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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-11 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ollila et al. (US 20180078785).
Regarding claim 1, Ollila teaches a method to facilitate optimizing a multi-field radiation treatment plan for a multi-field treatment arrangement for a particular patient presenting a particular target volume (abstract), the method comprising: by a control circuit:
automatically modeling the multi-field treatment arrangement as a single composite trajectory that includes a plurality of treatment fields to provide a single composite/multi-field treatment arrangement (para 69);
optimizing the multi-field radiation treatment plan as a function of the single composite/multi-field treatment arrangement (para 69).
Regarding claim 6, Ollila teaches automatically modeling the multi-field treatment arrangement as a single composite trajectory comprises, at least in part, arranging each of the treatment fields of the plurality of treatment fields to have corresponding control points, and wherein the control points for each of the treatment fields are co-aligned with one another and optimized as an array of composite control points (para 66).
Regarding claim 7, Ollila teaches the control points for each of the treatment fields are co- aligned with one another such that beam directions of respective ones of the control points are at least substantially the same between the treatment fields (para 71-72).
Regarding claim 8, Ollila teaches notwithstanding the co-alignment of the treatment fields with one another, a beam's eye view for a given one of the control points for a first one of the treatment fields can be different from a beam's eye view for the same given one of the control points for a second one of the treatment fields (para 36, 79).
Regarding claim 9, Ollila teaches notwithstanding the co-alignment of the treatment fields with one another, a beam's eye view as determined, at least in part, by at least one beam shaping apparatus for a given one of the control points for a first one of the treatment fields can be different from a beam's eye view for the same given one of the control points for a second one of the treatment fields (para 36, 79).
Regarding claim 10, Ollila teaches the beam's eye view is determined, at least in part, by at least one of a collimator position and a collimator angle (para 36, 79).
Regarding claim 11, Ollila teaches an apparatus to facilitate optimizing a multi-field radiation treatment plan for a multi- field treatment arrangement for a particular patient presenting a particular target volume, the apparatus comprising: a control circuit configured to: automatically model the multi-field treatment arrangement as a single composite trajectory that includes a plurality of treatment fields to provide a single composite/multi-field treatment arrangement; optimize the multi-field radiation treatment plan as a function of the single composite/multi-field treatment arrangement (para 69).
Regarding claim 16, Ollila teaches the control circuit is configured to automatically model the multi-field treatment arrangement as a single composite trajectory by, at least in part, arranging each of the treatment fields of the plurality of treatment fields to have corresponding control points, and wherein the control points for each of the treatment fields are co-aligned with one another and optimized as an array of composite control points (para 66).
Regarding claim 17, Ollila teaches the control points for each of the treatment fields are co-aligned with one another such that beam directions of respective ones of the control points are at least substantially the same between the treatment fields (para 71-72).
Regarding claim 18, Ollila teaches notwithstanding the co-alignment of the treatment fields with one another, a beam's eye view for a given one of the control points for a first one of the treatment fields can be different from a beam's eye view for the same given one of the control points for a second one of the treatment fields (para 36, 79).
Regarding claim 19, Ollila teaches notwithstanding the co-alignment of the treatment fields with one another, a beam's eye view as determined, at least in part, by at least one beam shaping apparatus for a given one of the control points for a first one of the treatment fields can be different from a beam's eye view for the same given one of the control points for a second one of the treatment fields (para 36, 79).
Regarding claim 20, Ollila teaches the control circuit is configured to determine the beam's eye view, at least in part, by at least one of a collimator position and a collimator angle (para 36, 79).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 11-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kauppinen et al. (US 20220088411).
Regarding claim 1, Kauppinen teaches a method to facilitate optimizing a multi-field radiation treatment plan for a multi-field treatment arrangement for a particular patient presenting a particular target volume, the method comprising: by a control circuit:
automatically modeling the multi-field treatment arrangement as a single composite trajectory that includes a plurality of treatment fields to provide a single composite/multi-field treatment arrangement; optimizing the multi-field radiation treatment plan as a function of the single composite/multi-field treatment arrangement (para 34, 36 and 38-40).
Regarding claim 2, Kauppinen teaches at least two of the plurality of treatment fields partially overlap with one another (para 42).
Regarding claim 3, Kauppinen teaches each of the plurality of treatment fields has a corresponding arc trajectory (figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Kauppinen teaches automatically modeling the multi-field treatment arrangement as a single composite trajectory comprises, at least in part, arranging each of the treatment fields of the plurality of treatment fields to have corresponding control points, and wherein the control points for each of the treatment fields are co-aligned with one another and optimized as an array of composite control points (figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Kauppinen teaches an apparatus to facilitate optimizing a multi-field radiation treatment plan for a multi- field treatment arrangement for a particular patient presenting a particular target volume, the apparatus comprising: a control circuit configured to: automatically model the multi-field treatment arrangement as a single composite trajectory that includes a plurality of treatment fields to provide a single composite/multi-field treatment arrangement; optimize the multi-field radiation treatment plan as a function of the single composite/multi-field treatment arrangement (para 34, 36 and 38-40).
Regarding claim 12, Kauppinen teaches at least two of the plurality of treatment fields partially overlap with one another (para 42).
Regarding claim 13, Kauppinen teaches each of the plurality of treatment fields has a corresponding arc trajectory (figure 3).
Regarding claim 16, Kauppinen teaches the control circuit is configured to automatically model the multi-field treatment arrangement as a single composite trajectory by, at least in part, arranging each of the treatment fields of the plurality of treatment fields to have corresponding control points, and wherein the control points for each of the treatment fields are co-aligned with one another and optimized as an array of composite control points (figure 3).
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) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollila in view of Sheng et al. (US 20180043183).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the prior art fails to teach the arc trajectories for each of the plurality of treatment fields are co-planar with one another.
Sheng teaches the arc trajectories for each of the plurality of treatment fields are co-planar with one another (para 9).
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 trajectories of Ollila with the trajectories as taught by Sheng, since it would provide better alignment.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollila in view of Arber et al. (US 20150119626).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Ollila fails to teach at least one of the corresponding arc trajectories is a reverse direction of another one of the corresponding arc trajectories.
Arber teaches at least one of the corresponding arc trajectories is a reverse direction of another one of the corresponding arc trajectories (para 19).
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 trajectories of aaaaa with the trajectories as taught by Arber, since it would simple movement.
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