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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 and 30 are now pending. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 3, 6, 8 and 9, as well as the addition of claim 30.
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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 14, “includes- hundreds“ should apparently read –includes hundreds--; at line 35 “of treatment plan” should apparently read –of the treatment plan--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 at lines 13-14 recites “a dose distribution that includes hundreds of data points”. While the specification as originally filed has support for “each radiation treatment produces hundreds of important data points,” it does not provide support for the more limiting claim of “a dose distribution that includes hundreds of data points”.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 30 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 at lines 13-14 recites “a dose distribution that includes hundreds of data points”. The term “hundreds” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 at line 27 recites “features of the treatment plan”. It is unclear if these are the same as or different than “features of the treatment plan” recited in previous line 26.
At line 28 of claim 1, it is unclear if “corresponding features of the predefined treatment classes” are the same as or different than “features of the predefined treatment classes” recited in previous line 26.
Claim 1 at lines 33-34 recites the limitation "the….confidence value". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that line 33 recites “confidence level”. However, in light of the specification, it appears that line 33 should recited –confidence value-- as in line 34.
At line 34 of claim 1, it is unclear if “a threshold value” is the same as or different than “threshold value” recited at line 32.
At lines 35-36 of claim 1, it is unclear which “the threshold value” is being referenced as lines 31-32 recites “a corresponding threshold value” and line 34 recites “a threshold value”.
At line 39 of claim 1, it is unclear if “a patient” is the same as or different than “a subject” recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 at line 39 recites the limitation "the radiation therapy plan". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6 and 7 are indefinite as they depend from a cancelled claim 15. For purposes of examination, claim 6 will be construed as dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 6 at line 3 recites the limitation "the user interface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 at line 2 recites the limitation "the action". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
At line 4 of claim 7, it is unclear if “a machine learning model” is the same as or different than “a machine learning model” recited at line 22 of claim 1.
Claim 10 at line 2 recites the limitation "the action". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 at line 2 recites the limitation "the plurality of action". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 24 March 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered, however new grounds of rejection are presented above in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 24 March 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 101 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
Prosecution Insights