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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the argument regarding Filiberti not controlling the couch to simulate motion of the target region, examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant. Examiner is interpreting the claim language as currently stated to mean that the moving target region moves due to the movement of the couch in order to position the target region into the beam’s trajectory. Examiner is interpreting the claim to mean that the couch and target region both move in tandem with one another. For exemplary purposes, examiner is interpreting the patient to be strapped down (immobile) when lying on the couch and thus the motion data is the movement of the couch to align the patient with any minor adjustment the patient might experience when being moved into place. The arguments provided for this limitation seem to imply that the patient would be moving separately and independently from the couch and the couch is meant to counteract these movements to keep the target region in the path of the beam. However there is not enough evidence in the claim to positively recite this interpretation. Examiner recommends that the applicant amend the claim to further specify that the patient moves independently of the system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2.In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, & 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by US 2016/0023019 hereinafter Filiberti.
In regards to Claim 1: A method for controlling a radiotherapy apparatus to perform quality assurance, wherein the radiotherapy apparatus comprises:
a subject support surface (Filiberti, Paragraph 23; Figure 1 Item 102); and
a beam delivery device for delivering a planned radiation dose to a moving target region of a patient according to a plan, the plan comprising instructions for instructing the beam delivery device to adjust a positioning of a beam to compensate for motion of the moving target region of the patient (Filiberti, Paragraphs 26 & 65; Figure 1 Item 104 &106);
wherein the method comprises:
receiving motion data representing motion of the moving target region (Filiberti, Paragraph 35 Figure 5 Items S301-S3-3);
controlling movement of the subject support surface to simulate motion of the moving target region of the patient, based on the motion data (Filiberti, Paragraph 38; Figure 5 Item S304); and
controlling the beam delivery device to deliver radiation according to the plan while the subject support surface simulates motion of the moving target region of the patient (Filiberti, Paragraph 36; Figure 3 Item S100).
In regards to Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the beam delivery device comprises a beam shaper (Filiberti, Paragraph 26).
In regards to Claim 3: The method of claim 1 [[or 2]], further comprising:
validating operation of the radiotherapy apparatus based on comparing a detected radiation dose delivered by the beam delivery device to the planned radiation dose (Filiberti, Paragraph 32).
In regards to Claim 5: The method of claim 1,further comprising;
detecting a radiation dose delivered by the beam delivery device using a radiation detector supported by the subject support surface (Filiberti, Paragraph 32).
In regards to Claim 6: The method of claim 1,where in the planned radiation dose comprises a dose distribution (Filiberti, Paragraph 3).
In regards to Claim 7: The method of claim 1,wherein the motion data corresponds to at least one component of a measured and/or predicted motion of the moving target region of the patient (Filiberti, Paragraph 37; Figure 3 Items S103 & S104).
In regards to Claim 8: The method of claim 1,wherein the motion data is based on one or more measurements of the moving target region of the patient obtained using an imaging system (Filiberti, Paragraph 37).
In regards to Claim 9: The method of any preceding claim 1,wherein the planned radiation dose is based on the motion data (Filiberti, Paragraph 3; “Second, a motion path…”).
In regards to Claim 10: The method of claim 1,further comprising;
determining one or more control instructions for the subject support surface (Filiberti, Figure 3 Items S103 & S104), based on the motion data, to control the subject support surface to simulate the motion of the moving target region of the patient (Filiberti, Figure 3 Item S107).
In regards to Claim 11: The method of claim 1,further comprising:
receiving measurement data representing a measured motion of a patient target region (Filiberti, Figure 5 Item S301); and
generating the motion data representing the motion of the moving target region of the patient based on the measurement data (Filiberti, Figure 5 Items S302-S305).
In regards to Claim 13: The method of claim 1,wherein the beam delivery device comprises a tracking multi-leaf collimator, MLC (Filiberti, Paragraph 25-26).
In regards to Claim 14: The method of claim 1,wherein the plan is a treatment plan for the patient (Filiberti, Paragraph 67).
In regards to Claim 15: A radiotherapy apparatus for use with a subject support surface, the radiotherapy apparatus comprising:
a beam delivery device for delivering a planned radiation dose to a moving target region according to a plan, the plan comprising instructions for instructing the beam delivery device to adjust a positioning of a beam to compensate for motion of the moving target region (Filiberti, Paragraph 26 & 65; Figure 1 Items 104 & 106); and
a controller (Filiberti, Paragraph 35; Figure 1 Item 120) configured to:
receive motion data representing motion of the moving target region (Filiberti, Paragraph 35);
control movement of the subject support surface to simulate motion of the moving target region based on the motion data (Filiberti, Paragraph 38); and
control the beam delivery device to deliver radiation according to the plan while the subject support surface simulates motion of the moving target region (Filiberti, Paragraph 36).
In regards to Claim 16: A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a computer device (Filiberti, Paragraph 72), cause the computer device to:
receive motion data representing motion of the moving target region (Filiberti, Paragraph 38);
control movement of a subject support surface of a radiotherapy apparatus to simulate motion of a moving target region based on the motion data (Filiberti, Paragraph 38); and
control a beam delivery device to deliver a planned radiation dose while the subject support surface simulates motion of the moving target region (Filiberti, Paragraph 38).
In regards to Claim 17: wherein the controller is further configured to:
validate operation of the radiotherapy apparatus based on comparing a detected radiation dose delivered by the beam delivery device to the planned radiation dose (Filiberti, Paragraph 32).
In regards to Claim 18: The radiotherapy apparatus of claim 15, wherein the controller is further configured to:
detect a radiation dose delivered by the beam delivery device using a radiation detector supported by the subject support surface (Filiberti, Paragraph 32).
In regards to Claim 19: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions further cause the computer device to:
validate operation of the radiotherapy apparatus based on comparing a detected radiation dose delivered by the beam delivery device to the planned radiation dose (Filiberti, Paragraph 32); and
detect a radiation dose delivered by the beam delivery device using a radiation detector supported by the subject support surface (Filiberti, Paragraph 32).
In regards to Claim 20: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions further cause the computer device to:
determine one or more control instructions for the subject support surface (Filiberti, Figure 3 Items S103 & S104), based on the motion data, to control the subject support surface to simulate the motion of the moving target region (Filiberti, Paragraph 23; Figure 3 Item S107);
receive measurement data representing a measured motion of a patient target region (Filiberti, Paragraph 35); and
generate the motion data representing the motion of the moving target region based on the measurement data (Filiberti, Paragraph 36).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 4 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0023019 hereinafter Filiberti in view of US 2014/0054465 hereinafter Berke.
In regards to Claim 4: Filiberti teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the step of controlling the subject support surface to simulate motion of the moving target region of the patient comprises moving the subject support surface such that a radiation detector supported by the subject support surface simulates motion of the moving target region of the patient.
Berke teaches wherein controlling the subject support surface to simulate motion of the moving target region of the patient comprises moving the subject support surface such that a radiation detector supported by the subject support surface simulates motion of the moving target region of the patient (Berke, Paragraph 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the simulation of a moving target by moving the subject support surface taught by Berke to the imaging-based calibration device taught by Filiberti, the motivation being to provide a realistic model of how a patient would move during treatment.
In regards to Claim 12: Filiberti teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein controlling the subject support surface comprises controlling an actuator of the subject support surface based on the motion data.
Berke teaches wherein controlling the subject support surface comprises controlling an actuator of the subject support surface based on the motion data (Berke, Figure 5 Item 54; Paragraph 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the support surface actuator taught in Berke to the imaging-based calibration device taught by Filiberti, the motivation being to provide movement closely related to that of a potential patient to simulate their movement.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOE R DIETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1135. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)-272-4233. 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.
/N.R.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights