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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/09/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-8, 12-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 20150360054) in view of Vojan et al. (US 20220203136).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Jeong teaches a computer-implemented method for a treatment delivery system, the method comprising:
receiving an input requesting movement of a couch of the treatment delivery system from a first position to a second position; and in response to the input (para 63):
transmitting, to a surface guidance system 700 configured to provide optical monitoring of a surface of a patient, position information for the couch, wherein the position information is for modifying a virtual location of a reference patient surface (para 55-64); and the treatment delivery system and the surface guidance system are two independent system (an apparatus 700 is for controlling a position of a radiation treatment system such that they are considered two separate/independent system).
causing the couch to move from the first position to the second position (para 84).
However Jeong fails to teach transmitting via a device interface between the treatment delivery system and the surface guidance system.
Vojan teaches transmitting via a device interface between the treatment delivery system and the surface guidance system (para 95-96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the surface guidance system of Jeong with the device interface as taught by Vojan, since it would provide better communication/control of the treatment system.
Regarding claim 2, Jeong teaches the position information for the couch comprises an indication that the couch is disposed in a patient treatment position (para 52+).
Regarding claim 3, Jeong teaches the couch is disposed at least partially within a bore of the treatment delivery system when disposed in the patient treatment position (figure 6.
Regarding claim 4, Jeong teaches the first position comprises a patient load position (para 52+).
Regarding claim 5, Jeong teaches the couch is disposed outside a bore of the treatment delivery system when disposed in the patient load position (para 52+).
Regarding claim 6, Jeong teaches the position information for the couch comprises couch shift coordinates (para 52+).
Regarding claim 7, Jeong teaches the couch shift coordinates indicate a displacement of the couch from a patient setup position to a patient treatment position (para 52+).
Regarding claim 8, Jeong teaches the position information for the couch comprises couch shift coordinates that are based on a patient offset from a planned treatment location (para 52+).
Regarding claim 12, Jeong teaches the second position comprises a patient treatment position (para 52+).
Regarding claim 14, Jeong teaches the position information for the repositionable couch comprises an indication that the repositionable couch is disposed in a patient treatment position (para 52+).
Regarding claim 15, Jeong teaches the position information enables the surface guidance system to adjust a current position of the reference patient surface relative to the treatment delivery system (para 52+).
Regarding claim 16, Jeong teaches receipt of the position information causes the surface guidance system to adjust the current position of the planned patient surface to correspond to the second position (para 52+).
Regarding claim 17, Jeong teaches the position information for the repositionable couch comprises couch shift coordinates (para 52+).
Regarding claim 18, Jeong teaches the first position causes a planned patient anatomy to be positioned at an isocenter of the treatment delivery device and the second position causes a day-of-treatment patient anatomy to be positioned at the isocenter of the treatment delivery device (para 52+).
Regarding claim 19, Jeong teaches the position information is based on a difference between the planned patient anatomy and the day-of-treatment anatomy (para 52+).
Regarding claim 21, Jeong teaches the first position causes a first target volume in a region of patient anatomy to be positioned at a first isocenter of the treatment delivery device and the second position causes a second target volume in the region of patient anatomy to be positioned at a second isocenter of the treatment delivery device (para 52+).
Regarding claim 22, Jeong teaches the couch shift coordinates indicate a displacement of the repositionable couch from a patient setup position to a patient treatment position (para 52+).
Regarding claim 23, Jeong teaches modifying the virtual location includes shifting the virtual location relative to the treatment delivery system or rotating the virtual location (para 65-70).
Claim(s) 9-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 20150360054) in view of Hirai et al. (US 20230149741).
Regarding claim 9, Jeong fails to teach acquiring at least one x-ray image of a region of patient anatomy; and determining the patient offset from the planned treatment location based on the at least one x-ray image.
Hirai teaches acquiring at least one x-ray image of a region of patient anatomy; and determining the patient offset (deviation) from the planned treatment location based on the at least one x-ray image (para 52+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt system of Jeong with the x-ray system as taught by Hirai, since it would provide better patient positioning.
Regarding claim 10, Hirai teaches the at least one x-ray image is acquired at the second position (104, para 39-44).
Regarding claim 11, Hirai teaches another x-ray image is acquired at the first position (102, para 39-44).
Regarding claim 20, Jeong as modified by Hirai teaches the controller is further configured to perform the steps of: causing at least one X-ray image to be acquired of a region of patient anatomy while the repositionable couch is disposed at the first position; and determining the difference between the planned patient anatomy and the day-of- treatment anatomy based on the at least one X-ray image (Hirai, para 39-44).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights