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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that “…the ordinarily-skilled person who reads O'Brien in its entirety will find only one reference to the word "resolution," and that one reference employs the word in a wholly different context,” the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
As identified in the previous Office Action, O’Brien teaches, at paragraph [0155], that “impedance measurements can be used to determine not only the initial dose to be applied but can also be used to determine the need for further treatment, or not.” From this statement, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the input parameters of impedance measurements are used for dose calculation resolution. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the prior art would further recognize that O’Brien teaches the limitations in claims 1 and 12 as amended.
While O’Brien does not specifically use the term “resolution” as Applicant argues, the previously presented secondary reference Huth does mention “resolution” several times of which the Applicant is silent. Huth discloses that machine parameters may define a maximum resolution achievable by the proton radiation therapy system in irradiating a patient. The optimization engine may be configured to iteratively adjust the various machine parameters to generate one or more candidate treatment plans (see paragraph [0060]).
For the above reasons, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0133401) in view of Huth et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0406060).
Consider claims 1, 10, 12, 21, O’Brien discloses a method comprising: by a control circuit (paragraph [0144], Fig. 3A, generator 104):
presenting to a user an automatic radiation treatment plan optimizer that provides preexisting accuracy input parameters, which include impedance measurements used to determine the initial dose to be applied and to determine the need for further treatment, or not (paragraph [0155]), and that includes an opportunity to select a stereotactic body radiation treatment (SBRT) planning mode (paragraph [0150], Fig. 3A, user interface 150 to allow for the operator to select a treatment algorithm (e.g., energy delivery algorithm 152), wherein the automated treatment delivery algorithm is dynamically responsive (see paragraph [0156]) and applicable to radiation therapy SBRT, (paragraph [0299]));
in response to a user selecting the SBRT planning mode, automatically overriding at least one of the preexisting accuracy input parameters by overriding impedance measurements used to determine the initial dose to be applied and to determine the need for further treatment, or not when automatically optimizing a radiation treatment plan (paragraph [0279], alerting the operator as to which energy delivery algorithm 154 has been selected, wherein the generator 104 automatically selects the appropriate algorithm for a particular measured impedance and adjust and/or terminate treatment in response to inputs such as impedance, see paragraph [0156]).
O’Brien does not specifically disclose usage of the term fractional planning dose calculation resolution.
Huth discloses fractional planning dose calculation resolution (Abstract and paragraph [0060], defining a maximum resolution where the optimization engine iteratively adjust the various machine parameters to generate one or more candidate treatment plans).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the automatic radiation treatment plan optimizer as disclosed by O’Brien with the optimization engine as taught by Huth to select a candidate treatment plan that may yield an acceptable plan quality and the shortest possible treatment time (Huth, paragraph [0060]).
Consider claims 2, 13, the combination of O’Brien and Huth discloses wherein automatically overriding at least one of the preexisting accuracy input parameters comprises, at least in part, automatically accessing an alternative parameter set (paragraph [0156], automated treatment delivery algorithm that could dynamically respond and adjust and/or terminate treatment in response to inputs such as temperature, impedance).
Consider claims 4, 15, O’Brien does not specifically disclose wherein the alternative parameter set includes, at least in part, parameters corresponding to both sampling of a structure model and dose calculation resolution.
Huth discloses wherein the alternative parameter set includes, at least in part, parameters corresponding to both sampling of a structure model (paragraph [0048], Fig. 2, statistical models 208) and dose calculation resolution (paragraph [0060], defining a maximum resolution where the optimization engine iteratively adjust the various machine parameters to generate one or more candidate treatment plans).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the automatic radiation treatment plan optimizer as disclosed by O’Brien with the optimization engine as taught by Huth to select a candidate treatment plan that may yield an acceptable plan quality and the shortest possible treatment time (Huth, paragraph [0060]).
Consider claims 5, 16, the combination of O’Brien and Huth discloses presenting to a user an opportunity to modify at least one parameter in the alternative parameter set (paragraph [0151], user interface 150 is configured to receive operator-defined inputs).
Consider claims 6, 17, the combination of O’Brien and Huth discloses wherein the alternative parameter set includes, at least in part, parameters corresponding to at least one of treatment machine configuration parameters and treatment limits parameters (paragraph [0155], impedance measurements can be used to determine the need for further treatment, or not).
Consider claims 7, 18, the combination of O’Brien and Huth discloses wherein the alternative parameter set includes, at least in part, parameters corresponding both treatment machine configuration parameters (paragraph [0151], duration of energy delivery) and treatment limits parameters (paragraph [0155], impedance measurements can be used to determine the need for further treatment, or not).
Consider claims 8, 19, O’Brien does not specifically disclose wherein the treatment limits parameters comprise, at least in part, a maximum dose rate limit and a maximum allowed monitor units limit.
Huth discloses wherein the treatment limits parameters comprise, at least in part, a maximum dose rate limit and a maximum allowed monitor units limit (paragraph [0054], minimum and maximum dose amounts).
Therefore, in order to guide the development of a radiation treatment plan, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the applied the same technique as suggested by Huth wherein the treatment limits parameters comprise, at least in part, a maximum dose rate limit and a maximum allowed monitor units limit, see teaching found in Huth, paragraph [0054].
Consider claims 9, 20, the combination of O’Brien and Huth discloses wherein when the automatic radiation treatment plan optimizer is configured to optimize radiation beam geometry, in response to a user selecting the SBRT planning mode, automatically modifying optimization of the radiation beam geometry with respect to at least one of how many fields are generated, how much arc length is covered by arc geometry, and patient support surface movement (paragraph [0299], shaped radiation beams are aimed from several angles of exposure to intersect at the tumor, providing a much larger absorbed dose there than in the surrounding, healthy tissue).
Consider claim 11, O’Brien does not specifically disclose in response to a user selecting the SBRT planning mode, automatically modifying optimization objectives when automatically optimizing the radiation treatment plan with respect to at least one of how quickly radiation dosing is required to fall-off outside a target volume, how many Monitor Units are used to generate an administered dose, and a required degree of dose distribution homogeneity inside a target volume.
Huth discloses in response to a user selecting the SBRT planning mode, automatically modifying optimization objectives when automatically optimizing the radiation treatment plan with respect to at least one of how quickly radiation dosing is required to fall-off outside a target volume, how many Monitor Units are used to generate an administered dose, and a required degree of dose distribution homogeneity inside a target volume (paragraph [0054], mean dose for particular tissue volumes (called regions of interest or ROIs), dose homogeneity, target volume dose distribution, etc.).
Therefore, in order to guide the development of a radiation treatment plan, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the applied the same technique as suggested by Huth in response to a user selecting the SBRT planning mode, automatically modifying optimization objectives when automatically optimizing the radiation treatment plan with respect to at least one of how quickly radiation dosing is required to fall-off outside a target volume, how many Monitor Units are used to generate an administered dose, and a required degree of dose distribution homogeneity inside a target volume, see teaching found in Huth, paragraph [0054].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miettinen et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0087385) discloses using coarser calculation resolution when accounting for radiation dosing of the given patient.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of 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 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 GERALD JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Carey Michael can be reached at (571)270-7235. 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.
/Gerald Johnson/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797