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 Amendment
The current Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on March 17, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 7, filed March 17, 2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn. Applicant has corrected the minor informalities.
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1, and 11, Applicant argues that the “Examiner conflates Zarepsheh’s loss function with the Applicant’s cost function” which are not synonymous with each other and treating them other wise would be technically flawed. Applicant further argues that Zarepisheh does not mention “cost function”. However, “cost function” and “loss function” are synonymous with each other. In [0061], Zarepisheh discloses using mean absolute error loss function which is a cost function.
Applicant further argues Zarepisheh fails to disclose form at least one optimization cost function using predicted 3D radiation dose distribution because Zarepisheh, in [0061] discloses using loss functions for Machine learning parameter training which is different from optimizing radiation treatment plan. However, Zarepisheh discloses obtaining loss functions (Mean absolute error or mean square error)using voxel by voxel dose distribution in [0061]. Zarepisheh discloses using the Mean absolute error or mean square error to optimize the treatment plan in [0064] and [0090].
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.
(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) 1-4, 6-7, 10-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zarepisheh (WO 2023/196533).
Regarding claim 1:
Zarepisheh discloses a method to facilitate optimizing a radiation treatment plan, comprising: by a control circuit:
accessing predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information ([0040] and [0064], dose prediction models);
optimizing the radiation treatment plan as a function ([0058], [0063], and [0090], plan optimization), at least in part, of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information by, at least in part, forming at least one optimization cost function using at least part of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information as a goal value for at least some three-dimensional-voxels ([0061], and [0064], loss functions are created using dose distribution for each voxel) to thereby prompt optimization towards the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information ([0058], [0063], and [0090], optimization of treatment plans).
Regarding claim 2:
Zarepisheh discloses the method of claim 1 wherein optimizing the radiation treatment plan as a function, at least in part, of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information comprises, at least in part by using the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information as an optimization constraint ([0058], using the 3D predicted dose as constraint for optimization).
Regarding claim 3:
Zarepisheh discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising:
by the control circuit:
accessing clinical goals ([0063], critical clinical constraints); and
wherein optimizing the radiation treatment plan as a function, at least in part, of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information further comprises optimizing the radiation treatment plan as a function, at least in part, of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information and information pertaining to the clinical goals ([0063]-[0064], optimization using clinical constraints).
Regarding claim 4:
Zarepisheh discloses the method of claim 3 wherein the clinical goals include, at least in part, at least one of a one-dimensional and a two-dimensional constraint ([0064], 2D input).
Regarding claim 6:
Zarepisheh discloses the method of claim 5 wherein forming at least one optimization cost function using at least part of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information as a goal value for at least some three-dimensional voxels further comprises using other information to determine at least one weight and/or at least one functional form of individual voxel costs ([0066]-[0070], functions with voxels).
Regarding claim 7:
Zarepisheh discloses the method of claim 6 wherein the other information includes at least one of:
information corresponding to non-three-dimensional clinical goals related to at least one patient target volume and/or at least one patient organ structure ([0061]-[0064], OAR used to infer corresponding voxel dose distribution) and ;
patient images;
patient geometry information;
spatial definitions of a patient target volume, a non-targeted patient organ, and/or patient body structures;
field geometry information; and/or
radiation treatment platform information.
Regarding claim 10:
Zarepisheh discloses the method of claim 1 wherein optimizing the radiation treatment plan as a function, at least in part, of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information further comprises forming at least one optimization cost function having weights that are determined as a function, at least in part, of complying with at least one clinical goal ([0110], updating weights).
Regarding claim 11:
Zarepisheh discloses an apparatus to facilitate optimizing a radiation treatment plan, comprising:
a control circuit (Fig. 11, 1105) configured to:
access predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information ([0040] and [0064], dose prediction models);
optimize the radiation treatment plan as a function, at least in part, of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information by, at least in part, forming at least one optimization cost function using at least part of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information as a goal value for at least some three-dimensional-voxels ([0061], and [0064], loss functions are created using dose distribution for each voxel) to thereby prompt optimization towards the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information ([0058], [0063], and [0090], optimization of treatment plans).
Regarding claim 12:
Zarepisheh discloses the apparatus of claim 11 wherein the control circuit is configured to optimize the radiation treatment plan as a function, at least in part, of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information, at least in part, by using the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information as an optimization constraint ([0058], using the 3D predicted dose as constraint for optimization).
Regarding claim 13:
Zarepisheh discloses the apparatus of claim 11 wherein the control circuit is further configured to:
access clinical goals ([0063], critical clinical constraints); and
wherein the control circuit is configured to optimize the radiation treatment plan as a function, at least in part, of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information by optimizing the radiation treatment plan as a function, at least in part, of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information and information pertaining to the clinical goals ([0063]-[0064], optimization using clinical constraints).
Regarding claim 14:
Zarepisheh discloses the apparatus of claim 13 wherein the clinical goals include, at least in part, at least one of a one-dimensional and a two-dimensional constraint ([0064], 2D input).
Regarding claim 16:
Zarepisheh discloses the apparatus of claim 11 wherein the control circuit is configured to form at least one optimization cost function using at least part of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information as a goal value for at least some three-dimensional voxels by using other information to determine at least one weight and/or at least one functional form of individual voxel costs ([0066]-[0070], functions with voxels).
Regarding claim 17:
Zarepisheh discloses the apparatus of claim 16 wherein the other information includes at least one of:
information corresponding to non-three-dimensional clinical goals related to at least one patient target volume and/or at least one patient organ structure ([0061]-[0064], OAR used to infer corresponding voxel dose distribution);
patient images;
patient geometry information;
spatial definitions of a patient target volume, a non-targeted patient organ, and/or patient body structures;
field geometry information; and/or
radiation treatment platform information.
Regarding claim 20:
Zarepisheh discloses the apparatus of claim 11 wherein the control circuit is configured to optimize the radiation treatment plan as a function, at least in part, of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information by forming at least one optimization cost function having weights that are determined as a function, at least in part, of complying with at least one clinical goal ([0110], updating weights).
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) 8-9 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarepisheh (WO 2023/196533) in view of Yuan (U.S. 2020/0155868).
Regarding claim 8:
Zarepisheh discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Zarepisheh fails to disclose wherein optimizing the radiation treatment plan as a function, at least in part, of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information further comprises using an optimization cost function having at least one normalization factor.
Yuan teaches wherein optimizing the radiation treatment plan as a function, at least in part, of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information further comprises using an optimization cost function having at least one normalization factor ([0056], normalization).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the optimization method of Zarepisheh with the normalization taught by Yuan in order to improve efficiency and quality of treatment planning to help more cancer patients and improve their quality of life (Yuan; [0021]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Zarepisheh and Yuan discloses the method of claim 8 wherein the at least one normalization factor corresponds to accuracy of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information (Yuan; [0056], normalization to reduce shift).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the optimization method of Zarepisheh with the normalization taught by Yuan in order to improve efficiency and quality of treatment planning to help more cancer patients and improve their quality of life (Yuan; [0021]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 18:
Zarepisheh discloses the apparatus of claim 11.
However, Zarepisheh fails to disclose wherein the control circuit is configured to optimize the radiation treatment plan as a function, at least in part, of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information by using an optimization cost function having at least one normalization factor.
Yuan teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to optimize the radiation treatment plan as a function, at least in part, of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information by using an optimization cost function having at least one normalization factor ([0056], normalization).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the optimization system of Zarepisheh with the normalization taught by Yuan in order to improve efficiency and quality of treatment planning to help more cancer patients and improve their quality of life (Yuan; [0021]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of Zarepisheh and Yuan discloses the apparatus of claim 18 wherein the at least one normalization factor corresponds to accuracy of the predicted three-dimensional radiation dose distribution information (Yuan; [0056], normalization to reduce shift).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the optimization system of Zarepisheh with the normalization taught by Yuan in order to improve efficiency and quality of treatment planning to help more cancer patients and improve their quality of life (Yuan; [0021]). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
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 SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights