DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 14 August 2026. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-12, 14, 17-20 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 17.
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
Claims 7, 11, 14, 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 7 recites “a particular location” in lines 1-2. Examiner recommends amending to –the particular location—
-Claim 11 recites “control circuit” in line 6. Examiner recommends amending to –multi-criteria optimizer control circuit—
-Claim 14 recites “control circuit” in line 1. Examiner recommends amending to –multi-criteria optimizer control circuit—
-Claim 17 recites “a particular location” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –the particular location—
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-12, 14, 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tallinen (U.S. 20190083814) in view of Li (U.S. 20230128148).
Regarding Claim 1, Tallinen teaches a method comprising: by a multi-criteria optimizer control circuit configured to generate radiation therapy treatment plans [0001], [0065; “programmable integrated circuits… controls”]: generating a radiation therapy treatment plan [Abstract; “generation of VMAT treatment plans”]; determining resultant dose distribution as a function of the radiation therapy treatment plan [0047-0048]; presenting on a display at least a part of the resultant dose distribution as an isodose line [Fig. 9, element 900 (GUI screen)] and [0051]; detecting user manipulation of a user interface that comprises a mouse interface [0050; “user can move…mouse”], wherein the user manipulation comprises: - selection of a particular cursor [0051; “This interpolation…interactive operation…user can adjust a slider…908.”]; and modifying a dose value at a particular location on the isodose line that corresponds to a location of the particular cursor to provide a modified dose value [0044; “Via a graphical user interface…alternative plans”] finalizing an optimized radiation therapy treatment plan [0055]—reference to final deliverable plan; and delivering therapeutic energy to a patient's tumor using the optimized radiation therapy treatment plan [0036], [0042] and [0032]—definition corresponding to delivery of energy to patient’s tumor site.
Tallinen is silent on without also simultaneously moving the isodose line; - movement of a scroll wheel that comprises a part of the mouse interface; responsive to the movement of the scroll wheel. Li teaches without also simultaneously moving the isodose line [0176]-describes using the control cursor to position the cursor in the center of the dose sphere to display an adjustment indicator bar, interpreting this to mean that the control cursor does not include movement of the distribution but rather an adjustment indicator bar and further discussion in [Fig. 20]—describes determination of action event of a mouse which determines dose sphere information and displays dose adjust indication bar and whether the cursor is in the sphere. During these steps it can be understood that while these steps are executed, simultaneous movement of the isodose line is not completed; - movement of a scroll wheel that comprises a part of the mouse interface [0170; “the third action event could be scrolling a wheel of the mouse,”]; responsive to the movement of the scroll wheel [0170].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define movement of the adjustment as separate from the presented resultant dose distribution as taught by Li to display outcomes as suggested by Tallinen as Tallinen discusses providing visual feedback regarding outcomes updating these regions in real time to adjust and view the effect in the regions [0051] with Li because Li teaches allowing for various ways of dose editing and different mouse events completing different functions [0177].
Regarding Claim 2, Tallinen further teaches wherein the radiation therapy treatment plan comprises a photon therapy treatment plan [0070].
Regarding Claim 4, Tallinen is silent on wherein the user manipulation of the user interface does not result in dragged movement of the isodose line on the display. Li teaches wherein the user manipulation of the user interface does not result in dragged movement of the isodose line on the display [0179]—describes dragged movement of an indicator bar with subsequent steps 3)-10 describe further adjustment of dose values and algorithms processing these values and saving to the database.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not include dragged movement of the mouse in the user manipulation of the user interface as taught by Li to consider when displaying specific data sets as suggested by Tallinen as Tallinen discusses automation features to allow for automatic adjustment based on treatment objectives [0050] with Li because Li teaches using a separate action of the mouse (i.e. clicking and releasing) to adjust the dose value [0179].
Regarding Claim 7, Tallinen is silent on wherein modifying the dose value at a particular location on the isodose line comprises increasing the dose value when the user manipulates the scroll wheel in a first direction of rotation and decreasing the dose value when the user manipulates the scroll wheel in a second direction of rotation that is opposite to the first direction of rotation. Li teaches wherein modifying the dose value at a particular location on the isodose line comprises increasing the dose value when the user manipulates the scroll wheel in a first direction of rotation and decreasing the dose value when the user manipulates the scroll wheel in a second direction of rotation that is opposite to the first direction of rotation [0178]—reference to scrolling and manipulating the mouse to scroll up and down to increase and decrease the adjustable dose.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a scroll wheel to increase and decrease dose information as taught by Li to implement when using a mouse as suggested by Tallinen as Tallinen discusses effects of adjustments on dose distribution [0048] with Li because Li teaches the use of the scrolling mechanism kept within upper and lower limits of adjustable dosages [0178].
Regarding Claim 8, Tallinen further teaches further comprising: presenting on the display at least one of: the modified dose value [0052]; a corresponding modified dose distribution [0051]; and a dose dependent statistic [0051].
Regarding Claim 10, Tallinen further teaches further comprising: reconsidering the radiation therapy treatment plan as a function of the modified dose value [0062].
Regarding Claim 11, Tallinen teaches an apparatus comprising: a display [Fig. 9, element 900 (GUI screen)]; a user interface [0053; “user interacting with GUI screen”]; a multi-criteria optimizer control circuit [0001], [0065; “programmable integrated circuits… controls”] operably coupled to the display and to the user interface and configured to generate radiation therapy treatment plans [0065; “programmable integrated circuits… controls”] and [0001], wherein the control circuit is further configured to: generate a radiation therapy treatment plan [Abstract; “generation of VMAT treatment plans”]; determine resultant dose distribution as a function of the radiation therapy treatment plan [0047-0048]; present on the display at least a part of the resultant dose distribution as an isodose line [Fig. 9, element 900 (GUI screen)] and [0051]; detect user manipulation of the user interface [0050; “user can move…mouse”] that comprises: - selection of a particular cursor [0051; “This interpolation…interactive operation…user can adjust a slider…908.”]; and modifying a dose value at a particular location on the isodose line that corresponds to a location of the particular cursor to provide a modified dose value [0044; “Via a graphical user interface…alternative plans”]; finalize an optimized radiation therapy treatment plan [0055]—reference to final deliverable plan; and facilitate delivering therapeutic energy to a patient's tumor using the optimized radiation therapy treatment plan [0036], [0042] and [0032]—definition corresponding to delivery of energy to patient’s tumor site.
Tallinen is silent on - movement of a scroll wheel that comprises a part of the user interface; responsive to the movement of the scroll wheel, without also simultaneously moving the isodose line. Li teaches - movement of a scroll wheel that comprises a part of the user interface [0170]; responsive to the movement of the scroll wheel [0170], without also simultaneously moving the isodose line [0176]-describes using the control cursor to position the cursor in the center of the dose sphere to display an adjustment indicator bar, interpreting this to mean that the control cursor does not include movement of the distribution but rather an adjustment indicator bar and further discussion in [Fig. 20]—describes determination of action event of a mouse which determines dose sphere information and displays dose adjust indication bar and whether the cursor is in the sphere. During these steps it can be understood that while these steps are executed, simultaneous movement of the isodose line is not completed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define movement of the adjustment as separate from the presented resultant dose distribution as taught by Li to display outcomes as suggested by Tallinen as Tallinen discusses providing visual feedback regarding outcomes updating these regions in real time to adjust and view the effect in the regions [0051] with Li because Li teaches allowing for various ways of dose editing and different mouse events completing different functions [0177].
Regarding Claim 12, Tallinen further teaches wherein the radiation therapy treatment plan comprises a photon therapy treatment plan [0070].
Regarding Claim 14, Tallinen is silent on wherein the control circuit is further configured such that the user manipulation of the user interface does not result in dragged movement of the isodose line on the display. Li teaches wherein the control circuit is further configured such that the user manipulation of the user interface does not result in dragged movement of the isodose line on the display [0179]—describes dragged movement of an indicator bar with subsequent steps 3)-10 describe further adjustment of dose values and algorithms processing these values and saving to the database.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not include dragged movement of the mouse in the user manipulation of the user interface as taught by Li to consider when displaying specific data sets as suggested by Tallinen as Tallinen discusses automation features to allow for automatic adjustment based on treatment objectives [0050] with Li because Li teaches using a separate action of the mouse (i.e. clicking and releasing) to adjust the dose value [0179].
Regarding Claim 17, Tallinen is silent on wherein the control circuit is configured to modify the dose value at a particular location on the isodose line as a function of the user manipulation of the user interface by increasing the dose value when the user manipulates the scroll wheel in a first direction of rotation and decreasing the dose value when the user manipulates the scroll wheel in a second direction of rotation that is opposite to the first direction of rotation. Li teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to modify the dose value at a particular location on the isodose line as a function of the user manipulation of the user interface by increasing the dose value when the user manipulates the scroll wheel in a first direction of rotation and decreasing the dose value when the user manipulates the scroll wheel in a second direction of rotation that is opposite to the first direction of rotation [0178]—reference to scrolling and manipulating the mouse to scroll up and down to increase and decrease the adjustable dose.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a scroll wheel to increase and decrease dose information as taught by Li to implement when using a mouse as suggested by Tallinen as Tallinen discusses effects of adjustments on dose distribution [0048] with Li because Li teaches the use of the scrolling mechanism kept within upper and lower limits of adjustable dosages [0178].
Regarding Claim 18, Tallinen further teaches wherein the control circuit is further configured to: present on the display at least one of: the modified dose value [0052]; a corresponding modified dose distribution [0051]; and a dose dependent statistic [0051].
Regarding Claim 20, Tallinen further teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to: reconsider the radiation therapy treatment plan as a function of the modified dose value [0062].
Claim(s) 9, 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tallinen (U.S. 20190083814) in view of Li (U.S. 20230128148) and in further view of Sintay (U.S. 20210146161).
Regarding Claim 9, Tallinen and Li are silent on further comprising:
before modifying the dose value at the particular location on the isodose line, automatically determining when the user's manipulation of the user interface results in an unpermitted dose value and responsively, when such is true, not modifying the dose value at the particular location on the isodose line and providing an alert regarding the unpermitted dose value. Sintay teaches further comprising:
before modifying the dose value at the particular location on the isodose line, automatically determining when the user's manipulation of the user interface results in an unpermitted dose value and responsively, when such is true, not modifying the dose value at the particular location on the isodose line and providing an alert regarding the unpermitted dose value [0054]—includes a scenario where the result is outside of range and flagged with an alert generated immediately.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an alert or alarm as taught by Sintay to maintain parameters related to safety and efficiency throughout the radiation therapy cycle as suggested by Tallinen and Li, as Tallinen discloses the ability of the user to accept or continue to explore the treatment space [0062] and Li which discusses the need for increased efficiency in planning and design of the treatment processes [0005] with Sintay because Sintay teaches the need to automate the planning review process which is currently largely manual and complex [0003].
Regarding Claim 19, Tallinen and Li are silent on wherein the control circuit is further configured to: before modifying the dose value at the particular location on the isodose line, automatically determine when the user's manipulation of the user interface results in an unpermitted dose value and responsively, when such is true, not modify the dose value at the particular location on the isodose line and provide an alert regarding the unpermitted dose value. Sintay teaches wherein the control circuit is further configured to:
before modifying the dose value at the particular location on the isodose line, automatically determine when the user's manipulation of the user interface results in an unpermitted dose value and responsively, when such is true, not modify the dose value at the particular location on the isodose line and provide an alert regarding the unpermitted dose value [0054]—includes a scenario where the result is outside of range and flagged with an alert generated immediately.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an alert or alarm as taught by Sintay to maintain parameters related to safety and efficiency throughout the radiation therapy cycle as suggested by Tallinen and Li, as Tallinen discloses the ability of the user to accept or continue to explore the treatment space [0062] and Li which discusses the need for increased efficiency in planning and design of the treatment processes [0005] with Sintay because Sintay teaches the need to automate the planning review process which is currently largely manual and complex [0003].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2026 with respect to the abstract and claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the
amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation has been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101
rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 14 August 2026 with respect to the rejection of
claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-12, 14, 17-18, 20 under 35 U.S.C.103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 and 11, applicant contends that Tallinen does not teach “interacting with the aforementioned isodose lines.” Examiner notes that this limitation is not found within the claim language. Also, the applicant contradicts this argument in the statement “hence corresponding changes to the DVH curves and isodose lines.” This statement renders this argument moot, since this is describing an interaction or manipulation involving changes to DVH and isodose lines and curves. Fig. 9 shows a representation of the GUI indicating isodose lines and is referenced in the body of the rejection.
Further, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “interacting with the aforementioned isodose lines”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further contends that Li also does not teach “interaction with isodose lines”. While the disclosed prior art discusses interaction with a model in [0171], this reference speaks to causing a change and subsequent alteration to a DVH, and/or isodose line which is found in the limitation “responsive to the movement…modifying a dose value…and provide a modified dose value without simultaneously moving the isodose line.
Further, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “interaction with isodose lines”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In view of the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-12, 14, 17-18, 20 citing Tallinen in view of Li are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 14 August 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 9 and 19 citing Tallinen in view of Li and in further view of Sintay are maintained.
Conclusion
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 BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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, Charles Marmor II 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights