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 Objections Claim s 5, 12, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 5 , 12 and 19 state “secondar” however this should ready “secondary”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea directed to organizing human activity and math . Claims 1-20 are draw to a method, CRM, and system for outputting a treatment plan. Claims 1-14 do fall into statutory categories of a product and a process. Claims 15-20 do not fall into a statutory category (see below), but would fall into a statutory category if it included “memory”. Claims 1-20 recite the abstract idea of receiving information and executing a models to generate and calculate attributes and values for the treatment plan. The further elements in the dependents do not further limit the abstract idea and fall into the execution steps. The mentions of the processors and CRM elements are seen as being considered in (apply it, MPEP 2106.05(f)) The abstract idea is seen as organizing human activity because it recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people or is also seen as performing math. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which amount to mere instruction to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the processor computer in the computer readable medium, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea see MPEP 2106.05(f) and specification [0090]-[0091] and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the recitation of a computer and a processor, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . The additional elements of outputting information as deemed “additional elements” which do not result in significantly more than the judicial exception. They are seen as post-solution activity where displaying information is not seen as significantly more similar to that of Electric Power Group which deemed gathering data, analyzing it and displaying it did not result in overcoming the judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim s 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention falls under “signals per se” as there is no mention of a memory and the processor can fall into the “signals per se” category which is not a statutory category. 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. 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. Furthermore, since the reference qualifies under 102(a)(1) it is suggested to look at the exceptions 102(b)(1)(a)/(b) as the inventorship is different between the reference and the current application. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakala et al., US 20220415472, herein referred to as “Hakala” in view of McNutt et al., US 20170083682, herein referred to as “McNutt”. Regarding claim 1, Hakala discloses: A method comprising: receiving, by a processor (Fig. 1) , a radiation therapy plan objective for a patient (Fig. 1 , [0014], [0024]; specifically processor for determining radiation [ 0056] ; specifically selecting dosage ) ; executing, by the processor, a plan optimizer computer model to generate one or more treatment attributes for a treatment plan complying with the radiation therapy plan objectives ( [0014], [0024]; specifically the processor used with machine learning to predict radiotherapy treatment using iterative processes and claim 1 ) , the plan optimizer computer model iteratively calculating the one or more attributes, where with each iteration, the plan optimizer computer model revises the one or more attributes of the treatment plan in accordance with a cost value ( claim 1 and [0014], [0024]; specifically iterative process with machine learning and reward value ) ; executing, by the processor, an artificial intelligence model to calculate a second cost value for the treatment plan ( [0024]; specifically adjusting the reward value which would result in a second cost ) , and outputting, by the processor, the treatment plan for the patient ( [0014], [0024] and [0143]; specifically outputting a radiotherapy treatment ) . While Hakala does disclose, Hakala does not explicitly disclose: wherein the artificial intelligence model is trained to calculate the second cost value in accordance with a likelihood of occurrence of a health-problem for the patient after being treated via the treatment plan having the one or more attributes . However, McNutt does disclose: wherein the artificial intelligence model is trained to calculate the second cost value in accordance with a likelihood of occurrence of a health-problem for the patient after being treated via the treatment plan having the one or more attributes ( abstract and [241]; specifically the toxicity that could occur for patient ) . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modeling and treatment planning of Hakala to include the ability to train for toxicity as seen in McNutt. The motivation being able to connect treatment to toxicity for better monitoring of patient as seen in McNutt [0276]-[0277] . Regarding claim 2, Hakala discloses: further comprising: transmitting, by the processor, the second cost value to the plan optimizer computer model, wherein the plan optimizer computer model revised the one or more attributes of the treatment plan in accordance with the second cost value ([0020]-[0021], [0121] and claim 1; specifically the different rewards/cumulative rewards resulting in creating the treatment plan ) . Regarding claim 3, Hakala does disclose it can look at different issues associated with disease as seen in ([0025]). However, Hakala does not explicitly disclose what those could be. McNutt does disclose: wherein the health-problem corresponds to at least one of xerostomia, reduction of saliva production, headache, hair loss, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, hair loss, skin irritation, memory loss, or speech loss ([0276]; xerostomia, [0337]; salivary gland function). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modeling and treatment planning of Hakala to include the ability to train for toxicity as seen in McNutt. The motivation being able to connect treatment to toxicity for better monitoring of patient and make connections between different diagnostic factors/side effects as seen in McNutt [0 086 ] . Regarding claim 4, Hakala discloses: wherein the radiation therapy plan objective corresponds to a dose- volume objective ([0051]; specifically dose distribution which is seen as dose-volume objective) . Regarding claim 5, Hakala discloses looking at cancer [0071] . Hakala does not explicitly disclose that a separate health-problem can be another form of cancer. However, McNutt discloses: wherein the health-problem corresponds to developing a secondar cancer ( abstract, [0328] and claims 1 and 14 ) . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modeling and treatment planning of Hakala to include the ability to train for toxicity as seen in McNutt. The motivation being able to connect treatment to toxicity for better monitoring of patient and make connections between different diagnostic factors/side effects as seen in McNutt [0 086 ] . Regarding claim 6, Hakala discloses: wherein the plan optimizer computer model aggregates the second cost value generated by the artificial intelligence model with the cost value generated by the plan optimizer computer model ([0070]-[0075] and Fig. 4 which shows the different agents with different rewards as well as the global model and Fig. 5) . Regarding claim 7, Hakala discloses: wherein the artificial intelligence model is customized for a clinic implementing the treatment plan for the patient ([00 13]-[0015] and claim 1) . Regarding claims 8-14, the claims are similarly rejected to claims 1-7 as seen above. The CRM aspect is further seen in Hakala, Fig. 1 and [0062] . Regarding claims 15-20, the claims are similarly rejected as claims 1-6 above. The processor and system are taught in the claims of Hakala and Fig. 1. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOANNE M RODDEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4276 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM MST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jonathan Moffat can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-4390 . 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. /JOANNE M RODDEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794