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 § 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, 5-6, 9-10, 12-15, 17, 19-22, 24, 27-31 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachaine (US 20180144510) in view of Altunbas (US 20200268330).
Regarding claim 1, Lachaine teaches a system for delivering radiotherapy to a patient, the system comprising: a radiotherapy system having a radiation source; an imaging system; a portal imaging system configured to sense radiation emitted from the radiation source of the radiotherapy system; and a computing device configured to: receive a radiation treatment plan for the patient, the radiation treatment plan defining a first beam path to a target site of the patient and a second beam path to the target site of the patient; receive, from the imaging system, first imaging data, the first imaging data the first and second sets of imaging data each including a region of interest of the patient that includes the target site; cause the radiation source to emit a radiation therapy beam along the first beam path to the target site of the patient; receive, from the portal imaging system, x-ray imaging data acquired during emission of the radiation therapy beam along the first beam path; determine movement of the patient based on the CBCT and portal imager data; and adjust the radiation treatment plan to compensate for the determined movement of the patient (para 55-57, 64, 71-73, 112-113,109, see PCT written opinion).
However Lachaine fails to teach a first set of CBCT imaging data acquired at a first energy level, and a second set of CBCT imaging data acquired at a second energy level different from the first energy level.
Altunbas teaches a first set of CBCT imaging data acquired at a first energy level, and a second set of CBCT imaging data acquired at a second energy level different from the first energy level (para 185-187).
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 imaging data of Lachaine with the first and second energies as taught by Altunbas, since it would provide better patient information and enhance the performance of the flat panel x-ray detector (para 102).
Regarding claim 5, Lachaine teaches the radiation treatment plan defines: a first sweep path of the radiation source that includes the first beam path; and a second sweep path of the radiation source that includes the second beam path, the first sweep being different than the second sweep (para 71-73, 81).
Regarding claim 6, Lachaine teaches the first sweep path is a first arc path to be followed by the radiation source, and wherein the second sweep path is a second arc path to be followed by the radiation source (para 71-73, 81).
Regarding claim 9, Lachaine teaches adjust the radiation treatment plan to compensate for the determined movement includes the computing device being further configured to: change a property of a next radiation therapy beam to be directed at the patient, according to the radiation treatment plan and based on the determined movement, the next radiation therapy beam corresponding to the next beam path to be followed by the next radiation therapy beam; change an order of application of any of the remaining radiation treatment beams to be delivered to the patient according to the radiation treatment plan and based on the determined movement, each beam path of the radiation treatment plan corresponding with each radiation treatment beam; remove a radiation treatment beam that was to be directed at a patient along a beam path from the radiation treatment plan, based on the determined movement; or move the coordinates of a reference point defined previously in the radiation treatment plan, based on the determined movement. (para 49, 68, 109-113).
Regarding claim 10, Lachaine teaches the computing device is further configured to change the property of the next radiation therapy beam to be directed at the patient, according to the radiation treatment plan and based on the determined movement, the next radiation therapy beam corresponding to the next beam path to be followed by the next radiation therapy beam, and wherein the property of the next radiation therapy beam includes at least one of: a duration of application of the next radiation therapy beam; a radiation dose provided by the next radiation therapy beam; an energy level of the next radiation therapy beam; a position of the beam path to be followed by the next radiation therapy beam; or an orientation of the beam path to be followed by the next radiation therapy beam (para 49, 68, 109-113).
Regarding claim 12, Lachaine teaches the first set of CBCT imaging data acquired at the first energy level includes the imaging system emitting a first radiation imaging beam having a first radiation energy spectrum towards the patient and a detector array of the imaging system, the first energy level being a peak in the first radiation energy spectrum; and wherein the second set of CBCT imaging data acquired at the second energy level includes the imaging system emitting a second radiation imaging beam having a second radiation energy spectrum towards the patient and the detector array of the imaging system, the second energy level being a peak in the second radiation energy spectrum (para 185-187).
Regarding claim 13, Lachaine teaches a computer-implemented method for tracking a patient, the method comprising: receiving, using one or more computing devices, a radiation treatment plan, the radiation treatment plan defining a first beam path to a target site of the patient and a second beam path to the target site of the patient; receiving, using the one or more computing devices, first imaging data including: receiving, using the one or more computing devices, x-ray imaging data acquired from a portal imaging system during emission of a radiation therapy beam along the first beam path; determining, using the one or more computing devices, movement of the patient based on the first imaging data and the portal imaging data; and updating, using the one or more computing devices, a position of the patient, based on the movement of the patient (para 55-57, 64, 71-73, 112-113,109, see PCT written opinion).
However Lachaine fails to teach a first set of CBCT imaging data of a region of interest of the patient and acquired at a first energy level, the region of interest including the target site; and a second set of CBCT imaging data of the region of interest and acquired at a second energy level different from the first energy level.
Altunbas teaches a first set of CBCT imaging data of a region of interest of the patient and acquired at a first energy level, the region of interest including the target site; and a second set of CBCT imaging data of the region of interest and acquired at a second energy level different from the first energy level (para 185-187).
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 imaging data of Lachaine with the first and second energies as taught by Altunbas, since it would provide better patient information and enhance the performance of the flat panel x-ray detector (para 102).
Regarding claim 14, Lachaine teaches moving, using the one or more computing devices, the patient or a radiation source to compensate for the determined movement of the patient (para 49, 68. 109-113).
Regarding claim 15, Lachaine teaches updating the position of the patient based on the movement of the patient includes: changing, using the one or more computing devices, a property of a next radiation therapy beam to be directed at the patient, according to the radiation treatment plan and based on the determined movement, the next radiation therapy beam corresponding to the next beam path to be followed by the next radiation therapy beam; changing, using the one or more computing devices, an order of application of any of the remaining radiation treatment beams to be delivered to the patient according to the radiation treatment plan and based on the determined movement, each beam path of the radiation treatment plan corresponding with each radiation treatment beam; removing, using the one or more computing devices, a radiation treatment beam that was to be directed at a patient along a beam path from the radiation treatment plan, based on the determined movement; or moving, using the one or more computing devices, the coordinates of a reference point defined previously in the radiation treatment plan, based on the determined movement (para 49, 68. 109-113).
Regarding claim 17, Lachaine teaches a method for delivering radiation therapy to a patient, the method comprising: receiving a radiation treatment plan for the patient; receiving first imaging data, the first imaging data; delivering a radiation therapy beam to a patient; receiving, from a portal imaging system, second imaging data, the portal imaging system sensing the radiation therapy beam to acquire the second imaging data; and compensating for movement of the patient, based on the first imaging data and the second imaging data.
However Lachaine fails to teach a dual-energy imaging acquisition.
Altunbas teaches a dual-energy imaging acquisition (para 185-187).
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 imaging data of Lachaine with the first and second energies as taught by Altunbas, since it would provide better patient information and enhance the performance of the flat panel x-ray detector (para 102).
Regarding claim 19, Lachaine teaches a system for delivering radiotherapy to a patient, the system comprising: a radiation therapy source configured to move to different positions about the patient; an imaging system including one or more radiation imaging sources and one or more detector arrays; a portal imaging device configured to sense radiation emitted from the one or more radiation sources to receive imaging data therefrom; and a computing device configured to: receive, from the imaging system, first imaging data of a region of interest of the patient that includes a target site; receive, from the imaging system, second imaging data of the region of interest of the patient; generate a 3D volume of the region of interest of the patient using the first imaging data and the second imaging data; cause the radiation therapy source to emit a first radiation therapy beam at the target site of the patient according to a radiation treatment plan; receive, from the portal imaging device, one or more beam eye view ("BEV") images from the interaction between the first radiation therapy beam and the portal imaging device, after the first radiation therapy beam has passed through the patient; determine a movement of the patient, based on the 3D volume and the one or more BEV images; and update or change the radiation treatment plan, based on the determined movement of the patient (para 55-57, 64, 71-73, 112-113,109, see PCT written opinion).
However Lachaine fails to teach one or more radiation imaging sources being configured to emit different radiation imaging beams having different energies towards the patient and the one or more detector arrays to acquire imaging data of the patient at different energies.
Altunbas teaches one or more radiation imaging sources being configured to emit different radiation imaging beams having different energies towards the patient and the one or more detector arrays to acquire imaging data of the patient at different energies (para 185-187).
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 imaging data of Lachaine with the first and second energies as taught by Altunbas, since it would provide better patient information and enhance the performance of the flat panel x-ray detector (para 102).
Regarding claim 20, Lachaine teaches the first imaging data is acquired with the one or more radiation sources of the imaging system operating at a first energy level; and wherein the second imaging data is acquired with the one or more radiation sources of the imaging system operating at a second energy level different from the first energy level (para 185-187).
Regarding claim 21, Lachaine teaches the first energy level is a first peak energy of radiation emitted by the one or more radiation sources; and wherein the second energy level is a second peak energy of radiation emitted by the one or more radiation sources; and wherein the first peak energy is different than the second peak energy (para 185-187).
Regarding claim 22, Lachaine teaches the first energy level corresponds to a first tissue type being visible in the first imaging data; and wherein the second energy level corresponds to a second tissue type different from the first tissue type being visible in the second imaging data (para 185-187).
Regarding claim 24, Lachaine teaches receiving first imaging data of the region of interest includes: causing the one or more radiation sources of the imaging system to emit a first radiation imaging beam towards the region of interest of the patient, the first radiation imaging beam having a first radiation energy spectrum, the first energy level being a peak in the first radiation energy spectrum; receiving, from the one or more detector arrays of the imaging system, the first imaging data from the interaction between the first radiation imaging beam and the one or more detector arrays; and wherein receiving first imaging data of the region of interest includes: causing the one or more radiation sources of the imaging system to emit a second radiation imaging beam towards the region of interest of the patient, the second radiation imaging beam having a second radiation energy spectrum, the second energy level being a peak in the second radiation energy spectrum; and receiving, from the one or more detector arrays of the imaging system, the second imaging data from the interaction between the first radiation imaging beam and the one or more detector arrays (para 185-187).
Regarding claim 27, Lachaine teaches the portal imaging device includes a plurality of sensing layers; and wherein each of the one or more BEV images is generated using the plurality of sensing layers (para 55-61).
Regarding claim 28, Lachaine teaches causing the radiation therapy source to emit the first radiation therapy beam at the target site of the patient according to the radiation treatment plan includes causing the radiation therapy source to emit the first radiation beam at the target site while moving the radiation therapy source along an arc (para 65, 71, 81).
Regarding claim 29, Lachaine teaches the computing device is further configured to: after updating or changing the radiation treatment plan, moving the radiation therapy source to a position relative to the patient; and with the radiation therapy source at least at the position, causing the radiation therapy source to emit a second radiation therapy beam at the target site of the patient according to the radiation treatment plan (para 49, 55, 68, 109-113).
Regarding claim 30, Lachaine teaches the one or more BEV images are one or more first BEV images, and wherein the computing device is further configured to: receive, from the portal imaging device, one or more second BEV images from the interaction between the second radiation therapy beam and the portal imaging device, after the second radiation therapy beam has passed through the patient; determine a further movement of the patient, based on the 3D volume and the one or more second BEV images; and further update or change the radiation treatment plan, based on the determined further movement of the patient (para 49, 55, 68, 109-113).
Regarding claim 31, Lachaine teaches after further updating or changing the radiation treatment plan, moving the radiation therapy source to another position relative to the patient; and with the radiation therapy source at least at the another position, causing the radiation therapy source to emit a third radiation therapy beam at the target site of the patient according to the radiation treatment plan (para 49, 55, 68, 109-113).
Regarding claim 33, Lachaine teaches updating or changing the radiation treatment plan includes: adjusting a reference point of the radiation treatment plan, based on the determined movement, wherein each radiation therapy beam of the radiation treatment plan is defined relative to the reference point; or adjusting one or more other radiation therapy beams of the radiation treatment plan other than the first radiation therapy beam (para 49, 55, 68, 109-113).
Regarding claim 34, Lachaine teaches a method of irradiating a patient according to a radiation treatment plan, the method comprising: receiving a 3D volume of a region of interest of the patient that includes a target site, the 3D volume having been generated by irradiating the patient with radiation imaging beams; causing a radiation therapy source to emit a radiation therapy beam at the target site of the patient according to the radiation treatment plan; receiving, from a portal imaging device, one or more beam eye view ("BEV") images from the interaction between the radiation therapy beam and the portal imaging device, after the radiation therapy beam has passed through the patient; determining a movement of the patient, based on the 3D volume and the one or more BEV images; and compensating for the movement of the patient to more accurately deliver one or more additional radiation therapy beams to the target site of the region of interest of the patient, the one or more additional radiation therapy beams being according to the radiation treatment plan (para 55-57, 64, 71-73, 112-113,109, see PCT written opinion).
However Lachaine fails to teach having different peak energies.
Altunbas teaches having different peak energies (para 185-187).
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 imaging data of Lachaine with the first and second energies as taught by Altunbas, since it would provide better patient information and enhance the performance of the flat panel x-ray detector (para 102).
Claim(s) 2-4, 7-8, 11, 16, 18, 25, 28, 26, 32 and 35-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachaine (US 20180144510) in view of Lin et al. (US 20180070902).
Regarding claim 2, Lachaine teaches the computing device is further configured to: generate, using the first and second sets of CBCT imaging data, a three-dimensional (3D) volume of the region of interest of the patient at the energy of the radiation therapy beam; receive or generate, using the x-ray imaging data, a plurality of BEV portal images.
However Lachaine fails to teach perform a 3D-2D registration between the 3D volume and the portal imaging system using the plurality of BEV images; and determine movement of the patient, based on the 3D-2D registration.
Lin teaches perform a 3D-2D registration between the 3D volume and the portal imaging system using the plurality of BEV images; and determine movement of the patient, based on the 3D-2D registration (para 71, 81).
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 generation of Lachaine using the second imaging data as taught by Lin, since it would provide better accuracy of the ongoing transformation results.
Regarding claim 3, Lachaine teaches the computing device is further configured to: generate, using the 3D volume, a plurality of two-dimensional (2D) digital radiograph images; and perform the 3D-2D registration using the 2D digital radiograph images and the plurality of BEV portal images (para 117-122).
Regarding claim 4, Lachaine teaches the 3D-2D registration is a mono-modality registration (para 117-122).
Regarding claim 7, Lachaine teaches the computing device is further configured to: generate, using the first imaging data, a three-dimensional (3D) volume of the region of interest of the patient.
However Lachaine fails to teach perform a 3D-2D registration between the 3D volume and the portal imaging system using the x-ray imaging data; and determine movement of the patient, based on the 3D-2D registration.
Lin teaches perform a 3D-2D registration between the 3D volume and the portal imaging system using the x-ray imaging data; and determine movement of the patient, based on the 3D-2D registration (para 71, 81).
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 generation of Lachaine using the second imaging data as taught by Lin, since it would provide better accuracy of the ongoing transformation results.
Regarding claim 8, Lachaine teaches the x-ray imaging data is acquired by the portal imaging system during emission of another radiation therapy beam along the second sweep path (para 71-73, 81).
Regarding claim 11, Lachaine teaches determining an adjustment to the radiation treatment plan to compensate for the determined movement includes the computing device being further configured to move at least one of the patient or the radiation source to compensate for the determined movement (para 49, 68, 109-113).
Regarding claim 16, Lachaine teaches generating, using the one or more computing devices and the CBCT imaging data, a three-dimensional (3D) volume of the region of interest of the patient; performing, using the one or more computing devices and the second imaging data, a 3D-2D registration between the 3D volume and the portal imaging system; and determining, using the one or more computing devices, movement of the patient, based on the 3D-2D registration (para 71, 81).
Regarding claim 18, Lachaine teaches generating, using the first imaging data, a three-dimensional (3D) volume of the region of interest of the patient but fails to teach performing, using the second imaging data, a 3D-2D registration between the 3D volume and the portal imaging system; and determining movement of the patient, based on the 3D-2D registration.
Lin teaches performing, using the second imaging data, a 3D-2D registration between the 3D volume and the portal imaging system; and determining movement of the patient, based on the 3D-2D registration (para 71, 81).
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 generation of Lachaine using the second imaging data as taught by Lin, since it would provide better accuracy of the ongoing transformation results.
Regarding claim 25, Lachaine teaches determining the movement of the patient based on the 3D volume and the one or more BEV images but fails to teach performing a 3D-2D registration between the 3D volume and the portal imaging device using the 3D volume and the one or more BEV images; and determining the movement of the patient, based on the 3D-2D registration.
Lin teaches performing a 3D-2D registration between the 3D volume and the portal imaging device using the 3D volume and the one or more BEV images; and determining the movement of the patient, based on the 3D-2D registration (para 71, 81).
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 generation of Lachaine using the second imaging data as taught by Lin, since it would provide better accuracy of the ongoing transformation results.
Regarding claim 26, Lachaine teaches performing the 3D-2D registration between the 3D volume and the portal imaging device includes: generating, using the 3D volume, one or more two-dimensional (2D) digital radiograph images, each 2D digital radiograph image corresponding to a position of the radiation therapy source relative to the patient during emission of the first radiation therapy beam; and perform the 3D-2D registration by using the one or more 2D digital radiograph images and the one or more BEV images (para 117-122).
Regarding claim 32, Lachaine fails to teach the computing device is further configured to: perform a first 3D-2D registration between the 3D volume and the portal imaging device using the 3D volume and the one or more first BEV images; determine the movement of the patient, based on the first 3D-2D registration; perform a second 3D-2D registration between the 3D volume and the portal imaging device using the 3D volume and the one or more second BEV images; and determine the further movement of the patient, based on the second 3D-2D registration.
Lin teaches the computing device is further configured to: perform a first 3D-2D registration between the 3D volume and the portal imaging device using the 3D volume and the one or more first BEV images; determine the movement of the patient, based on the first 3D-2D registration; perform a second 3D-2D registration between the 3D volume and the portal imaging device using the 3D volume and the one or more second BEV images; and determine the further movement of the patient, based on the second 3D-2D registration (para 117-122).
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 generation of Lachaine using the second imaging data as taught by Lin, since it would provide better accuracy of the ongoing transformation results.
Regarding claim 35, Lachaine teaches the radiation therapy source emits the radiation therapy beam while the radiation therapy source moves about the patient along a first sweep path.
However fails to teach generating, using the 3D volume, one or more two-dimensional (2D) digital radiograph images, each 2D digital radiograph image corresponding to one or more different positions of the radiation therapy source relative to the patient during emission of the radiation therapy beam; performing a 3D-2D registration between the 3D volume and the portal imaging device using the one or more 2D digital radiograph images and the one or more BEV images; and determining the movement of the patient, based on the 3D-2D registration.
Lin teaches generating, using the 3D volume, one or more two-dimensional (2D) digital radiograph images, each 2D digital radiograph image corresponding to one or more different positions of the radiation therapy source relative to the patient during emission of the radiation therapy beam; performing a 3D-2D registration between the 3D volume and the portal imaging device using the one or more 2D digital radiograph images and the one or more BEV images; and determining the movement of the patient, based on the 3D-2D registration (para 117-122).
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 generation of Lachaine using the second imaging data as taught by Lin, since it would provide better accuracy of the ongoing transformation results.
Regarding claim 36, Lin teaches the radiation therapy beam is a first radiation therapy beam, and further comprising: after compensating for the movement of the patient, moving the radiation therapy source to a position relative to the patient; and with the radiation therapy source at least at the position, causing the radiation therapy source to emit a second radiation therapy beam at the target site of the patient according to the radiation treatment plan (par 49, 73, 81, 109-113).
Regarding claim 37, Lachaine teaches the radiation therapy source emits the second radiation therapy beam while the radiation therapy source moves about the patient along a second sweep path different from the first sweep path. (par 73, 81, 109-113).
Regarding claim 38, Lachaine teaches the first sweep path is a first arc about the patient; and wherein the second sweep path is a second arc about the patient (par 73, 81, 109-113).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachaine (US 20180144510) in view of Deutschmann (US 20200121267).
Regarding claim 23, Lachaine fails to teach the first tissue type is a water-based tissue type, and the second tissue type is bone.
Deutschmann teaches first tissue type is a water-based tissue type, and the second tissue type is bone (para 147).
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 tissue of Lachaine with the water base tissue type and the bone type as taught by Deutschmann, since it would provide enhance tracking of the lung cancer.
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