performed by applying the recited perturbation model, and the perturbation model “outputs at least one corresponding score,” it is unclear if the “at least one corresponding score” is the same as or different than “an adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score” recited at line 18.
Claim 11 at line 21 recites “at least one corresponding score”. It is unclear what “at least one corresponding score” is corresponding with in that particular clause of the claim.
At line 30 of claim 11, it is unclear if “a radiation therapy delivery device” is the same as or different than “a radiation therapy delivery device” recited at line 6.
Claim 11 at lines 30-34 recites “causing a radiation therapy delivery device to deliver therapeutic radiation to a patient in accordance with the radiation therapy plan, based on (i) radiotherapy performed without adaptive radiotherapy in accordance with the adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score, or (ii) adaptive radiotherapy performed in accordance with the adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score.” This recitation is unclear as it appears to reference “(i) radiotherapy performed without adaptive radiotherapy” and “(ii) adaptive radiotherapy performed,” neither of which is previously referenced in the claim. A suggested amendment is -- causing a radiation therapy delivery device to deliver therapeutic radiation to a patient in accordance with the radiation therapy plan, wherein the therapeutic radiation is (i) radiotherapy performed without adaptive radiotherapy in accordance with the adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score, or (ii) adaptive radiotherapy performed in accordance with the adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score.—
At lines 3, 5 and 8 of claim 16, it is unclear if “adaptive radiotherapy” is the same as or different than “adaptive radiotherapy” recited at lines 32 and 33 of claim 11.
At lines 6 and 11 of claim 16, it is unclear if “therapeutic radiation” is the same as or different than “therapeutic radiation” recited at line 30 of claim 11.
At line 6 of claim 16, it is unclear if “a specified patient” is the same as or different than “a patient” recited at lines 30-31 of claim 11.
Claim 20 at line 8 recites the limitation "the radiation therapy planning image of the patient". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A suggested amendment is -- the radiation therapy planning image--.
At line 11 of claim 20, it is unclear if “the deformation scenario” refers to “one of a plurality of simulated deformation scenarios “(lines 9-10) or “an individual simulated deformation scenario” (line 10). If it is the latter, a suggested amendment (to line 11) is –the individual simulated deformation scenario--.
Claim 20 at lines 12-15 recites “computing an adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score…the computing of the…recommendation score produced from applying at least one radiation therapy plan-specific perturbation model that outputs at least one corresponding score”. If the computing of the score is performed by applying the recited perturbation model, and the perturbation model “outputs at least one corresponding score,” it is unclear if the “at least one corresponding score” is the same as or different than “an adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score” recited at line 12.
Claim 20 at line 15 recites “at least one corresponding score”. It is unclear what “at least one corresponding score” is corresponding with in that particular clause of the claim.
At line 23 of claim 20, it is unclear if “a patient” is the same as or different than “a patient” recited at line 3. A suggested amendment to line 23 is –the patient--.
Claim 20 at lines 23-26 recites “causing a radiation therapy delivery device to deliver therapeutic radiation to a patient in accordance with the radiation therapy plan, based on (i) radiotherapy performed without adaptive radiotherapy in accordance with the adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score, or (ii) adaptive radiotherapy performed in accordance with the adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score.” This recitation is unclear as it appears to reference “(i) radiotherapy performed without adaptive radiotherapy” and “(ii) adaptive radiotherapy performed,” neither of which is previously referenced in the claim. A suggested amendment is -- causing a radiation therapy delivery device to deliver therapeutic radiation to the patient in accordance with the radiation therapy plan, wherein the therapeutic radiation is (i) radiotherapy performed without adaptive radiotherapy in accordance with the adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score, or (ii) adaptive radiotherapy performed in accordance with the adaptive radiotherapy recommendation score.—
At lines 8-9 of claim 22, it is unclear if “the processor that performs the adaptive radiotherapy recommendation method” is the same as or different than “at least one processor” recited at lines 1-2 of claim 20.
At lines 3 and 5 of claim 22, it is unclear if “adaptive radiotherapy” is the same as or different than “adaptive radiotherapy” recited at lines 24-25 and lines 25-26 of claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-11, 13-17, 19, 20, 22 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments filed 30 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8, 11, 13-15, 17 and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
9. Applicant’s arguments filed 30 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive, however new grounds of rejection are presented above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in light of the amendments.
10. Applicant’s arguments filed 30 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) citing Bennett (‘084); claims 2-4 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Bennett (‘084); and claims 11, 13-17 and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Bennett (‘084) in view of Park (‘870) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached on (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791