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
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)(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) 1-5, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Earl et al (US 7,333,591 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Earl et al discloses a system for determining an irradiation field angle, comprising: at least one storage medium (col. 3, lines 44-46), the at least one storage medium including a set of instructions (col. 3, lines 44-46); and at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage medium, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations (col. 8, lines 21-32) including: obtaining an alternative angle set, the alternative angle set including multiple selectable beam angles (col. 3, lines 59-67); determining a target irradiation field angle set based on the alternative angle set through iterative calculations (algorithm), wherein each iteration of the iterative calculations includes: determining a preset objective function value related to the alternative angle set, and determining the target irradiation field angle set based on the preset objective function value (col. 6, lines 61-col. 7, line 3).
Regarding claim 2, Earl et al discloses wherein the selectable beam angle includes a gantry angle and/or a table angle (col 2, lines 59-col. 3, line 3).
Regarding claim 3, Earl et al discloses wherein the selectable beam angle is generated based on a preset angle range and a preset step size (col. 3, lines 59-67).
Regarding claim 4, Earl et al discloses wherein at least one processor is further configured to: determining the preset angle range and/or the preset step size based on at least one of object image data, object delineation data, or radiotherapy prescription data (col. 5, lines 27-59).
Regarding claim 5, Earl et al discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine the preset angle range and/or the preset step size based on at least one of a shape of a lesion, a size of the lesion, a malignancy level of the lesion, an amount of target tissue and/or target organ, or a danger level of the lesion (col. 5, lines 27-59).
Regarding claim 19, Earl et al discloses wherein a system for determining an irradiation field angle, comprising: at least one storage medium (col. 3, lines 44-46), the at least one storage medium including a set of instructions (col. 3, lines 44-46); and at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage medium, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations (col. 8, lines 21-32) including: determination module obtaining an alternative angle set, the alternative angle set including multiple selectable beam angles (col. 3, lines 59-67); obtaining a dose restriction condition and delineation data of a region of interest (algorithm) (col. 6, lines 61-col. 7, line 3); and determining a target irradiation field angle set by optimizing the alternative angle set based on the dose restriction condition and the delineation data of the region of interest (col. 6, lines 61-col. 7, line 3).
Regarding claim 20, Earl et al discloses wherein a method for determining an irradiation field angle, comprising: obtaining an alternative angle set, the alternative angle set including multiple selectable beam angles (col. 3, lines 59-67); determining a target irradiation field angle set based on the alternative angle set through iterative calculations (algorithm), wherein each iteration of the iterative calculations includes: determining a preset objective function value related to the alternative angle set, and determining the target irradiation field angle set based on the preset objective function value (col. 6, lines 61-col. 7, line 3).
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Earl et al (US 7,333,591 B2) in view of Nord et al (US 8,085,899 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Earl et al discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1, as described supra however, Earl et al is silent with regards to iterative calculations as claimed. Nord et al disclose a treatment planning system and method for radiotherapy comprising: wherein the each iteration of the iterative calculations further includes: obtaining a first candidate angle set by transforming an existing candidate angle set of a current iteration and updating an existing candidate angle set based on the first candidate angle set; determining the preset objective function value of each candidate angle set in the existing candidate angle set; and determining a next candidate angle set to enter a next iteration based on the preset objective function value from the existing candidate angle set (col. 2, lines 56-col. 3, line 59). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Earl et al with the teaching of Nord et al, so as to enable means to determine irradiation angle considering a planned executed time, so as to selecta combination of irradiation field angles with a short execution time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 6-17, the prior art fails to disclose or reasonably suggest wherein the preset objective function value is determined based at least on a penalty term of an irradiation field execution time and a fluence map loss; the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including: obtaining at least one candidate angle set based on the alternative angle set, the candidate angle set including one or more selectable beam angles the penalty term of the irradiation field execution time being determined based on at least one movement cost between beams corresponding to a candidate angle set of the at least one candidate angle set, and the fluence map loss being determined based on an actual dose distribution corresponding to the candidate angle set and a target dose distribution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matuszak et al (“Reduction of IMRT beam complexity through the use of beam modulation penalties in the objective function”) discloses methods to reduce beam complexity in inverse planned intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) while maintaining treatment quality. The results show that adding penalties to limit beam intensity variation can significantly improve delivery efficiency and reduce monitor units with minimal impact on dose distribution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANI POLYZOS BOOSALIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at Uzma.Alam@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/F.P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884