DETAILED ACTION
This action is a response to the filing on 12/16/2025. Examiner acknowledges the amendment made to claims 1, 8, 12, 19, and 23.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/8/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/16/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 112 rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 with regards to the 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A- Prong 1
Applicant argues the pending claims are not directed to a judicial exception and states that it cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Examiner would agree with Applicant if the argued limitations were present in the claim, specifically the use of geometric heart modeling or computational modeling with data sets along with the other limitations. In addition, there is no mention of datasets in the claim, only images. Absent the geometric/computational modeling or the datasets, a human animator could perform the steps in their mind and draw the model using pen/pencil and paper and the iterative refining would be the animator erasing and redrawing parts of the pictures in the animation.
In addition, as a whole, the claim is still directed to a prediction with no actual implementation of that prediction. A prediction does not actually improve anything until it is used for something which leaves it in the realm of mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Applicant argues that the claims improve the field of radiation therapy. Examiner disagrees. Based on how the claim is currently written, the claim as a whole does not improve the field of cardiac radiation therapy. Examiner would agree if the limitations being argued were present in the claim. The First argument would still fall within the realm of extra-solution data gathering. The Second argument would have weight if updating mechanical property estimates was part of the claim. The Third and Fourth arguments disclose integrating into radiation planning software to configure physical beam systems and enables precise targeting; however, nothing in the claim mentions the modeling and prediction being integrated into the radiation planning software, which would cause the improvement and overcome the 101 rejection.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner would agree if the argued ordered combination of limitations were present in the claims. The claims currently do not mention the argues use of a geometric heart mesh and the iterative refinement of mechanical properties.
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.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 12 is directed to a system, and claim 23 is directed towards an article of manufacture which makes them statutory.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 12, and 23 are involved in the prediction process which can be considered a mental process. Specifically, the generating, estimating, iterative refining, identifying, and determining steps mentioned in the claim encompass mental processes as they can be performed in a person’s mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claim 1 does not recite additional components. Claims 12 and 23 recite the presence of a computer and/or memory, but these simply amount to the abstract idea being implemented on a generic computer.
The process as a whole can be implemented by a human using pen/pencil and paper to perform the limitations. Note that without further details, the iterative refining step can still be done via pen/pencil and paper. As currently written, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it does not implement the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease condition, cause a transformation, or improves the functioning of a computer/machine.
Step 2B: As currently written, claims 1, 12, and 23 are not significantly more than the abstract idea. First, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it does not implement the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease condition, cause a transformation, or improves the functioning of a computer/machine. Second, the claim limitations as whole are for “predicting” which is a mental process and that prediction is not being implemented, which leaves the method in the abstract idea space. Third, the additional components noted in claims 12 and 23 are components of a generic computer, which makes the claims an abstract idea being implemented on a generic computer. Thus, the claim limitations taken individually or as a whole are directed to a mental process.
Claims 2-11 and 13-22 do not recite additional components that are significantly more than the abstract idea or recite additional mental processes and thus are not more than the abstract idea and are likewise rejected.
Note that depending on how a step that step that integrates the determined location of the ROI into a radiotherapy treatment plan for cardiac ablation to be executed is claimed, the limitation would potentially overcome the 101 rejections.
Conclusion
The examiner notes that, though no art has been applied against claims 1-23 at this time, they are not presently allowable. The question of prior art will be revisited upon resolution of the numerous issues noted above.
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 JOSHUA DARYL DEANON LANNU whose telephone number is (571)270-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 5 PM, Friday 8 AM -12 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 Marmor can be reached at (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.
/JOSHUA DARYL D LANNU/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791