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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The action is in response to claims dated 2/12/2025.
Claims pending in the case: 1-17
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 1 and 11 recites a elements that are software per se. There is no associated structural component within the claimed limitations, and as such the claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
All claims dependent on this/these claims, is/are also rejected due to their direct or indirect dependencies.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1 Analysis
According to the first part of the analysis, the instant case all claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1, Step 2A Prong 2, and Step 2B Analysis
Independent Claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
- … predict based at least in part on the input image, a predicted dose distribution associated with a first planning technique or first treatment modality (This is prescribing treatment based on image data by a physician. This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This is a recitation of a mental process.) ; and
- … compare a planned dose distribution as per a current treatment plan with the predicted dose distribution, to obtain a comparison result (This is comparing information and is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This is a recitation of a mental process.).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- an input interface for (This is a recitation of generic computer components to be used in performing the abstract idea, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).) receiving an input image (This is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Moreover, sending, receiving, storing and retrieving information is well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited at MPEP 2106.05(d), example i. Receiving or transmitting data and iv. Storing and retrieving information and MPEP 2106.05(g), example iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions) ;
- a machine learning module
- a comparator to compare (This is a high level recitation of generic computer components for applying a result of the abstract idea. The computer is used merely as a tool to implement an existing process. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
These claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent Claims 12, 15 and 17, are similar in scope as claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. The additional elements of “A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored there on a computer program” in claim 17 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (This is a high level recitation of generic computer components for applying a result of the abstract idea. The computer is used merely as a tool to implement an existing process. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).).
The dependent claims recite at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends and recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2-4, 8 pertain to displaying content (This is insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, displaying information for user interaction is well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited at MPEP 2106.05(a), x. An improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and MPEP 2106.05(g), iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Dependent claim 5-6, 10 pertain to comparing, re-planning and scheduling treatment (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation. This is a further recitation of a mental process.)
Dependent claim 7, 9-11, 13, 16 pertain to training and using machine learning model at a very high level (This high level recitation of the machine learning model is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. It only appears to amount to the use of a generically recited, off the shelf component, as a tool to implement the process and is not an inventive concept. Since the model is used merely as a tool to implement an existing process, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).).
The dependent claims therefore, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
Hence these claims are rejected as being abstract.
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, 7-8, 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordero (US 20150095043) in view of Purdie (US 20160140300).
Regarding Claim 1, Cordero teaches, A computing system for replanning decision support in therapy (Cordero: [2]: “treatment planning for radiation therapy and is more particularly directed to dose prediction models for generating a treatment plan”, comprising:
- … receiving an input image (Cordero: [5, 65]: start with images of the treatment);
- a machine learning module
- a comparator compare a planned dose distribution as per a current treatment plan with the predicted dose distribution, to obtain a comparison result (Cordero: [52, 63, 66]: compare treatment plans and does dose distribution);
Although obvious, Cordero does not recite, an input interface;
Purdie teaches, an input interface (Purdie: [18, 22, 71]: user interface for visualization and user input);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cordero and Purdie because the combination would improve the system by enabling development of treatment plans including input from user by means of an user interface as is common in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Cordero and Purdie teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, including a graphics display generator
Regarding claim 7, Cordero and Purdie teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teach, wherein the machine learning module is one of a plurality of such modules, with different ones of the plurality of machine learning modules respectively associated with different planning techniques and/or different treatment modalities, the
Regarding claim 8, Cordero and Purdie teach the invention as claimed in claim 7 above and, comprising a user interface for the user to select a different machine learning module from the plurality, and the system
Regarding claim 10, Cordero and Purdie teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the comparison result is used by a treatment outcome predictor to estimate a treatment outcome (Cordero: [65]: treatment plan based on comparison of predicted dose to actual dose).
Regarding claim 11, Cordero and Purdie teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, a computing system for training, based on training data, a machine learning module as per claims 1 (Cordero: [74, 91]: training model) (Purdie: [54, 81, 94]: training and learning).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, 15, 17 this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 1. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 13-14, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 11. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 16 this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 7. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3-4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordero (US 20150095043) and Purdie (US 20160140300) in view of Yuan (US 20200155868).
Regarding claim 3, Cordero and Purdie teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, Yuan further teaches, wherein the comparison result is displayed in association with the input image (Yuan: [90, 92]: display images with associated data);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cordero, Purdie and Yuan because the combination would improve the system by displaying information along with the details of the images for clarity and better understanding.
Regarding claim 4, Cordero, Purdie and Yuan teach the invention as claimed in claim 3 above and, wherein the comparison result is displayed globally for the whole input image or locally per image element or locally (Yuan: [90, 92]: display images with associated data; [65-66]: comparing images may compare image patch features).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordero (US 20150095043) and Purdie (US 20160140300) in view of Cordero2 (US 20190232087).
Regarding claim 5, Cordero and Purdie teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, Cordero2 further teaches, wherein, in response to the comparison result, or in response to a user request, a re-planning module of the system computes a new treatment plan, if there is a dosimetric benefit as per the comparison result (Cordero2: [73, 78]: replanning based on comparison result).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cordero, Purdie and Cordero2 because the arts pertain to the same field and the combination would allows comparison of patient geometry to determine re-planning of treatment more efficiently by automating some of the involved processes (see Cordero2 [4-5]).
Regarding claim 6, Cordero and Purdie teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, Cordero2 further teach, including a scheduler to schedule a new image session and/or a new re-planning session using the same or a planning technique, and/or new treatment session with the same or a new treatment modality (Cordero2: [58, 80]: process may be repeated).
The same motivation to combine stated above applies.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordero (US 20150095043) and Purdie (US 20160140300) in view of Lou (US 20200069973).
Regarding claim 9, Cordero and Purdie teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, Lou further teaches, the machine learning module, or a further machine learning module that predicts an image representing anatomical changes due to applicable
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cordero, Purdie and Lou because the arts pertain to the same field and the combination would improve the system and make it more user friendly by using an image to illustrate the treatment outcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDRITA BRAHMACHARI whose telephone number is (571)272-9735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11 am to 8 pm 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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571 272 4241. 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.
/Mandrita Brahmachari/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144