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, see pages 9-23, filed 6/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hardemark et al (US 10,814,143 B2).
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted 6/15/2026 has been accepted and entered. Claims 4-6 are amended. Claims 2-3 are cancelled. New claims 21-22 are added. Thus, claims 1, 4-22 are examined.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. No further examination of claims 18-19.
Claim limitation “determining a target irradiation field angle set based on the alternative angle set through iterative calculations” and “determining a preset objective function value” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The claim is substantially functional in scope with respect to any computer-implemented operations. Specifically, the limitations 'determining a target irradiation field angle set based on the alternative angle set through iterative calculations' and 'determining a preset objective function value' recite purely functional results without reciting the specific concrete algorithm, computational steps, or structural transformation required to achieve these results. Read in light of the specification, the claim fails to provide the necessary algorithmic boundaries or specific computational rules, leaving the bounds of the claim unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “preset objective function value ” and “determining the target irradiation field angle set based on the preset objective function value” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The claim fails to recite what parameters, criteria, or physical/logical constraints constitute the "objective function" or how the iterations modify the values to converge on the target set. The claim leaves the metes and bounds of the iterative optimization undefined, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether any optimization algorithm or any objective function (e.g., minimizing dose, maximizing target coverage) fulfills the limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “determination module”, “evaluation module”, “machine learning model” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification fails to disclose the specific corresponding structure, material, or acts (such as a specific computer algorithm, flowchart, or specialized hardware block) corresponding to the "determination module" for performing each of the recited functions (obtaining the alternative angle set, obtaining the dose restriction condition, and optimizing/determining the target set). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 4-5, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hardemark et al (US 10,814,143 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hardemark et al discloses a system for determining an irradiation field angle, comprising: at least one storage medium, the at least one storage medium (col. 7, lines 43-61) including a set of instructions; 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 (120) (See Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 24-30) is configured to cause the system to perform operations including: obtaining an alternative angle set, the alternative angle set including multiple selectable beam angles (col. 4, lines 31-53); determining a target irradiation field angle set based on the alternative angle set through iterative calculations, 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 (pre-calculate or iteratively select beam angles) (col. 4, lines 31-53).
Regarding claim 4, Hardemark et al disclose wherein the selectable beam angle is generated based on a preset angle range and a preset step size, and the 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 (pre-calculated solutions in a particular group all represent radiation therapy treatment plans with the same number of radiation beams, where a set of mutual angles between the radiation sources used are equal, and where the type of particles emitted from the radiation sources are the same) (col. 4, lines 43-53).
Regarding claim 5, Hardemark et al disclose 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 danger level of the lesion (tumor to be treated and healthy tissues) (col. 4, lines 31-37).
Regarding claim 20, Hardemark et al discloses a method for determining an irradiation field angle, comprising: obtaining an alternative angle set, the alternative angle set including multiple selectable beam angles (col. 4, lines 31-53); determining a target irradiation field angle set based on the alternative angle set through iterative calculations (See Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 24-30), 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 (pre-calculate or iteratively select beam angles) (col. 4, lines 31-53).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-17, 21-22 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 and overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection as stated supra.
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.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art fails to disclose or reasonably suggest wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the system to perform operations including: determining at least one candidate angle set based on the alternative angle set; and determining the target irradiation field angle set based on the at least one candidate angle set through the iterative calculations, wherein the preset objective function value is determined at least based on a penalty term of an irradiation field execution time, and the penalty term of the irradiation field execution time is determined based on at least one movement cost between beams corresponding to a candidate angle set of the at least one candidate angle set.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art fails to disclose or reasonably suggest wherein the at least one movement cost between beams includes at least one beam-to-beam movement time, the at least one beam-to- beam movement time is determined based on trajectory planning information, and the trajectory planning information includes velocity planning information for the at least one beam-to-beam movement and acceleration planning information for the at least one beam-to-beam movement.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights