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 7/16/2026.
Claims pending in the case: 1-17
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) and Laaksonen (EP 3628372).
Laaksonen not used in the prior action.
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 one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Cordero: [101-103]), cause the one or more processors to:
receive an input image the input image being a control image of a patient acquired during a course of treatment delivered according to a current treatment plan (Cordero: [5, 65]: start with images of the treatment);
predict, using a machine learning module executed by the one or more processors and based at least in part on the input image, a predicted dose distribution associated with a first planning technique or first treatment modality (Cordero: [5, 26, 47, 64, 72]: use machine learning model for prediction); and
compute a difference map between a planned dose distribution as per the current treatment plan and the predicted dose distribution (Cordero: [67, 72]: [67: “a difference between an accumulated dose and an expected dose”- compare current dose and expected dose);
produce a comparison result from the difference map, … re-planning the current treatment plan (Cordero: [72-73]: comparison result to determine the re-plan information based on threshold);
determine, from the comparison result, that re-planning the current treatment plan yields the dosimetric benefit (Cordero: [72-73]: comparison result to determine a re-plan – it is obvious that re-plan is to yield benefit); and
compute, responsive to the determination, a new treatment plan (Cordero: [52, 63, 66]: compare treatment plans and does dose distribution);
Cordero does not specifically teach,
the comparison result quantifying a dosimetric benefit of re-planning the current treatment plan;
Laaksonen teaches, the comparison result quantifying a dosimetric benefit of re-planning the current treatment plan (Laaksonen: [9, 67-68]: the threshold determining replanning may be based on dosimetric values; [73]: generated output may include fluence maps);
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 Laaksonen because the combination pertain to the same field and endeavor and would enable using dosimetric values in the planning process. The combination enables using the parameters pertinent in the field of radiation therapy in the determination process as practiced by the physicians in the automation process making the inference more accurate.
Regarding claim 2, Cordero and Laaksonen teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, including a graphics display generator
Regarding claim 7, Cordero and Laaksonen 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 Laaksonen 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 Laaksonen 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 Laaksonen 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) (Laaksonen: [36]: training phase).
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 Laaksonen (EP 3628372) in view of Yuan (US 20200155868).
Regarding claim 3, Cordero and Laaksonen 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, Laaksonen 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, Laaksonen 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 Laaksonen (EP 3628372) in view of Cordero2 (US 20190232087).
Regarding claim 5, Cordero and Laaksonen 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, Laaksonen and Cordero2 because the arts pertain to the same field and the combination would allow 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 Laaksonen 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 Laaksonen (EP 3628372) in view of Lou (US 20200069973).
Regarding claim 9, Cordero and Laaksonen 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, Laaksonen 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments have been fully considered and overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. These rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicants’ prior art arguments have been fully considered but since they pertain to the amended sections of the claim, they are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights