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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 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.
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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hibbard (US 20220088410 A1) in view of Giantsoudi ("A gEUD-based inverse planning technique for HDR prostate brachytherapy: Feasibility study", 01 April 2013 (2013-04-01)) and Zhang (WO 2012024448 A2).
With regards to claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 13-15, Hibbard discloses a method and apparatus for radiotherapy optimization comprising:
a memory having stored therein information for a given patient and characterizing parameters for a given radiation treatment platform [0044];
by a control circuit 112;
accessing information for a given patient comprising, at least in part, image information corresponding to at least both of a target volume and an organ at risk [0042-0046];
accessing the memory for characterizing parameters for a given radiation treatment platform [0042-0050];
optimizing a radiation treatment plan for the given patient using the given radiation treatment platform as a function, at least in part, of the information for the given patient, the characterizing parameters for the given radiation treatment platform, and a generalized metric type comprising generalized Equivalent Uniform Dose (gEUD) an optimized radiation treatment plan [0112-0118];
by a radiation treatment platform:
administering therapeutic radiation 1960 to the given patient using the given radiation treatment platform as a function of the optimized radiation treatment plan (Fig. 19).
Hibbard does not specifically teach wherein the gEUD comprises a gEUD-of-extreme for both the target volume and the organ at risk.
However, Giantsoudi teaches a method for a gEUD-based inverse planning framework in which the optimization objective is define as an aggregate function incorporating both target and organ at risk terms, wherein the gEUD is calculated for both target volumes and organs at risk (sections II.C. – IID.3.). Furthermore, Zhang teaches a radiation therapy treatment planning method and system wherein an EUD based objective function is used in treatment planning, and further teaches wherein the maximum dose and minimum dose objective essentially corresponds to the EUD objective with parameter a approaches to positive and negative infinity [0187] involving a target volume and organ at risk [0187-0189]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Hibbard with the claimed configuration as taught by Giantsoudi and Zhang in order to more precisely control minimum dose to the target and maximum dose to organs at risk.
With regards to claims 3 and 12, Hibbard discloses wherein the characterizing parameters include a plurality of gantry angles [0069].
With regards to claims 7 and 16, Hibbard discloses presenting a display of at least one dose volume histogram that corresponds to the optimized radiation treatment plan [0069].
With regards to claims 8 and 17, Hibbard discloses the claimed equation [0114].
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 MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-2995. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights