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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the response filed February 12, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Satoru et al. (Japanese Publ. No. 2019-154893A). See the new grounds of rejection on the following pages. In particular, applicant has amended the claims to recite first and second control circuits; wherein the first control circuit receives a request from the second control circuit for image data for use in an optimized radiation treatment plan. The previously applicant art (Czeizler et al.; US Publ. No. 2021/0387017) appears to disclose a self-contained system that does not have two separate control circuits for retrieving image data for use in optimizing a radiation treatment plan.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6, 9, and 10 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.
Regarding claim 4, applicant recites the limitation of “the control circuit” in line 1. However, in claim 1 applicant recites a “first control circuit” and a “second control circuit”. It is unclear in claim 4, which control circuit applicant is referring to – the first control circuit or the second control circuit. Therefore, applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
As for claim 6, applicant recites the limitation of “the control circuit” in line 1. However, in claim 1 applicant recites a “first control circuit” and a “second control circuit”. It is unclear in claim 6, which control circuit applicant is referring to – the first control circuit or the second control circuit. Therefore, applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 9, applicant recites the limitation of “the control circuit” in line 1. However, in claim 1 applicant recites a “first control circuit” and a “second control circuit”. It is unclear in claim 9, which control circuit applicant is referring to – the first control circuit or the second control circuit. Therefore, applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, applicant recites the limitation of “the control circuit” in line 1. However, in claim 1 applicant recites a “first control circuit” and a “second control circuit”. It is unclear in claim 10, which control circuit applicant is referring to – the first control circuit or the second control circuit. Therefore, applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
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) 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czeizler et al. (U.S. Publ. No. 2021/0387017) in view of Satoru et al. (Japanese Publ. No. JP 2019-154893 A1; see provided translation).
Regarding claim 1, Czeizler discloses system and method for administrating therapeutic radiation to a patent by optimizing a treatment plan. More specifically and as it relates to the applicant’s claims, Czeizler discloses an apparatus comprising: a
receive a radiation treatment planning system request from a second control circuit (Czeizler, Fig. 1, Control Circuit 101, [0020- 0024]; the control circuit 101, access image content and/or field geometry images from the memory, 102 – which inherently require a request for particular images from the memory, 102) that is configured as a radiation treatment planning system that will output an optimized radiation treatment plan for image data to support a particular radiation treatment planning step to be conducted by the second control circuit (see paragraph 0027);
access particular image data that is particularly suitable to support the particular radiation treatment planning step (Czeizler, Fig. 2, control circuit access the particular image content/data to support the radiation treatment planning step, [0020-0024, 0029-0034]);
transmit the particular image data to (Czeizler, Fig. 2, transmit the image content/data in response to the system request, [0012-0014, 0020-0024, 0029-0034]).
Applicant has amended the claim language such that a first control circuity receives the request for the images, accessing the required images, and transmits the images to the second control circuit. This seems to imply a request for images used in the radiation treatment planning from a remote source (i.e. server or network storage). Czeizler does not disclose this arrangement. While Czeizler does disclose that the control circuit can access external elements (see paragraph 0025), Czeizlier does not specify the external elements or what they are used for. Satoru, on the other hand discloses that it is well known in the art to access a remote server to access image used in a radiation treatment planning operation. More specifically Satoru discloses the use of a PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System; see paragraphs 0008 and 0018 of the provided translation) that stores image that can be retrieved for use by a radiation therapy planning device, 3. See Figure 1 and paragraph 0018. Furthermore, in paragraph 0018 Satoru states that request for images are made from the radiation therapy planning device, 3, to the PACS system, 6, for required images. Although the structural details of the PACS system are not disclosed, it is inherent that some type of control circuity would be required to receive requests, process the requests; and transmit the retrieved data. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefits of storing image data in a remotely accessible storage for retrieval for any number of purposes. The benefits include: 1) allowing numerous client devices access to the stored image data; 2) potentially more storage capacity of remote storage devices; 3) reliability of data by backing up data; and 4) collaboration across a network environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Czeizler such that the memory (102) of Czeizler is implemented using a first control circuitry for receiving image requests from the second control circuitry.
As for claim 2, Czeizler teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the particular radiation treatment planning step comprises one of: a contouring step (Czeizler, image data is “contoured,” [0013, 0030]); a segmenting step (Czeizler, image data is “segmented,” [0034]); a dose prediction step (Czeizler, Fig. 2, predict dose map [0011, 0034]); a dose calculation step (Czeizler, Fig. 2, calculate doses in dose map, [0011, 0034]).
With regard to claim 3, Czeizler teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the particular image data comprises patient image information that includes segmented structures (Czeizler, image data comprises patient image information that includes “segmented, identified patient structures,” [0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Czeizler teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control circuit is configured to access the particular image data that is particularly suitable to support the particular radiation treatment planning step by: accessing patient image information; processing the patient image information to generate the particular image data that is particularly suitable to support the particular radiation treatment planning step (Czeizler, Fig. 2, control circuit accesses the patient image information and processes the information to generate/obtain the image data to support the optimized radiation treatment planning, [0029-0034]).
As for claim 5, Czeizler discloses that the image content comprises computed tomography image information. See paragraph 0030.
Claim 11 is considered a method claim corresponding almost word-for-word with claim 1. Please see the discussion of claim 1 above.
Claim 12 is considered a method claim corresponding almost word-for-word with claim 2. Please see the discussion of claim 2 above.
Claim 13 is considered a method claim corresponding almost word-for-word with claim 3. Please see the discussion of claim 3 above.
Claim 14 is considered a method claim corresponding almost word-for-word with claim 4. Please see the discussion of claim 4 above.
Claim 15 is considered a method claim corresponding almost word-for-word with claim 5. Please see the discussion of claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czeizler et al. (U.S. Publ. No. 2021/0387017) in view of Satoru et al. (Japanese Publ. No. JP 2019-154893 A1; see provided translation) as applied to claims 1-5 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Starbuck (WO 2022256782 A1).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 4 the combination of Czeizler and Satoru disclose all of the limitations of the parent claim. The aforementioned references however, fail to explicitly disclose that the control circuit is configured to process the patient image information to generate the particular image data by, at least in part, modifying image formatting. Starbuck on the other hand, discloses that it is well known in the art process patient image information to generate particular image before using that image data in a radiation treatment planning process. (Starbuck, patient image data formatting may be modified, [0029]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Czeizler using the teachings of Starbuck to include Starbuck’s patient image format modification to Czeizler’s patient image information. Doing so would improve the patient image information by providing a way to modify the formatting, which would be used to adjust the formatting for optimal processing.
Claim 16 is considered a method claim corresponding almost word-for-word with claim 6. Please see the discussion of claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czeizler et al. (U.S. Publ. No. 2021/0387017) in view of Satoru et al. (Japanese Publ. No. JP 2019-154893 A1; see provided translation) as applied to claims 1-5 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Nioutsikou (US 20180099152 A1).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 4 the combination of Czeizler and Satoru disclose all of the limitations of the parent claim. The aforementioned references however, fail to explicitly disclose that the particular radiation treatment planning step comprises a contouring step and wherein the control circuit is configured to process the patient image information to generate the particular image data by, at least in part, enhancing contrast in the patient image information. Nioutsikou on the other hand, discloses that it is well known in the art to process the patient image information in such a manner in a radiation treatment planning system. Nioutsikou, contouring step includes enhancing contrast in the patient image information through the use of “well-defined soft tissue contrast” data, [0084, 0094-0099]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Czeizler using the teachings of Nioutsikou to include Nioutsikou‘s enhancing of contrast during contouring of image data to Czeizler’s contoured image data. Doing so would improve the contoured image data by providing enhanced contrast, which would be used to more easily visualize patient structures.
Claim 17 is considered a method claim corresponding almost word-for-word with claim 7. Please see the discussion of claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czeizler et al. (U.S. Publ. No. 2021/0387017) in view of Satoru et al. (Japanese Publ. No. JP 2019-154893 A1; see provided translation) as applied to claims 1-5 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Karotki, A., Mah, K., Meijer, G. and Meltsner, M. (2011), Comparison of bulk electron density and voxel-based electron density treatment planning. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 12: 97-104. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v12i4.3522, hereinafter referred to as Karotki.
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 4 the combination of Czeizler and Satoru disclose all of the limitations of the parent claim. The aforementioned references however, fail to explicitly disclose that comprises a dose calculation step and wherein the control circuit is configured to process the patient image information to generate the particular image data by, at least in part, providing at least one of: electron density information per patient voxel; mass density per patient voxel; relative proton stopping power per patient voxel; volume material per patient voxel. Karotki, on the other hand, discloses that it is well known in the art to process the patient image information to generate particular image data by providing voxel-by-voxel electron density (electron density per patient voxel), see pg. 98. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Czeizler using the teachings of Karotki to include Karotki’s provision of electron density information per patient voxel for the patient image information to Czeizler’s patient image information. Doing so would improve the patient image information by providing voxel-by-voxel based electron density, which would be used to fully characterize the patient information for the optimized treatment plan.
Claim 18 is considered a method claim corresponding almost word-for-word with claim 8. Please see the discussion of claim 8 above.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czeizler et al. (U.S. Publ. No. 2021/0387017) in view of Satoru et al. (Japanese Publ. No. JP 2019-154893 A1; see provided translation) as applied to claims 1-5 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Mackie (US 20230038970 A1).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 4 the combination of Czeizler and Satoru disclose all of the limitations of the parent claim. The aforementioned references however, fail to explicitly disclose that the control circuit is configured to process the patient image information to generate the particular image data that is particularly suitable to support the particular radiation treatment planning step by, at least in part, reconstructing the particular image data from single energy computed tomography image data. Mackie, on the other hand discloses that it is well known in the art to reconstruct patient image data from single-energy computed tomograph data for treatment planning. See paragraphs 0003-005 and 0142. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Czeizler using the teachings of Mackie to include Mackie’s reconstruction of patient image data from single-energy computed tomography data for treatment planning to Czeizler’s patient image data for treatment planning. Doing so would improve patient image data by providing reconstruction from single-energy CT data, which would be used to broaden the types of image data usable for the optimized treatment plan.
Claim 19 is considered a method claim corresponding almost word-for-word with claim 9. Please see the discussion of claim 9 above.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czeizler et al. (U.S. Publ. No. 2021/0387017) in view of Satoru et al. (Japanese Publ. No. JP 2019-154893 A1; see provided translation) as applied to claims 1-5 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Sun (CN 106473761 B, the attached English language translation is used hereinafter as the Official English language translation of this CN document).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 4 the combination of Czeizler and Satoru disclose all of the limitations of the parent claim. The aforementioned references however, fail to explicitly disclose that the control circuit is configured to process the patient image information to generate the particular image data that is particularly suitable to support the particular radiation treatment planning step by, at least in part, effective electron density reconstruction from dual energy computed tomography image data. Sun on the other hand discloses that this feature is common in the art. In particular, in paragraphs 0004-0005 and 0012, Sun discloses reconstructing “electron density [corresponding to effective electron density] and effective atomic number” from dual-energy computed tomography data for radiation therapy planning. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Czeizler using the teachings of Sun to include Sun’s reconstruction of electron density from dual-energy CT data for radiation planning to Czeizler’s image data for radiation planning. Doing so would improve the patient image information by providing electron density, which would be used to fully characterize the patient information for the optimized treatment plan.
Claim 20 is considered a method claim corresponding almost word-for-word with claim 10. Please see the discussion of claim 10 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M VILLECCO whose telephone number is (571)272-7319. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:00 AM-4:00 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.
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.
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights