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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 8-15 and 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winfield et al. (US 20150003711) in view of Brehm et al. (US 20170249740).
Regarding claim 1, Winfield teaches a computer-implemented method for image-guided radiotherapy that can accommodate movement of an organ of a patient during radiation treatment, the computer- implemented method comprising:
computing, using computer processor circuitry, one or more simulated partial images (planning image, para 30);
comparing, using the computer processor circuitry, one or more actual images obtained during the radiation treatment, to the one or more simulated partial images (portal image, para 31); and
generating, using the computer processor circuitry, a resulting image similarity indication to represent the movement of the organ occurring during the radiation treatment (para 33-35).
However Winfield fails to teach one or more simulated partial image is using a 3D patient representation generated during radiation treatment.
Brehm teaches one or more simulated partial image is using a 3D patient representation generated during radiation treatment (para 144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the image of Winfield with the image during radiation treatment as taught by Brehm, since it would better patient information.
Regarding claim 2, Winfield teaches the one or more actual images include MV images obtained in response to a radiation treatment beam providing the radiation treatment (para 31).
Regarding claim 3, Winfield teaches the one or more actual images include the MV images acquired using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) (para 31).
Regarding claim 8, Winfield teaches the radiation treatment parameter information includes at least one of a gantry angle, a radiation treatment beam angle, or multi-leaf collimator leaf positions (para 28+).
Regarding claim 9, Winfield teaches performing a gamma analysis to determine a degree of similarity of images (para 28).
Regarding claim 10, Winfield teaches obtaining updated patient representation information based on the resulting image similarity indication (para 28+).
Regarding claim 11, Winfield teaches the one or more simulated partial images include 2D images (para 27+).
Regarding claim 12, Winfield teaches the one or more simulated partial images include at least one of one or more simulated 2D Megavolt (MV) images or 2D diagnostic computed tomography (CT) images (para 27).
Regarding claim 13, Winfield teaches a radiotherapy system that can accommodate movement of an organ of a patient during radiation treatment, the radiotherapy system comprising: an image acquisition device configured to acquire images of an anatomical region of interest of a patient; a radiotherapy device configured to deliver a dose of radiation to the anatomical region of interest based on the images of the anatomical region of interest; and a processor configured to compute one or more simulated partial images; compare one or more actual images obtained during the radiation treatment, to the one or more simulated partial images generate a resulting image similarity indication to represent movement of the organ occurring during the radiation treatment (para 30-35).
However Winfield fails to teach one or more simulated partial image is using a 3D patient representation generated during radiation treatment.
Brehm teaches one or more simulated partial image is using a 3D patient representation generated during radiation treatment (para 144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the image of Winfield with the image during radiation treatment as taught by Brehm, since it would better patient information.
Regarding claim 14, Winfield teaches the one or more actual images include MV images obtained in response to a radiation treatment beam providing the radiation treatment (para 31).
Regarding claim 15, Winfield teaches the one or more actual images include the MV images acquired using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) (para 31).
Regarding claim 20, Winfield teaches the radiation treatment parameter information includes at least one of a gantry angle, a radiation treatment beam angle, or multi-leaf collimator leaf positions (para 28).
Regarding claim 21, Winfield teaches obtaining updated patient representation information based on the resulting image similarity indication (para 28+).
Regarding claim 22, Winfield teaches the one or more simulated partial images include at least one of one or more simulated 2D Megavolt (MV) images or 2D diagnostic computed tomography (CT) images (para 27).
Regarding claim 23, Winfield teaches a computer-readable medium configured to include instructions to perform the functions of claim 1 (figure 1).
Regarding claim 24, Winfield teaches using the computer processor circuitry, the one or more simulated partial images includes using a simulation model and simulation inputs including patient representation information and radiation treatment parameter information (patient breathing information, para 144-145)
Regarding claim 24, Winfield teaches the processor configured to compute the one or more simulated partial images is further configured to compute the one or more simulated partial images using a simulation model and simulation inputs including patient representation information and radiation treatment parameter information (patient breathing information, para 144-145).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 10-15, 18-20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackie et al. (US 6345114) in view of Kuang et al. (US 20180236267).
Regarding claim 1, Mackie teaches a computer-implemented method for image-guided radiotherapy that can accommodate movement of an organ of a patient during radiation treatment, the computer- implemented method comprising:
computing, using computer processor circuitry, one or more simulated partial images using a simulation model and simulation inputs including patient representation information and radiation treatment parameter information (col 3 lines 25+ and col 3 line 57+);
comparing, using the computer processor circuitry, one or more actual images obtained during the radiation treatment, to the one or more simulated partial images (col 3 lines 57+); and
generating, using the computer processor circuitry, a resulting image similarity indication to represent the movement of the organ occurring during the radiation treatment (errors, claim 3).
However Mackie fails to teach one or more simulated partial image is using a 3D patient representation generated during radiation treatment.
Kuang teaches one or more simulated partial image is using a 3D patient representation generated during radiation treatment (para 64, 95).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the image of Mackie with the image during radiation treatment as taught by Brehm, since it would better patient information.
Regarding claim 2, Mackie teaches the one or more actual images include MV images obtained in response to a radiation treatment beam providing the radiation treatment (col 4 line 38).
Regarding claim 3, Mackie teaches the one or more actual images include the MV images acquired using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) (col 4 line 44+).
Regarding claim 6, Mackie teaches modeling the transport of x-ray photons includes:
Using a Monte Carlo or a Boltzmann solver simulation (col 9 lines 25+).
Regarding claim 7, Mackie teaches the one or more actual images include diagnostic computed tomography (CT) images (col 9 line 18).
Regarding claim 8, Mackie teaches the radiation treatment parameter information includes at least one of a gantry angle, a radiation treatment beam angle, or multi-leaf collimator leaf positions (claim 8).
Regarding claim 10, Mackie teaches obtaining updated patient representation information based on the resulting image similarity indication (claim 3).
Regarding claim 11, Mackie teaches the one or more simulated partial images include 2D images (detected two-dimensional imaging plane).
Regarding claim 12, Mackie teaches the one or more simulated partial images include at least one of one or more simulated 2D Megavolt (MV) images or 2D diagnostic computed tomography (CT) images (col 9 lines 25+).
Regarding claim 13, Mackie teaches a radiotherapy system that can accommodate movement of an organ of a patient during radiation treatment, the radiotherapy system comprising: an image acquisition device configured to acquire images of an anatomical region of interest of a patient; a radiotherapy device configured to deliver a dose of radiation to the anatomical region of interest based on the images of the anatomical region of interest; and a processor configured to compute one or more simulated partial images, compare one or more actual images obtained during the radiation treatment, to the one or more simulated partial images generate a resulting image similarity indication to represent movement of the organ occurring during the radiation treatment (col 3 lines 25+ and col 3 line 57+, col 3 lines 57+, errors, claim 3).
However Mackie fails to teach one or more simulated partial image is using a 3D patient representation generated during radiation treatment.
Kuang teaches one or more simulated partial image is using a 3D patient representation generated during radiation treatment (para 64, 95).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the image of Mackie with the image during radiation treatment as taught by Brehm, since it would better patient information.
Regarding claim 14, Mackie teaches the one or more actual images include MV images obtained in response to a radiation treatment beam providing the radiation treatment (col 4 line 38).
Regarding claim 15, Mackie teaches the one or more actual images include the MV images acquired using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) (col 4 line 44+).
Regarding claim 18, Mackie teaches the processor configured to model the transport of x-ray photons is configured to: use a Monte Carlo or a Boltzmann solver simulation (col 9 lines 25+).
Regarding claim 19, Mackie teaches the one or more actual images include diagnostic computed tomography (CT) images (col 9 line 18).
Regarding claim 20, Mackie teaches the radiation treatment parameter information includes at least one of a gantry angle, a radiation treatment beam angle, or multi-leaf collimator leaf positions (claim 8).
Regarding claim 22, Mackie teaches the one or more simulated partial images include at least one of one or more simulated 2D Megavolt (MV) images or 2D diagnostic computed tomography (CT) images (detected two-dimensional imaging plane).
Regarding claim 23, Mackie teaches a computer-readable medium configured to include instructions to perform the functions of claim 1 (figure 1).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 10-15, 18-20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feain et al. (US 20180050222) in view of Voronenko et al. (US 20180345042).
Regarding claim 1, Feain teaches a computer-implemented method for image-guided radiotherapy that can accommodate movement of an organ of a patient during radiation treatment, the computer- implemented method comprising:
computing, using computer processor circuitry, one or more simulated partial images (computational prior model of the target, para 65);
comparing, using the computer processor circuitry, one or more actual images obtained during the radiation treatment, to the one or more simulated partial images (comparing the computational prior model to the one or more spatially distributed 2D fluoroscopic, para 65); and
generating, using the computer processor circuitry, a resulting image similarity indication to represent the movement of the organ occurring during the radiation treatment (tracking the 3D position of an in-situ target, para 65).
However Feain fails to teach one or more simulated partial image is using a 3D patient representation generated during radiation treatment.
Voronenko teaches one or more simulated partial image is using a 3D patient representation generated during radiation treatment (para 64, 95).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the image of Feain with the image during radiation treatment as taught by Voronenko, since it would better patient information.
Regarding claim 2, Feain teaches the one or more actual images include MV images obtained in response to a radiation treatment beam providing the radiation treatment (para 77).
Regarding claim 3, Feain teaches the one or more actual images include the MV images acquired using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) (para 58).
Regarding claim 6, Feain teaches modeling the transport of x-ray photons includes: Using a Monte Carlo or a Boltzmann solver simulation (para 2).
Regarding claim 7, Feain teaches the one or more actual images include diagnostic computed tomography (CT) images (para 84).
Regarding claim 8, Feain teaches the radiation treatment parameter information includes at least one of a gantry angle, a radiation treatment beam angle, or multi-leaf collimator leaf positions (para 97).
Regarding claim 10, Feain teaches obtaining updated patient representation information based on the resulting image similarity indication (tracking).
Regarding claim 11, Feain teaches the one or more simulated partial images include 2D images (para 65+).
Regarding claim 12, Feain teaches the one or more simulated partial images include at least one of one or more simulated 2D Megavolt (MV) images or 2D diagnostic computed tomography (CT) images (para 65+).
Regarding claim 13, Feain teaches a radiotherapy system that can accommodate movement of an organ of a patient during radiation treatment, the radiotherapy system comprising: an image acquisition device configured to acquire images of an anatomical region of interest of a patient; a radiotherapy device configured to deliver a dose of radiation to the anatomical region of interest based on the images of the anatomical region of interest; and a processor configured to compute one or more simulated partial images, compare one or more actual images obtained during the radiation treatment, to the one or more simulated partial images generate a resulting image similarity indication to represent movement of the organ occurring during the radiation treatment (para 65).
However Feain fails to teach one or more simulated partial image is using a 3D patient representation generated during radiation treatment.
Voronenko teaches one or more simulated partial image is using a 3D patient representation generated during radiation treatment (para 64, 95).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the image of Feain with the image during radiation treatment as taught by Voronenko, since it would better patient information.
Regarding claim 14, Feain teaches the one or more actual images include MV images obtained in response to a radiation treatment beam providing the radiation treatment (para 77).
Regarding claim 15, Feain teaches the one or more actual images include the MV images acquired using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) (para 58).
Regarding claim 18, Feain teaches the processor configured to model the transport of x-ray photons is configured to: use a Monte Carlo or a Boltzmann solver simulation (para 2).
Regarding claim 19, Mackie teaches the one or more actual images include diagnostic computed tomography (CT) images (para 84).
Regarding claim 20, Feain teaches the radiation treatment parameter information includes at least one of a gantry angle, a radiation treatment beam angle, or multi-leaf collimator leaf positions (para 97).
Regarding claim 22, Feain teaches the one or more simulated partial images include at least one of one or more simulated 2D Megavolt (MV) images or 2D diagnostic computed tomography (CT) images (para 65+).
Regarding claim 23, Feain teaches a computer-readable medium configured to include instructions to perform the functions of claim 1 (para 147).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackie in view of Wong et al. (US 20140267697).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Mackie fails to teach the one or more actual images include the MV images acquired using a phosphor-based flat panel imager.
Wong teaches actual images include the MV images acquired using a phosphor-based flat panel imager (para 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the imager of Mackie with the imager as taught by Wong, since it would better patient image.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Wong teaches modeling a transport of x-ray photons through the patient and the phosphor-based flat panel imager to calculate energy deposition events as a function of a spatial position in a phosphor layer of the phosphor-based flat panel imager (para 48).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights