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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 14-17 and 19-20 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 14-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-2, 5-8 and 10 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 11, 14-17 and 19 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 20 is drawn to a non-transitory medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended to recite:
“accessing a plurality of electronically stored historical patient data for a plurality of historical patients, each historical patient datum comprising a historical radiotherapy prescription and a historical set of diagnostic features, wherein the set of diagnostic features comprises: treatment technique, treatment energy, treatment intent, diagnostic code, morphology code, and patient age;
determining, by an electronic processor, a first measure and a second measure, wherein the first measure comprises a distance between the radiotherapy prescription represented as a point in a first multidimensional space and a historical radiotherapy prescription represented as a point in the first multidimensional space, wherein the first measure comprises an average of distances between the radiotherapy prescription represented as a point in a first multidimensional space and multiple of the plurality of the historical radiotherapy prescriptions represented as points in the first multidimensional space, and wherein the second measure comprises a distance between a set of diagnostic features of the patient represented as a point in a second multidimensional space and a historical set of diagnostic features, for a historical patient with a similar historical radiotherapy prescription, represented as a point in the second multidimensional space, wherein the second measure comprises an average of distances between the set of diagnostic features of the patient represented as a point in a second multidimensional space and multiple historical sets of diagnostic features, each for a historical patient with a similar historical radiotherapy prescriptions, represented as points in the second multidimensional space;
detecting, by the electronic processor, at least one of the first measure exceeding a first predetermined threshold or the second measure exceeding a second predetermined threshold; …” and these limitations correspond to “certain methods of organizing human activity” with a recitation of generic computer component (an electronic processor). This is a method of managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The limitation of “detecting, by the electronic processor, at least one of the first measure exceeding a first predetermined threshold or the second measure exceeding a second predetermined threshold” also correspond to mathematical relationships, which falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of the abstract ideas.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2, 5-8, 10, 14-17 and 19 are ultimately dependent from claims 1, 11 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 11. Therefore, claims 2, 5-8, 10, 14-17 and 19 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 22, 5-8, 10, 14-17 and 19 describe a further limitation regarding the basis for determining radiotherapy treatment. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 11, without adding significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims recite the additional elements of “an electronic processor”, and using the processor to perform the accessing, determining, detecting steps. The processor in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining similarity between the therapies) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims also recite other additional limitations beyond abstract idea, including functions such as issuing an alert/outputting data are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)), which do not provide a practical application for the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the determining and detecting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed below in the order in which they appear.
Arguments about 35 USC 101 rejection:
Step 2A, prong one: Applicant argues that claim limitations are not directed to an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and managing interactions between people by following rules, since the claims are not any one of “a method of playing dice”, “assigning hair designs to balance head shape” or “instructions on how to hedge risk”.
In response, Examiner submits that the claims limitations of “accessing a plurality of electronically stored historical patient data…”, “determining, by an electronic processor, a first measure and a second measure,… representing multidimensional spaces and distances comprising radiotherapy prescriptions and diagnostics…” are directed to managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions.
The examples submitted by the Applicant are not exclusive examples for managing personal behavior section of the certain methods of organizing human activity and the MPEP recites “…the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person…and an activity involves multiple people…and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer…may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II). Therefore, the limitations of using a generic processor to access a plurality of patient data, determine a first and a second measure comprising distances between patient data and historical and similar patients’ data and detect a measure exceeding a threshold correspond to certain activities between a person and a computer in order to determine treatment measures for patient.
Step 2A, prong two: Applicant argues that the claim limitations cover a particular solution to the problem of automate radiotherapy prescription anomaly detection and recite a particular way in which it is achieved.
In response, Examiner submits that claim limitations may cover and provide an improved outcome of the data as indicating the distances between the historical and current data, and by separating the prescription information from the diagnostic information, however, there is no indication in the current claims nor in the current specification that there is an improvement to the technology itself.
Applicant argues that the claim features improve the technology of radiotherapy prescription anomaly detection.
In response, Examiner submits that determining the measures comprising distances between points in a multidimensional space and detecting the measures exceeding the predetermined thresholds may result in an improved outcome, however, these features are not directed to an improvement to the technology. These features correspond to mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Applicant argues that the claim features are directed to automatically detecting radiotherapy anomaly, and point out the paragraphs [0023], [0024], [0027]-[0030] and [0103]-[0105] of the current specification. After considering these paragraphs, the limitation of “detecting, by the electronic processor, at least one of the first measure exceeding a first predetermined threshold or the second measure exceeding a second predetermined threshold” has found to be directed to an abstract idea of mathematical relationships, which falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of the abstract ideas. In particular, the current specification recites “use of rule based algorithm”, which is directed to mathematical relationships.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Arguments about 35 USC 102 rejection:
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to 35 USC 102 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102 rejection of current claims has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILEK B COBANOGLU whose telephone number is (571)272-8295. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Obeid Mamon can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/DILEK B COBANOGLU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights