Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/095,179

ARCHIVING RADIATION THERAPY RECORDS FOR TRANSMISSION AND REVIEW

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 11, 2020
Examiner
PORTER, RACHEL L
Art Unit
3684
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
The Board Of Regents Of The University Of Texas System
OA Round
4 (Final)
21%
Grant Probability
At Risk
5-6
OA Rounds
6y 0m
To Grant
42%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 21% of cases
21%
Career Allow Rate
85 granted / 412 resolved
-31.4% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
6y 0m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
462
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
§103
32.1%
-7.9% vs TC avg
§102
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
§112
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 412 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice to Applicant The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is in response to the amendment filed 9/17/25. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-12 and 20 will be examined on the merits. Claims 13-19 have been withdrawn from further consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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, 3, 5, 7-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutic et al (US 20110145693 A1) in view of Renne (US 20160213948 A1,and in view further view of Hibbard (US 20190333623 A1) Claim 1 Mutic teaches a method for archiving radiation therapy records for transmission and review, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of radiation therapy objects; (par. 10: the viewer of the present invention supports radiation therapy objects and creates a process for transporting multiple medical data objects and their viewing at the receiving locations; par. 32-36:receiving files), parsing the plurality of radiation therapy objects to articulate a compact radiation therapy dataset; (par. 38-39; par. 41: selection module and selection of objects; par. 68-70- serialization) analyzing a hierarchical network of links to locate the plurality of radiation therapy objects having viewing data included in the radiation therapy dataset; (par. 30; par. 33; par. 35-36-retreiving data from linked network sources; par. 68-serialization); for each radiation therapy object included in the plurality of radiation therapy objects, separating the viewing data from plan creation data included in the radiation therapy object; (par. 72; par. 80); downloading the viewing data as the one or more miniature plan objects; (par. 72-74) and organizing the one or more miniature plan objects as the compact radiation therapy dataset. (par. 41; par. 83) generating a directory object including a list of components included in the compact radiation therapy dataset (par. 36-then write the data to a file or set of files in a directory configured to serve as the repository for the data server 110; par. 39-This selection module 80 includes selection of studies, images, contours, treatment plans, treatment plan objects, radiation isodose levels and supporting files from data available in directory listing 81; par. 41-The packaging application 130 may include a grouping capability 83 as illustrated in selection module 80, FIG. 6. When multiple image sets, treatment plans, dose distributions, contours, supporting documents, or other "packageable" information are available, the packaging application 130 may employ grouping of these objects in logical groups based on their relationship in the patient treatment planning or treatment process) embedding a viewer with the compact radiation therapy dataset, the viewer navigating the directory object to display one or more radiation therapy records included in the compact radiation therapy dataset; and (par. 30, par. 41-packaging application for bundling image, dataset with viewer application; par. 55-The packager application 130 bundles an image file and corresponding data set 145 and the associated data viewer 125 into the self-sufficient self-contained file(s) 5) writing the compact radiation therapy dataset, the directory object, and the viewer to a portable storage medium. (par. 30-the image transfer system 100 uses a packaging application 130 to bundle the selected image and data set 145 with a viewer application 125, creating a self-sufficient, self-consistent transfer file 5 for transfer to a destination device 1000. For the transfer of the file 5, the image transfer system 100 has a distribution module 155 which allows the file 5 to be stored on an electronic medium that is physically transferred to the destination device or saved and electronically transferred over a computer network. At the destination location, the system and method provide for an end-user operator (EO) 1005 to activate the transferred viewer application, which in turn allows viewing of the transferred images and data as intended by the OO 105 at the originating location; par. 36-write the data to a file or set of files in a directory configured to serve as the repository for the data server 110.); wherein the compact radiation therapy dataset comprises a radiation therapy plan including one or more miniature plan objects that visualize one or more aspects of a radiation therapy treatment. (par. 16-The proposed application allows visualization and independent manipulation of multiple medical data objects using the bundled viewer application) Claim 1 further recites: “wherein the parsing comprises compressing the plurality of radiation therapy objects by removing at least one of fields or attributes from the plurality of radiation therapy objects that do not affect the visual appearance of the plurality of radiation therapy objects.” Mutic does not expressly disclose, but Renne discloses removal of fields or attributes that do not affect the visual appearance of the plurality of radiation therapy objects. (par. 120-121: The “Remove Private Attributes” option is selected by default and will remove attributes that are not found in the DICOM standard dictionary… Note that Patient information burnt into images (such as DRRs) will NOT be removed; Par. 129: Attributes may be added or removed at the study, series or instance level. Right click the tag view and select Add or Remove to insert or remove an attribute. The remove dialog will give you the option of removing all matching attributes within the study, series or instance or just that attribute highlighted.) (Emphasis added) At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method of Mutic with the teaching of Renne to include a parsing algorithm which compresses the plurality of radiation therapy objects by removing at least one of fields or attributes from the plurality of radiation therapy objects that do not affect the visual appearance of the plurality of radiation therapy objects. One would have been motivated to include this feature to enhance patient privacy features while not compromising the details of the image objects. Claim 1 has been further amended to recite: receiving a plurality of radiation therapy objects comprising viewing data and plan creation data; and wherein plan creation data comprises one or more of treatment simulation physics and modeling algorithms, radiation delivery machine-specific physics data and models, computational algorithm modules for creating radiation therapy plans. Mutic and but Renne in combination do not disclose, but Hibbard teaches receiving a plurality of radiation therapy objects comprising viewing data and plan creation data (par. 41- the radiotherapy processing computing system 110 may obtain or communicate planning data 162 from or to a treatment data source 160, such as a data repository used to manage radiotherapy doses and outputs from the treatment device 180. In an example, the treatment data source 160 includes planning data maintained for a plurality of human subjects, including treatment planning parameters (e.g., doses, measurements, treatment parameters) for individual patients at different times); and wherein plan creation data includes treatment simulation physics and modeling algorithms, radiation delivery machine-specific physics data and models, computational algorithm modules for creating radiation therapy plans. (par. 44-45; par. 55-57; par. 63) At the time of the effective filing data, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Mutic and Renne in combination with the teaching of Hibbard with the motivation of providing optimal custom-designed radiotherapy plans, and to reach the objective of maximizing radiation treatment at the target volume while minimizing exposure to radiation in surrounding organs and tissue in a predictable and more consistent manor. (Hibbard: par. 2) claim 3 Mutic teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the miniature plan objects include radiation beam delivery plans, dose plans, dose distribution profiles, and dose statistics. (par. 38; par. 40-41) claim 5. Mutic discloses the method of claim 1, wherein viewing data includes image data, contour data, delivery beam data, radiation dose data, and other data required to display the one or more radiation therapy records. (par. 38-39) claim 7 Mutic teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the hierarchical network of links comprises: patient IDs, study IDs, series IDs, and image IDs. (par. 48; par. 52-he browser 120 is configured to filter the data stored in a database 150 based on patient name, patient ID number, database object type, image series counts, series number, study identifier (ID), study description, study unique identifier (UID), object label, file name, UID, and other similar identifiers.) claim 8 Mutic teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the viewer comprises a miniaturized executable file having a few dynamically loadable graphics libraries. (par. 38; par. 73-77; par. 79-80) claim 9. Mutic teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the viewer presents the compact radiation therapy dataset in a hierarchy that is defined in DICOM standards for radiation therapy practice. (par. 77-This information can be saved as serialized objects or may be saved in its original DICOM data format... The serialized variable data is information that can be changed by the user. The DICOM format also has "presentation state" objects that capture much of this information.) claim 10. Mutic teaches the method of claim 1, comprising the viewer navigating the itemized directory object to display one or more radiation therapy records comprising: parsing the directory object to aggregate multiple miniature radiation therapy objects into a plan object, wherein the directory object includes a network of external links between the multiple miniature radiation therapy objects and the plan object; (par. 73-77; Tables 1-2); checking data integrity of the compact radiation therapy dataset by verifying every miniature radiation therapy object required visualize the plan object is included in the compact radiation therapy dataset; (par. 72-Because the encoding of the data is by definition serial, it is inherent in any serialization scheme that the extracting one part of the serialized data structure requires that the entire object be read from start to end, and reconstructed. The invention provides for the use of object serialization to ensure that the viewer application at the destination location displays the image and data files as the operator at the origination location intended them to be presented and viewed;) rendering, by the viewer, the plan object using one or more graphics libraries. (par. 54-55; par. 79: using templates to form a self-sufficient self-consistent file(s) 5 for transfer. The self-sufficient self-consistent file(s) 5 for transfer are then stored, transmitted, or transferred as desired.; Fig. 7-8) claim 11. Mutic teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the directory object further comprises a network of internal links between the components of the compact radiation therapy dataset included in each miniature radiation therapy object and one or more of the multiple miniature radiation therapy objects. (par. 54-55; par. 73-77; Tables 1-2.; Fig. 7-8) claim 12. Mutic teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the viewer renders the plan object on a laptop, smartphone, tablet, or other personal computer device. (par. 30; par. 39; Fig. 6) claim 20. The limitations of claim 20 are addressed by the rejections of claims 1 and 9, which are incorporated herein. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/25 have been fully considered. (A) Applicant argues that the Mutic and Renne reference does not disclose the newly added claim limitations. In response, the examiner have provided new grounds of rejection to address the language of the amended claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zhu et al (US 20130127902 A1)-discloses that removal of the object support from imaging data may be desirable during radiation treatment planning. In that situation, the object support can adversely impact the radiation dose modeling because the object support used during the imaging scan may be different from the object support used during the radiation treatment. Thus it may be advantageous to remove the object support from the imaging data before using the imaging data to plan a radiation treatment. In a further embodiment, a digital object support may then be added to the imaging data to approximate the object support which will be used during radiation treatment, for more accurate planning. (par. 2-3; See also par. 62) Sjölund (US 20210020296 A1)- discloses methods for the optimization radiotherapy treatment plans. Disclosed are various techniques to generate radiotherapy treatment plans by simplifying a first radiotherapy treatment plan optimization problem into a second radiotherapy optimization problem that is less complex than the first radiotherapy treatment plan optimization problem. Particularly, parameters of the first radiotherapy treatment plan optimization problem are processed to estimate parameters of a second radiotherapy treatment plan optimization problem and a solution to the second radiotherapy treatment plan optimization problem is generated and used to provide the radiotherapy treatment plan. Ando et al (US 20190318477 A1)-teaches a system and methods for radiation imaging storage, which includes deleting unnecessary imaging data. (par. 223-224) Riker et al (US 20050111621 A1)-discloses a system for developing and optimizing radiotherapy treatment plans. Lee et al (US 20130272593 A1) developing and modifying radiation treatment plans. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel L Porter whose telephone number is (571)272-6775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. 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. /Rachel L. Porter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 11, 2020
Application Filed
Jun 13, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 11, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 06, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jun 11, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 22, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 28, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 28, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 17, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12400748
MEDICAL DEVICE WITH DOSE HELPER FUNCTIONALITY INCLUDING TIME ZONE OR LOCATION DETERMINATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 26, 2025
Patent 12381000
DEFIBRILLATOR INCIDENT REPORTING AND DEFIBRILLATOR/EPCR INTEGRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 05, 2025
Patent 12334206
Fitness Watch Configured with Micro AI
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 17, 2025
Patent 12266428
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING SUBJECT CONDITIONS IN MOBILE HEALTH CLINICAL TRIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 01, 2025
Patent 12142381
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OFFERING PRODUCTS BASED ON MEDICAL ASSESSMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 12, 2024
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
21%
Grant Probability
42%
With Interview (+21.7%)
6y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 412 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