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
1. Claims 17-36 are presented for examination.
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per listing of serial numbers in the spec, it is informed that applicants are responsible for updating the spec if applications have matured into patents. For example, 16/989,820 listed in paragraph [0001] is now patented and the spec should be updated to reflect current status of that application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 22, 35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per Claim 22 and 35, they recite the limitation “those” which is unclear what the limitation refers.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP section 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP section 2159. See MPEP section 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP section 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP sectionsection 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
4. Claims 17 and 26-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. US 10737115 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the Claim in the instant invention is broader and is anticipated by Claims of U.S. Patent No. 10737115 and constitutes an obvious variation.
5. Claims 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 11648419 B2 in view of Reynaert (“Monte Carlo Treatment Planning: An Introduction”). The claims of Patent No. US 11648419 B2 do not expressly recite estimating a total number of incident particles required based on the mapping relationship in advance of the simulation, now claimed in the instant application. However, Reynaert teaches estimating the total number of incident particles (histories) required from the number-versus-uncertainty relationship; thus, it could still constitute an obvious variation in view of Reynaert.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC section 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.
6. Claim 19, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, and 35 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.
The term “a similar energy” in claims 19, 28, 29, and 31 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “close to those of the incident particle” in claims 22 and 35 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As per Claims 24 and 25, they recite the limitation “a transport degree” which is indefinite because the term “transport degree” is not defined in the claims and its metes and bounds are unclear. Examiner Interpretation: the limitation “a transport degree” is interpreted as an extent or distance of particle transport, such as a step length.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC section 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
(Step 1) The claims are directed methods and fall within the statutory category of processes.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 17 recites:
obtaining a mapping relationship between a particle number and an uncertainty of a lattice cell required (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering); and
estimating a total number of incident particles required based on the mapping relationship between a particle number and an uncertainty of a lattice cell (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and
simulating a particle transport based on the total number of incident particles required (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
Claim 26 recites:
obtaining incident particles in a same category (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
processing particles of the same category in batches based on each category of incident particles (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and
simulating a particle transport by inputting, based on one or more categories of incident particles, particles (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
Claim 34 recites:
obtaining estimated incident particles (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
simulating a particle transport by inputting particles (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion);
recording transport paths of inputted particles, each of the transport paths being a set of information describing a sampled physical reaction type of a particle (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) including:
sampling particles from the inputted particles (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion); and
storing the transport paths of inputted particles based on the sampled particles (under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of “a geometrical model” is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)):
(Claim 1) obtaining incident particles in a same category (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
(Claim 26) obtaining incident particles in a same category (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
(Claim 34) obtaining estimated incident particles (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims recite the additional element of “a geometrical model” is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Further as discussed above Claimss recite the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering/outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is the element that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d):
(Claim 1) obtaining incident particles in a same category (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
(Claim 26) obtaining incident particles in a same category (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
(Claim 34) obtaining estimated incident particles (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering).
Further dependent claims 18-25, 27-33 and 35-36 recite:
18. The method of claim 17, wherein the mapping relationship between a particle number and an uncertainty of a lattice cell is determined according to operations including:
determining a relationship between a particle number and an uncertainty by pre-simulating different numbers of particles in a homogenized phantom, a simulated human body, or a reference human body (a mental process); and
determining a mapping relationship between the particle number and the uncertainty by an interpolating or fitting operation (a mental process and methodical concept).
19. The method of claim 17, wherein simulating a particle transport based on the total number of incident particles required includes:
classifying the incident particles having the same type, a similar energy, or a similar energy as well as the same type, into the same category (a mental process);
processing particles of the same category in batches based on each category of incident particles (a mental process); and
inputting, based on a category and batch of incident particles, particles alternately in batches according to a distribution of sources generating the incident particles (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering).
20. The method of claim 17, wherein simulating a particle transport based on the total number of incident particles required includes:
recording transport paths of inputted particles, each of the transport paths being a set of information describing a sampled physical reaction type of a particle (a mental process).
21. The method of claim 20, wherein recording transport paths of inputted particles incudes:
sampling particles from the inputted particles (a mental process); and
storing the transport paths of inputted particles based on the sampled particles (a mental process).
22. The method of claim 21, wherein the recording transport paths of inputted particles includes:
designating a recorded transport path of a recorded particle as a transport path of an incident particle if energy information and incident direction information of the recorded particle are close to those of the incident particle (a mental process).
23. The method of claim 21, wherein the sampling particles from the inputted particles includes:
importing a geometrical model (insignificant extra-solution -”apply it”), the geometrical model including a geometrical virtual section, the geometrical virtual section being used to define the physical material corresponding to the lattice cell to make the simulated object corresponding to the lattice cell including a homogenized material, wherein the transport paths of the inputted particles relate to the geometrical virtual section (insignificant extra-solution -generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use);
determining a sampling probability based on the geometrical virtual section (a mental process and methodical concept), the sampling probability being the sum of a sampling probability of the real reaction and a sampling probability of the virtual reaction section (insignificant extra-solution - generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and/or “apply it”); and
sampling particles from the inputted particles based on the sampling probability (a mental process).
24. The method of claim 23, wherein sampling particles from the inputted particles based on the sampling probability includes:
sampling information relating to a transport degree, a direction, and an energy when a particle happens the real reaction with a lattice cell (a mental process).
25. The method of claim 23, wherein sampling particles from the inputted particles based on the sampling probability includes:
sampling information relating to a transport degree when a particle happens the virtual reaction with a lattice cell (a mental process).
27. The method of claim 26, wherein the obtaining incident particles in a same category includes: classifying incident particles having the same type into the same category (a mental process).
28. The method of claim 26, wherein the obtaining incident particles in a same category includes: classifying incident particles having a similar energy into the same category (a mental process).
29. The method of claim 26, wherein the obtaining incident particles in a same category includes: classifying incident particles having a similar energy as well as the same type into the same category (a mental process).
30. The method of claim 26, wherein the processing particles of the same category in batches based on each category of incident particles includes: dividing the incident particles in the same category into multiple batches (a mental process).
31. The method of claim 26, wherein the obtaining incident particles in a same category includes:
classifying incident particles having a similar energy into the same category (a mental process); and
the processing particles of the same category in batches based on each category of incident particles includes: dividing the incident particles in the same category into multiple batches according to types of incident particles (a mental process).
32. The method of claim 26, wherein the inputting, based on one or more categories of incident particles, particles includes: alternately inputting different categories of incident particles (a mental process).
33. The method of claim 26, wherein the inputting, based on one or more categories of incident particles, particles includes: inputting incident particles in the same category in batches according to a distribution of sources generating the incident particles (a mental process).
35. The method of claim 34, wherein the recording transport paths of inputted particles includes: designating a recorded transport path of a recorded particle as a transport path of an incident particle if energy information and incident direction information of the recorded particle are close to those of the incident particle (a mental process).
36. The method of claim 34, wherein the sampling particles from the inputted particles includes:
importing a geometrical model (insignificant extra-solution -”apply it”), the geometrical model including a geometrical virtual section, the geometrical virtual section being used to define the physical material corresponding to the lattice cell to make the simulated object corresponding to the lattice cell including a homogenized material, wherein the transport paths of the inputted particles relate to the geometrical virtual section (insignificant extra-solution -generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use);
determining a sampling probability based on the geometrical virtual section (a mental process and mathematical concepts), the sampling probability being the sum of a sampling probability of the real reaction and a sampling probability of the virtual reaction (insignificant extra-solution -generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use); and
sampling particles from the inputted particles based on the sampling probability (a mental process).
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC section 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Townson (“GPU-based Monte Carlo radiotherapy dose calculation using phase-space sources”).
As per Claim 26, Townson discloses a method for simulating a particle transport (section 2.1), comprising:
obtaining incident particles in a same category (section 2.1 “energy greatly reduces thread divergence. Hence, we conduct a bin sorting of particles from the phase-space source ‘on-the-fly’ before launching them for dose calculations. Specifically, we allocate a number of bins that divide the particles by type and energy. “, pg. 4343: particles are grouped into bins by type and energy, i.e., obtained “in a same category” as claimed);
processing particles of the same category in batches based on each category of incident particles (section 2.3.3 “we iterate through the selected PSLs in batches corresponding to each energy division. We finish reading all the necessary particles from the PSLs in one energy division before proceeding to the next, to ensure particles of similar energy are transported together”, pg 4347: each energy/type division is processed as a batch); and
simulating a particle transport by inputting, based on one or more categories of incident particles, particles (section 2.1 “Once there are N particles in one of the bins, the bin is ‘full’ and the particle data is moved to GPU memory and the particles are transported.”, pg. 4343: a full category/bin is input to the transport simulation).
As per Claim 27, Townson discloses wherein the obtaining incident particles in a same category includes: classifying incident particles having the same type into the same category (section 2.1 “there are only two divisions for particle type (photons, and electrons/positrons)”, pg. 4343).
As per Claim 28, Townson discloses wherein the obtaining incident particles in a same category includes: classifying incident particles having a similar energy into the same category (section 2.1 “we allocate a number of bins that divide the particles by type and energy”, pg. 4343).
As per Claim 29, Townson discloses wherein the obtaining incident particles in a same category includes: classifying incident particles having a similar energy as well as the same type into the same category (section 2.1 “we allocate a number of bins that divide the particles by type and energy”, pg. 4343).
As per Claim 30, Townson discloses wherein the processing particles of the same category in batches based on each category of incident particles includes: dividing the incident particles in the same category into multiple batches (section 2.1 “we allocate a number of bins that divide the particles by type and energy”, pg. 4343).
As per Claim 31, Townson discloses wherein the obtaining incident particles in a same category includes:
classifying incident particles having a similar energy into the same category (section 2.1 “we allocate a number of bins that divide the particles by type and energy”, pg. 4343); and
the processing particles of the same category in batches based on each category of incident particles includes: dividing the incident particles in the same category into multiple batches according to types of incident particles (section 2.1 “there are only two divisions for particle type (photons, and electrons/positrons)”, pg. 4343).
As per Claim 32, Townson discloses wherein the inputting, based on one or more categories of incident particles, particles includes: alternately inputting different categories of incident particles (section 2.3.3 “We finish reading all the necessary particles from the PSLs in one energy division before proceeding to the next, to ensure particles of similar energy are transported together”, pg. 4347).
As per Claim 33, Townson discloses wherein the inputting, based on one or more categories of incident particles, particles includes:
inputting incident particles in the same category in batches according to a distribution of sources generating the incident particles (section 2.1 “When the CPU is sequentially loading particles from the file, each particle is placed into the energy bin corresponding to the correct particle type.”, pg 4343: particles are drawn in sequence from the phase-space source file and binned by type).
9. Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yepes (“A GPU implementation of a track-repeating algorithm for proton radiotherapy dose calculations”).
As per Claim 34, Yepes discloses a method for simulating a particle transport (section 2.2, Figure 1), comprising:
obtaining estimated incident particles (section 2.3, pg 7110-7111, “an array with phase-space information for NT x NB incident protons to be simulated was generated”: a set of incident particles is estimated and assembled for simulation);
simulating a particle transport by inputting particles (section 2.3, pg 7110-7111, “the same proton history was utilized NT times for various positions of the incident protons”); and
recording transport paths of inputted particles, each of the transport paths being a set of information describing a sampled physical reaction type of a particle including: sampling particles from the inputted particles; and storing the transport paths of inputted particles based on the sampled particles (section 2.2, pg 7110, “The FDC algorithm utilizes a pre-generated database of the histories of particles produced by a proton impinging on a water phantom”; “Each particle trajectory is broken into steps, and for each step the direction, length and energy loss is stored”: the sampled particle histories, each a stored per-step record of the transport path, are recorded to a database).
As per Claim 35, Yepes discloses wherein the recording transport paths of inputted particles includes: designating a recorded transport path of a recorded particle as a transport path of an incident particle if energy information and incident direction information of the recorded particle are close to those of the incident particle (section 2.3, pg 7110-7111, “finding the database history to be used and selecting the trajectory and step where the track-repeating algorithm should start”: a stored history matching the incident particle in energy and direction is designated as its transport path).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC section 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.
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.
10. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynaert (“Monte Carlo Treatment Planning: An Introduction”) in view of Chetty (“Report of the AAPM Task Group No. 105”).
As per Claim 17, Reynaert teaches a method for simulating a particle transport (pg. 5 “full Monte Carlo simulations of the radiotherapy dose delivery process”), comprising:
obtaining a mapping relationship between a particle number and an uncertainty of a lattice cell required (pg. 77 “increasing the volume of a voxel with a factor 2 has the same effect on the uncertainty in that voxel as doubling the number of histories”; pg. 80 “The variance, σ2, is proportional to the inverse of the sample size N”: a functional relationship between the number of simulated particles (histories) and the statistical uncertainty of a scoring voxel is established; Examiner’s Note - a scoring “voxel” of the transport lattice corresponds to the recited “lattice cell”); and
estimating a total number of incident particles required based on the mapping relationship between a particle number and an uncertainty of a lattice cell (pg. 163 “the number of histories (sample size) has to be increased by a factor of 100. For a relative standard deviation of 0.1% about 410000 histories have to be included in the calculations”: the number of histories required to reach a target uncertainty is computed from the number-vs-uncertainty relationship).
However, Reynaert fails to teach explicitly simulating a particle transport based on the total number of incident particles required.
Chetty teaches simulating a particle transport based on the total number of incident particles required (pg. 4847 “
PNG
media_image1.png
228
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“: the particle-transport dose calculation is run with a large enough number of histories that the single-voxel (lattice-cell) uncertainty is driven small).
In particular, Chetty teaches running the Monte Carlo particle-transport dose calculation with a large enough number of histories that the uncertainty in a single dose voxel is very small.
Reynaert and Chetty are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor, Monte Carlo simulation of particle transport for radiotherapy dose calculation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Chetty into Reynaert’s invention for the purpose of Monte Carlo simulation of particle transport to provide a simulation run with a large enough number of histories with very small uncertainty (Chetty: pg. 4847).
As per Claim 18, Reynaert teaches wherein the mapping relationship between a particle number and an uncertainty of a lattice cell is determined according to operations including:
determining a relationship between a particle number and an uncertainty by pre-simulating different numbers of particles in a homogenized phantom, a simulated human body, or a reference human body (“the number of histories (sample size) has to be increased by a factor of 100. For a relative standard deviation of 0.1% about 410000 histories have to be included in the calculations”: the standard deviation is tabulated for a plurality of pre-run sample sizes and the number vs uncertainty relationship is derived from that data); and
determining a mapping relationship between the particle number and the uncertainty by an interpolating or fitting operation “the number of histories (sample size) has to be increased by a factor of 100. For a relative standard deviation of 0.1% about 410000 histories have to be included in the calculations”: the standard deviation is tabulated for a plurality of pre-run sample sizes and the number vs uncertainty relationship is derived from that data).
11. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynaert (“Monte Carlo Treatment Planning: An Introduction”) in view of Chetty (“Report of the AAPM Task Group No. 105”), further in view of Townson (“GPU-based Monte Carlo radiotherapy dose calculation using phase-space sources,” Phys. Med. Biol. 58(12):4341, 2013).
Reynaert as modified by Chetty teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 17 and 18 above.
Reynaert as modified by Chetty teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 17 and 18 above.
As per Claim 19, Reynaert as modified by Chetty fails to teach explicitly wherein simulating a particle transport based on the total number of incident particles required includes classifying the incident particles having the same type, a similar energy, or a similar energy as well as the same type, into the same category; processing particles of the same category in batches based on each category of incident particles; and inputting, based on a category and batch of incident particles, particles alternately in batches according to a distribution of sources generating the incident particles.
Townson teaches classifying the incident particles having the same type, a similar energy, or a similar energy as well as the same type, into the same category (section 2.1 “energy greatly reduces thread divergence. Hence, we conduct a bin sorting of particles from the phase-space source ‘on-the-fly’ before launching them for dose calculations. Specifically, we allocate a number of bins that divide the particles by type and energy. “, pg. 4343);
processing particles of the same category in batches based on each category of incident particles (section 2.3.3 “we iterate through the selected PSLs in batches corresponding to each energy division. We finish reading all the necessary particles from the PSLs in one energy division before proceeding to the next, to ensure particles of similar energy are transported together”, pg 4347: each energy/type division is processed as a batch); and
inputting, based on a category and batch of incident particles, particles alternately in batches according to a distribution of sources generating the incident particles (section 2.3.3 “we iterate through the selected PSLs in batches corresponding to each energy division. We finish reading all the necessary particles from the PSLs in one energy division before proceeding to the next, to ensure particles of similar energy are transported together”, pg 4347).
In particular, Townson teaches sorting the source particles into bins by particle type and energy and transporting each bin as a batch so that particles of similar energy are transported together.
Reynaert, Chetty, and Townson are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, Monte Carlo simulation of particle transport for radiotherapy dose calculation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Townson into Reynaert as modified by Chetty’s invention for the purpose of Monte Carlo simulation of particle transport to provide a simulation run with a large enough number of histories with very small uncertainty (Chetty: pg. 4847). Further the motivation is to provide grouping of particles of similar energy that greatly reduces thread divergence (Townson: section 1).
12. Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynaert (“Monte Carlo Treatment Planning: An Introduction”) in view of Chetty (“Report of the AAPM Task Group No. 105”), further in view of Yepes (“A GPU implementation of a track-repeating algorithm for proton radiotherapy dose calculations”).
Reynaert as modified by Chetty teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 17 and 18 above.
As per Claim 20, Reynaert as modified by Chetty fails to teach explicitly wherein simulating a particle transport based on the total number of incident particles required includes: recording transport paths of inputted particles, each of the transport paths being a set of information describing a sampled physical reaction type of a particle.
Yepes teaches recording transport paths of inputted particles, each of the transport paths being a set of information describing a sampled physical reaction type of a particle (section 2.2, pg 7110, “Each particle trajectory is broken into steps, and for each step the direction, length and energy loss is stored”: each transport path is stored as a per-step record of the particle’s reactions). In particular, Yepes teaches a pre-generated database of particle histories in which each trajectory is broken into steps and the per-step direction, length and energy loss is stored, and the recorded tracks are re-used to compute dose in heterogeneous anatomy.
Reynaert, Chetty, and Yepes are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, Monte Carlo simulation of particle transport for radiotherapy dose calculation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Yepes into Reynaert as modified by Chetty’s invention for the purpose of Monte Carlo simulation of particle transport to provide a simulation run with a large enough number of histories with very small uncertainty (Chetty: pg. 4847). Further the motivation is to provide recorded particle histories that are re-traced to achieve the accuracy of a full Monte Carlo simulation in a fraction of the computation time (Yepes: Abstract).
As per Claim 21, Reynaert as modified by Chetty fails to teach explicitly wherein recording transport paths of inputted particles includes: sampling particles from the inputted particles; and storing the transport paths of inputted particles based on the sampled particles.
Yepes teaches sampling particles from the inputted particles; and storing the transport paths of inputted particles based on the sampled particles (section 2.2, pg 7110, “The FDC algorithm utilizes a pre-generated database of the histories of particles produced by a proton impinging on a water phantom”; “Each particle trajectory is broken into steps, and for each step the direction, length and energy loss is stored”: sampled particle histories are stored as the recorded transport paths).
As per Claim 22, Reynaert as modified by Chetty fails to teach explicitly wherein the recording transport paths of inputted particles includes: designating a recorded transport path of a recorded particle as a transport path of an incident particle if energy information and incident direction information of the recorded particle are close to those of the incident particle.
Yepes teaches designating a recorded transport path of a recorded particle as a transport path of an incident particle if energy information and incident direction information of the recorded particle are close to those of the incident particle (section 2.3, pg 7110-7111, “finding the database history to be used and selecting the trajectory and step where the track-repeating algorithm should start”; “the same proton history was utilized NT times for various positions of the incident protons”: a stored history matching the incident particle in energy and direction is designated as that particle’s transport path).
13. Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynaert (“Monte Carlo Treatment Planning: An Introduction”) in view of Chetty (“Report of the AAPM Task Group No. 105”), further in view of Hissoiny (“GPUMCD: A new GPU-oriented Monte Carlo dose calculation platform”).
Reynaert as modified by Chetty teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 17 and 18 above.
As per Claim 23, Reynaert as modified by Chetty fails to teach explicitly wherein the sampling particles from the inputted particles includes: importing a geometrical model, the geometrical model including a geometrical virtual section, the geometrical virtual section being used to define the physical material corresponding to the lattice cell to make the simulated object corresponding to the lattice cell including a homogenized material; determining a sampling probability based on the geometrical virtual section, the sampling probability being the sum of a sampling probability of the real reaction and a sampling probability of the virtual reaction; and sampling particles from the inputted particles based on the sampling probability.
Hissoiny teaches the geometrical virtual section being used to define the physical material corresponding to the lattice cell to make the simulated object corresponding to the lattice cell including a homogenized material (section II.A “
PNG
media_image2.png
268
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” right column of pg 755);
determining a sampling probability based on the geometrical virtual section, the sampling probability being the sum of a sampling probability of the real reaction and a sampling probability of the virtual reaction (section II.A “
PNG
media_image3.png
407
519
media_image3.png
Greyscale
” right column of pg 755: a fictitious (virtual) interaction is introduced so the voxel (i.e., the “lattice cell” as claimed) is treated as homogeneous and the free path is sampled from the combined real-plus-virtual attenuation µmax).
In particular, Hissoiny teaches the Woodcock raytracing scheme in which a heterogeneous voxel volume is treated as homogeneously attenuating by introducing a fictitious interaction, so the distance to the next interaction is always sampled using µmax and the interaction type is then sampled taking the fictitious interaction into account.
Reynaert, Chetty, and Hissoiny are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, Monte Carlo simulation of particle transport for radiotherapy dose calculation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Hissoiny into Reynaert as modified by Chetty’s invention for the purpose of Monte Carlo simulation of particle transport to provide a simulation run with a large enough number of histories with very small uncertainty (Chetty: pg. 4847). Further the motivation is to provide a distinct geometry engine where a fictitious interaction lets the volume be considered homogeneously attenuating and eliminates the need in heterogeneous situations (Hissoiny: section II.A).
14. Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yepes (“A GPU implementation of a track-repeating algorithm for proton radiotherapy dose calculations”) in view of Hissoiny (“GPUMCD: A new GPU-oriented Monte Carlo dose calculation platform”).
Yepes teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 34 and 35 above.
As per Claim 36, Yepes fails to teach explicitly wherein the sampling particles from the inputted particles includes: importing a geometrical model, the geometrical model including a geometrical virtual section, the geometrical virtual section being used to define the physical material corresponding to the lattice cell to make the simulated object corresponding to the lattice cell including a homogenized material; determining a sampling probability based on the geometrical virtual section, the sampling probability being the sum of a sampling probability of the real reaction and a sampling probability of the virtual reaction; and sampling particles from the inputted particles based on the sampling probability. Hissoiny teaches the geometrical virtual section being used to define the physical material corresponding to the lattice cell to make the simulated object corresponding to the lattice cell including a homogenized material (section II.A “
PNG
media_image2.png
268
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“ right column of pg 755);
determining a sampling probability based on the geometrical virtual section, the sampling probability being the sum of a sampling probability of the real reaction and a sampling probability of the virtual reaction (section II.A “
PNG
media_image3.png
407
519
media_image3.png
Greyscale
” right column of pg 755”: a fictitious (virtual) interaction is introduced so the voxel (i.e., the “lattice cell” as claimed) is treated as homogeneous and the free path is sampled from the combined real-plus-virtual attenuation µmax). In particular, Hissoiny teaches the Woodcock raytracing scheme in which a heterogeneous voxel volume is treated as homogeneously attenuating by introducing a fictitious interaction, so the distance to the next interaction is always sampled using µmax.
Yepes and Hissoiny are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor, Monte Carlo simulation of particle transport for radiotherapy dose calculation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Hissoiny into Yepes’s invention for the purpose of track-repeating Monte Carlo dose calculation to provide a distinct geometry engine where a fictitious interaction lets the volume be considered homogeneously attenuating and eliminates the need in heterogeneous situations (Hissoiny: section II.A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights