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. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 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 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 2 , 14, 21 and 22 are directed to a method for determining a treatment for treating a target ; or determining treatment data. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. It would be practically performable in a human's mind, with pen or paper, to acquire patient image data; target data; position data describing a position of a patient support device; determine target projection data based on the target and position data; acquire margin data; determine outline data based on the target projection data and margin data; determine beam shaping data; determine irradiation data based on the image and beam shaping data; acquire constraint data describing data to be fulfilled by the treatment; and determining the treatment based on the irradiation and constraint data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because such "acquiring" and "determining" steps are based on analyzing information and making a determination for the treatment which is akin to observation, evaluation or judgement that defines the mental process grouping. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim s 2 and 22 essentially recite a computer ("computer-implemented method"). Claim 14 recites a medical system comprising a computer having a processor to execute instructions of a program to perform operations/steps similar to claims 2 and 22. Claim 21 recites a non-transitory storage medium having instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations/steps similar to claims 2 and 22. Thus, the computer /processors/storage mediums/ program s are all recited at a high level of generality. Claim s 2 and 22 merely recite mental steps /instructions of determining a treatment /treatment data and do not actually even recite the computer itself , or the processors/storage mediums/programs which cause a computer to perform the recited method steps . M ere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. When considered individually and in combination, the claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 2 recites a "method of determining a treatment for at least one target by emitting irradiation by a beam source through a beam shaping device in an irradiation direction movable around a movable patient support device" and claim 22 recites a "method for emitting irradiation by a beam source through a beam shaping device in an irradiation direction movable around a movable patient support device" however this does not constitute a positive recitation of such devices and the method does not integrate application of such devices or utilize such devices in the application of treatment. Claims 2 and 22 recites “generating a control signal for emitting the irradiation to be emitted by the beam source according to the treatment”, and “generating a control signal for causing emission of the irradiation by the beam source according to the treatment data,” respectively, however generation of a control signal is a generic function of a computer , and the recitation of “causing emission” of the beam source according to the treatment data, absent any further specification, amounts to no more than merely adding a step of “apply it” (or equivalent thereof) with respect to the beam source. Thus, claims 2 and 22 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 14 recites a medical system comprising at least one computer having at least one processor operable to execute instructions of a computer program , and " generating a control signal for emitting the irradiation to be emitted by the beam source according to the treatment " however such is not a recitation of effecting a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition. Such a recitation is an intended use of the beam source and not a particular application of such which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, recitation of generation of a control signal is a generic function of a computer. Claim 21 recites a non-transitory storage medium having instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations/steps similar to claims 2 and 22, and "generating a control signal for emitting the irradiation to be emitted by the beam source according to the treatment" however such is not a recitation of effecting a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition. Such a recitation is an intended use of the beam source and not a particular application of such which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, generation of a control signal is a generic function of a computer. Claims 3-13 and 15-20 do not recite elements that can be considered as significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim s 3 and 15 only further define what the margin data entails . Claim s 4 and 16 only further define what the target projection data entails (“corresponding simulated beam direction”) . Claim 5 merely recite acquisition of further data. Claim s 6-8 and 18-20 only further define what the path data entails (“one or more control points” or “monitor units”). Claim 9 merely recites a mental determination of a configuration of the beam shaping device. Claim 10 only further define what the path data entails , and a mental determination of each of the one or more arc weights. Claim 11 only further limits what data the treatment is determined by, which can be performed mentally. Claim 12 only further define what the constraint data entails. Claim 13 recites generation of further auxiliary treatment steps based on target dose data and irradiation data , and selection of one or more of the auxiliary treatment steps, however such selection can be done in the mind and amounts to mental determination steps based on the various types of data, then (mentally) selecting one of the treatment steps based on rating da ta. None of these steps contribute to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 17 merely recite acquisition of further data , but for the recitation of a generic processing component (which is addressed above with respect to claim 14). Claim s 2 , 14, 21 and 22 recite the intended use of “ additional element s” such as a beam source, a beam shaping device and a movable patient support device, however the following evidence is provided to show such elements are well-understood, routine and conventional: U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0146141 to Svatos discloses a radiation treatment apparatus comprising a treatment beam source, a beam shaping device and a patient support device (Fig. 1 and [0022], [0023] and [0045]); and Willcut et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,764,162) discloses a radiation treatment apparatus comprising a treatment beam source, a beam shaping device and a patient support device (Figs. 2B-2D and col. 19, lines 57-65 - col. 20, lines 1-29). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 5. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. 6. Claim s 13 -21 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. 7. Claim 13 at line 7 recites the limitation "the sum of all simulated irradiation doses". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 8. Claim 14 at line 6 recites the limitation "the patient support device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 9. Claim 14 at line 7 recites the limitation "the irradiation direction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 10. Claim 14 at lines 26-27 recites the limitation "the beam shaping device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 11. Claim 14 at line 35 recites the limitation "the treatment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 12. Claim 14 at lines 37-38 recites the limitation "the beam source". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 13. Claim 21 at line 6 recites the limitation "the patient support device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 14. Claim 21 at line 7 recites the limitation "the irradiation direction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 15. Claim 21 at lines 26-27 recites the limitation "the beam shaping device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 16. Claim 21 at line 35 recites the limitation "the treatment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 17. Claim 21 at lines 37-38 recites the limitation "the beam source". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Double Patenting 18. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . 19. Claims 2- 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1 -6 and 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,497,934 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : claims 2-13 and 22 are unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5 and 6 of the disclosed patent ; claims 14-20 are unpatentable over claim 14 of the disclosed patent; and claim 21 is unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6 and 13 of the disclosed patent. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0123813; and U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0270426. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9058 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Charles A Marmor, II can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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