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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Riker et al. (US 2005/0111621) hereinafter known as Riker.
With regards to claim 1, Riker discloses a radiation therapy treatment planning system, methods, and apparatus for conformal radiation therapy [0003], the method comprising:
receiving a reference objective, the reference objective representing a goal to be achieved by a radiotherapy system [0014]([0083]; “The end result of Plan Conversion Step 106 is that the computer planning apparatus 35 morphs, or converts, a prior plan into a plan properly formatted for use by an optimization engine…This can be accomplished by: first determining the radiation beam arrangement (radiation dose distribution) representing original clinical goals used to form the imported radiation treatment plan…”)([0135]; “A plurality of target tumor volume sampled points and a plurality of structure volume sampled points can be obtained by randomly sampling a radiation dose distribution or beam arrangement of a precedent radiation treatment plan, ... This radiation treatment plan can be either an imported plan or a prior iteration of a proposed radiation treatment plan.”)(The Examiner views the radiation beam arrangement (radiation dose distribution), representing original clinical goals, and a radiation dose distribution or beam arrangement, of a precedent radiation treatment plan, as reference objectives.);
selecting a cost function associated with the reference objective from a plurality of cost functions, the selected cost function being associated with an assigned initial weight value ([0068]; “The optimal beam arrangement is arrived at initially by computationally increasing the proposed beam weight iteratively and incorporating cost functions to ensure that an iterative change in the beam weight would not result in an unacceptable exposure to the volumes of tissue, or structures, being subjected to the proposed dose.”)[0069][0080][0081][0091][0092], the assigned initial weight value corresponding to sensitivity of an example dose distribution relative to changes in the selected cost function [0014][0085]; and
applying an optimization procedure to a radiation treatment plan for radiation treatment in a patient according to the received reference objective, wherein the optimization procedure uses the assigned initial weight value of the selected cost function and seeks to minimize the selected cost function [0068][0091][0092][0099][0109].
With regards to claim 2, Riker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the optimization procedure comprises determining a dose distribution indicating expected dosage in a target region of the patient and/or a surrounding region of the patient, based on the reference objective. [0079][0080][0083][0084]
With regards to claim 3, Riker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the selected cost function is associated with an assigned weight handling parameter [0068][0091][0092][0099], and the optimization procedure comprises multiple optimization iterations [0068], wherein:
a first optimization iteration uses the assigned initial weight value of the selected cost function and seeks to minimize the selected cost function ([0068]; see the rejection of claim 1); and
subsequent optimization iterations use the assigned weight handling parameter of the selected cost function to modify the assigned initial weight value [0068][0069][0084].
With regards to claim 4, Riker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the optimization procedure iteratively adapts the radiation treatment plan to minimize the selected cost function. [0031]([0069]; a cost function and a partial derivative function.)[0091][0099]
With regards to claim 5, Riker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the optimization procedure seeks to minimize the selected cost function with respect to one or more optimizable parameters. ([0069]; “…an improved optimized radiation treatment planning system 30, which accounts for multiple treatment parameters for both a target and multiple surrounding structure types…. to computationally change the proposed radiation beam arrangement iteratively based upon at least one constraint type, the constraint type implementing a cost function and a partial derivative function.”)
With regards to claim 6, Riker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more optimizable parameters comprise one or more of: number of beams ([0084]; sets of radiation beams), beam angles ([0066]; beam arc), a dose per beam [0068], beamlet weights [0068], and dose-volume histogram information [0086].
With regards to claim 7, Riker discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a second reference objective ([0051]]; an optimized radiation treatment plan having a fixed set of discrete radiation beam intensity values);
selecting a cost function associated with the second reference objective from the plurality of cost functions, the second selected cost function being associated with a second assigned weight value, the second assigned weight value corresponding to sensitivity of the example dose distribution relative to changes in the second selected cost function([0068][0076][0131]; The rejection follows the same line of reasoning as the rejection of claim 1 concerning radiation beam arrangement/distribution); and
applying the optimization procedure to the radiation treatment plan for radiation treatment in the patient according to the second reference objective ([0051][0068][0076]).
With regards to claim 8, Riker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of cost functions comprises a subset of cost functions, the subset comprising at least two cost functions that share an assigned weight value and/or an assigned weight handling parameter. [0091]-[0099]
With regards to claim 9, Riker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the reference objective comprises a reference dose value for a target region of the patient and/or a surrounding region. ([0069]; a target and multiple surrounding structure types)[0079]
With regards to claim 10, Riker discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the reference objective comprises a reference volume value for a target region of the patient and/or a surrounding region. [0080][0081]
With regards to claim 11, Riker do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of cost functions comprises any or all of the following:
an equivalent uniform dose cost function, proportional to:
PNG
media_image1.png
254
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
82
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Riker do not disclose the claim limitation, however, Riker teaches of a computer planning apparatus 35 that utilizes objective function contributors, or constraints, having first derivatives and implements cost functions. Further, the reference teaches “The computer planning apparatus 35 can turn a radiation treatment plan into a "score" S, which equals the summation of the value of the individual cost contributors multiplied by their assigned priority, or weight, wherein:
S = Σ = W x C x ;
where CX is a cost contributor, n represents the nth contributor, and Wx is the priority or weight assigned to the nth cost contributor.” [0092]-[0098]. Also, [0149]-[0151] teaches that the computer planning apparatus 35 can also provide an algorithm for constructing cost function models for the purpose of optimizing cost.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform mathematical construction and/or modification of Riker’s cost function, along with accompanying variables, and create an equivalent uniform dose cost function/model disclosed by the claim. The motivation is to create a iterative dose cost function/model that can optimize the radiation treatment plan as it relates to weighted cost functions and prior reference objectives.
With regards to claim 13, Riker discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining parameter values corresponding to the radiation treatment plan, wherein the parameter values comprise one or more of: number of beams ([0084]; sets of radiation beams), beam angles ([0066]; beam arc), a dose per beam [0068], beamlet weights [0068], and dose-volume histogram information [0086], a dose excess value; and
outputting the parameter values [0069][0076][0112].
With regards to claim 14, Riker discloses a data processing apparatus ([0069]; computerized tomographic ("CT") device) [0171] comprising:
a memory storing computer-executable instructions ([0038]; a treatment plan optimization computer having a memory to store data and plan optimization software)[0171]; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
receive a reference objective, the reference objective representing a goal to be achieved by a radiotherapy system (see the rejection of claim 1);
select a cost function associated with the reference objective from a plurality of cost functions, the selected cost function being associated with an assigned initial weight value, the assigned initial weight value corresponding to sensitivity of an example dose distribution relative to changes in the selected cost function value (see the rejection of claim 1); and
apply an optimization procedure to a radiation treatment plan for radiation treatment in a patient according to the received reference objective, wherein the optimization procedure uses the assigned initial weight value of the selected cost function and seeks to minimize the selected cost function (see the rejection of claim 1).
With regards to claim 15, Riker discloses a computer program comprising instructions [0040][0171] which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to:
receive a reference objective, the reference objective representing a goal to be achieved by a radiotherapy system; select a cost function associated with the reference objective from a plurality of cost functions, the selected cost function being associated with an assigned initial weight value, the assigned initial weight value corresponding to sensitivity of an example dose distribution relative to changes in the selected cost function value (see the rejection of claim 1); and
apply an optimization procedure to a radiation treatment plan for radiation treatment in a patient according to the received reference objective, wherein the optimization procedure uses the assigned initial weight value of the selected cost function and seeks to minimize the selected cost function (see the rejection of claim 1).
With regards to claim 16, Riker discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions [0171] which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to:
receive a reference objective, the reference objective representing a goal to be achieved by a radiotherapy system (see the rejection of claim 1);
select a cost function associated with the reference objective from a plurality of cost functions, the selected cost function being associated with an assigned initial weight value, the assigned initial weight value corresponding to sensitivity of an example dose distribution relative to changes in the selected cost function value (see the rejection of claim 1); and
apply an optimization procedure to a radiation treatment plan for radiation treatment in a patient according to the received reference objective, wherein the optimization procedure uses the assigned initial weight value of the selected cost function and seeks to minimize the selected cost function (see the rejection of claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Isola et al. (US 2016/0082287)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGH H MAUPIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00 pm.
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 571-272-3995. 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.
/HUGH MAUPIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884