DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 3/3/2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 5, 12, 14-15 and 17-20 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claim 1 and 3-20 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejection previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §101. As such, said rejection is herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Kim et al. (US 2014/0019100) and Peri et al. (US 2023/0001234) teach a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by at least one electronic processor to perform a radiation therapy (RT) treatment decision method. Kim et al. and Peri et al. do not teach “option using a first spatial resolution,” "optimizing a clinical RT plan for the final RT option using a second spatial resolution that is finer than the first spatial resolution...,” etc. Therefore, the Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0002]) that the process of selecting an appropriate palliative radiotherapy (PRT) regime is a challenging task. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by/through performing radiation therapy (RT) treatment plan section using the steps of “determining initial scores, displaying scores, optimizing plans, determining toxicity metrics, determining scores, displaying scores, optimizing plans,” etc. Applicant’s method/computer readable medium/apparatus is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 12 and 17 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “performing radiation therapy (RT) treatment plan section,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0007]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, method/computer readable medium/apparatus for performing the steps of “determining initial scores, displaying scores, optimizing plans, determining toxicity metrics, determining scores, displaying scores, optimizing plans,” etc., that is “performing radiation therapy (RT) treatment plan section,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. RT device, patient screening device, electronic processing device, workstation, user input device, display device, non-transitory storage media, graphical user interface (Applicant’s Specification [0028]-[0031]), etc.) to perform steps of “determining initial scores, displaying scores, optimizing plans, determining toxicity metrics, determining scores, displaying scores, optimizing plans,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1 and 3-20 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations (i.e. RT device, patient screening device, electronic processing device, workstation, user input device, display device, non-transitory storage media, graphical user interface, etc.) only store and retrieve information and perform repetitive calculations, and these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (Berkheimer- Court Decisions). These court decisions indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. RT device, patient screening device, electronic processing device, workstation, user input device, display device, non-transitory storage media, graphical user interface, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0028]-[0031], Applicant’s specification describes conventional computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “RT device, patient screening device, electronic processing device, workstation, user input device, display device, non-transitory storage media, graphical user interface,” etc. to perform the functions of “determining initial scores, displaying scores, optimizing plans, determining toxicity metrics, determining scores, displaying scores, optimizing plans,” etc. The recited “RT device, patient screening device, electronic processing device, workstation, user input device, display device, non-transitory storage media, graphical user interface,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-20 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 3-11, 13-16 and 18-20 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 3-11, 13-16 and 18-20 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 3-11, 13-16 and 18-20 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interaction, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claims 1, 12 and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/3/2026 with respect to claims 1 and 3-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 3/3/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/3/2026 with respect to claims 1 and 3-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
Rehash
Applicant's remarks and arguments merely rehash issues addressed in the Office Action mailed 12/5/2025 and incorporated herein.
Applicant’s Amendments
Applicant amended claims recite “converting one or more parameters of the optimized clinical RT plan to one or more physically realizable multileaf collimator (MLC) settings,” “transmitting the one or more physically realizable MLC settings converted from the one or more parameters to control a multileaf collimator to shape a radiation beam based on the one or more MLC settings for delivering radiation therapy to the patient, “causing an RT device to deliver radiation therapy using the one or more MLC settings.” These are information processing steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea and do not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Data Processing Step
Applicant’s amended steps of “converting one or more parameters of the optimized clinical RT plan to one or more physically realizable multileaf collimator (MLC) settings,” “transmitting the one or more physically realizable MLC settings converted from the one or more parameters to control a multileaf collimator to shape a radiation beam based on the one or more MLC settings for delivering radiation therapy to the patient, “causing an RT device to deliver radiation therapy using the one or more MLC settings,” are abstract compurational steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea. In Electric Power Group the collection, manipulation and display of data has been found to be an abstract process. When claims, such as Applicant’s claims, are “directed to an abstract idea” and “merely requir[e] generic computer implementation,” they “do[] not move into [§] 101 eligibility territory.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, analysis of information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, is essentially a mental processes within the abstract-idea category (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354). Further, Applicant appears to be claiming generic computer implementation of a certain method of organsing human interaction. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Intended Use
Applicant’s Specification at [0028] recites “With reference to FIG. 1, an illustrative apparatus 10 for performing an RT treatment decision method or process is diagrammatically shown. The apparatus 10 can be used in conjunction with an associated RT device 12” and at [0044] recites “The clinical RT plan 34 is used for delivery of the RT treatment to the patient using the RT device 12.” Applicant’s Specification is reciting the intended use of an RT device 12 but does not actively recite the use of RT device 12.
Information Processing Step – Converting Parameters and Setting.
Applicant’s Specification at [0044] recites “As is known in the art, developing the deliverable RT plan may involve converting optimization parameters to physically realizable parameters. For example, if the dose optimization employs beamlet parameters these may be converted to physically realizable multileaf collimator (MLC) settings of the RT device 12. These are information processing steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea and do not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applying RT Fractions
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification at [0044] recites the step of “…subsequent to applying at least one RT fraction to the patient…” However, it would be up to the Applicant to link this step to Applicant’s element RT device 12 and Applicant’s converting parameters and settings steps.
Integration into a Practical Application
Integration into a practical application requires additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (e.g. Enfish, McRO and Vanda) (2019 PEG).
Applicant’s “RT device, patient screening device, electronic processing device, workstation, user input device, display device, non-transitory storage media, graphical user interface” is/are not an additional element(s) that reflects in the an improvement in the functioning of a computer, is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, is/are not an additional element(s) that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or things, and is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment for the reasons explained in the 101 rejection above. Applicant’s “RT device, patient screening device, electronic processing device, workstation, user input device, display device, non-transitory storage media, graphical user interface” is/are merely tools used by Applicant to implement data processing. Data processing is an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvements – Advantageous over previous methods
The test for patent-eligible subject matter is not whether the claims are advantageous over previous methods. Even if Applicant’s claims provide advantages over manual collection of data, Applicant’s claims no technological improvement beyond improvement beyond the use of generic computer components/a generic computer network. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvements
Despite recitation of RT device, patient screening device, electronic processing device, workstation, user input device, display device, non-transitory storage media, graphical user interface, Applicant’s claims are, at bottom, directed to the collection, organization, grouping and storage of data using techniques such as information processing. The RT device, patient screening device, electronic processing device, workstation, user input device, display device, non-transitory storage media, graphical user interface recited in Applicant’s claims are merely tools used for organizing human activity, and are not an improvement to computer technology. This, the claims do not present any specific improvement in computer capabilities. Applicant’s arguments are nothing more than conclusory statements unmoored from specific claim language. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant claims the improvement of “increases computational efficiency while maintaining treatment accuracy,” etc. It has been held that it is not enough to merely improve a fundamental practices or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool (Affinity Labs. of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation). In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), it was held that “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible. In SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC it was held that patent directed to “selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying results,” are ineligible, and claims focused on an improvement in wholly abstract ideas are ineligible. Further, invocation of “already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be in advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional” (SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC). Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) for rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set for 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 extension free 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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, ROBERT W. MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights