DETAILED ACTION
This action is a response to the filing on 8/21/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5 and 6, filed 8/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under statutory double patenting 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
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 § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 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 § 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 §§ 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,869,680. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,869,680 disclose a species that anticipates the current genus claims. The claims are mapped as follows:
Present Application
US 11,869,680
1. An apparatus to facilitate treating a patient's treatment volume with
therapeutic radiation using a multi-leaf collimation system, the apparatus comprising:
a control circuit configured to:
-determine a reference curvature as a function, at least in part, of relative
differences of a plurality of laterally adjacent leaf-widths of the multi-leaf collimation
system; and
-optimize a radiation treatment plan for the patient's treatment volume using an
automatically iterating optimization process that optimizes as a function, at least in part,
of predetermined cost functions, wherein at least one of the cost functions favors
apertures for the multi-leaf collimation system having local curvature that deviates only
minimally from the reference curvature by increasing a cost associated with increasing
deviations of the local curvature with respect to the reference curvature; and
a radiation treatment platform operably configured to administer the therapeutic
radiation to the patient in accordance with the radiation treatment plan as optimized by
the control circuit.
1. An apparatus to facilitate treating a patient's treatment volume with therapeutic radiation using a multi-leaf collimation system, the apparatus comprising:
a control circuit configured to:
-determine a reference curvature as a function, at least in part, of relative differences of a plurality of laterally adjacent leaf positions, and relative differences of a plurality of laterally adjacent leaf-widths of the multi-leaf collimation system; and
-optimize a radiation treatment plan for the patient's treatment volume using an automatically iterating optimization process that optimizes as a function, at least in part, of predetermined cost functions, wherein at least one of the cost functions favors apertures for the multi-leaf collimation system having local curvature that deviates only minimally from the reference curvature by increasing a cost associated with increasing deviations of the local curvature with respect to the reference curvature; and
a radiation treatment platform operably configured to administer the therapeutic radiation to the patient in accordance with the radiation treatment plan as optimized by the control circuit.
10. An apparatus to facilitate treating a patient's treatment volume with
therapeutic radiation using a multi-leaf collimation system, the apparatus comprising:
a control circuit configured to:
-determine a reference curvature as a function, at least in part, of relative
differences of a plurality of laterally adjacent leaf-widths of the multi-leaf collimation
system; and
-optimize a radiation treatment plan for the patient's treatment volume using an
automatically iterating optimization process that optimizes as a function, at least in part,
of predetermined cost functions, wherein at least a first one of the cost functions favors
apertures for the multi-leaf collimation system having local curvature that deviates only
minimally from the reference curvature, by increasing a cost associated with increasing
deviations of the local curvature with respect to the reference curvature, and a second one
of the cost functions favors larger apertures for the multi-leaf collimation system; and
a radiation treatment platform operably configured to administer the therapeutic
radiation to the patient in accordance with the radiation treatment plan as optimized by
the control circuit.
10. An apparatus to facilitate treating a patient's treatment volume with therapeutic radiation using a multi-leaf collimation system, the apparatus comprising:
a control circuit configured to:
-determine a reference curvature as a function, at least in part, of relative differences of a plurality of laterally adjacent leaf positions, and relative differences of a plurality of laterally adjacent leaf-widths of the multi-leaf collimation system; and
-optimize a radiation treatment plan for the patient's treatment volume using an automatically iterating optimization process that optimizes as a function, at least in part, of predetermined cost functions, wherein at least a first one of the cost functions favors apertures for the multi-leaf collimation system having local curvature that deviates only minimally from the reference curvature, by increasing a cost associated with increasing deviations of the local curvature with respect to the reference curvature, and a second one of the cost functions favors larger apertures for the multi-leaf collimation system; and
a radiation treatment platform operably configured to administer the therapeutic radiation to the patient in accordance with the radiation treatment plan as optimized by the control circuit.
As noted in the table above, claims 1 and 10 of the patent discloses all the components of claim 1 and claim 10 of the present application plus additional components (noted in the italicized section), which makes the patent a species that anticipates the current genus claim.
Claims 2-9 are mapped to claims 2-9 of US 11,869,680 respectively.
Claim 11 is mapped to claim 11 of US 11,869,680.
Conclusion
The examiner notes that, though no art has been applied against claims 1-11 at this time, they are not presently allowable. The question of prior art will be revisited upon resolution of the numerous issues noted above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0020535 (Cooley et al.) and US 2010/0046706 (Moreau) disclose some but not all limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DARYL DEANON LANNU whose telephone number is (571)270-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 5 PM, Friday 8 AM -12 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, Charles Marmor can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/JOSHUA DARYL D LANNU/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights