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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 27 July 2026. Claims 21-25, 27-34, and 36-56 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 21, 23, 25, 27, 33, 34, and 36, as well as the cancellation of claims 26 and 35, and the addition of new claims 41-56.
Claim Objections
Claims 41 and 51 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 41, line 5: “and” should apparently be deleted.
In claim 51, line 7: “and” should apparently be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-25, 27-34, 36-40, 42, 43, 45, 47-49, 52, 54, and 55 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "a treatment region" in the last line. It is not clear if this is intended to be the same as the previously recited location or to be a separate area.
Claim 22 recites that the current dosage of radiation is generated according to real-time IVD data. It is not clear if this is intended to be data from the IVD detector and/or light detection units recited in claim 21 or to be separate IVD data.
Claim 23 recites the limitations "a radiation source" in line 3 and “a plurality of light detection units” in lines 3-4. It is not clear if these intended to be the same radiation source and light detection units previously recited in claim 21 or to be a separate source and plurality of light detection units.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the plurality of light detection units positioned to detect radiation from a brachytherapy source" in lines 3-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; only a plurality of light detection units distributed around a treatment region have been previously recited.
Claim 25 also recites the limitation "a brachytherapy source" in the last two lines. It is not clear if this is intended to be the same as the previously recited radiation source or to be a separate source. Suggested language for claim 25 would be: --The system of claim 21, wherein: the plurality of light detection units are positioned to detect radiation from the radiation source, and wherein the radiation source is a brachytherapy source--.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "a radiation source" in line 4. It is not clear if this is intended to be the same as the previously recited radiation source or to be a separate source.
Claims 22-25 and 27-32 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "a treatment region" in the last line. It is not clear if this is intended to be the same as the previously recited location or to be a separate area.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "a radiation source" in line 2. It is not clear if this is intended to be the same as the previously recited radiation source or to be a separate source.
Claims 34 and 36-40 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
Claim 42 recites that the current dosage of radiation is generated according to real-time IVD data. It is not clear if this is intended to be data from the IVD detector recited in claim 41 or to be separate IVD data.
Claim 43 recites the limitation "the plurality of light detection units positioned to external to the subject" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; the plurality of light detection units have not been previously recited to be external to the subject.
Claim 43 is also rejected by virtue of its dependence upon claim 42.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "the plurality of light detection units positioned to detect radiation from a brachytherapy source" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; only a plurality of light detection units distributed around a treatment region have been previously recited.
Claim 45 also recites the limitation "a brachytherapy source" in the last line. It is not clear if this is intended to be the same as the previously recited radiation source or to be a separate source. Suggested language for claim 45 would be: --The system of claim 41, wherein: the IVD detector is configured to generate a location of the radiation source according to the electrical signals from the plurality of light detection units, wherein the plurality of light detection units are positioned to detect radiation from the radiation source, and wherein the radiation source is a brachytherapy source--.
Claim 47 recites the limitation "a radiation source" in line 4. It is not clear if this is intended to be the same as the previously recited radiation source or to be a separate source.
Claims 48 and 49 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 47.
Claim 52 recites receiving real time in-vivo dosimetry (IVD) data generated by an IVD detector according to light received from a plurality of scintillators. It is not clear if this is intended to be data from the plurality of light detection units recited in claim 51 or to be separate IVD data.
Claim 54 recites the limitation "a radiation source" in line 4. It is not clear if this is intended to be the same as the previously recited radiation source or to be a separate source.
Claim 55 is rejected by virtue of its dependence upon claim 54.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 41, 44, 46, 50, 51, 53, and 56 are allowed.
Claims 21-25, 27-34, 36-40, 42, 43, 45, 47-49, 52, 54, and 55 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance and the indication of allowable subject matter: as detailed in the previous Office action, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggest such systems and methods of using such an IVD detector that generates a location of a radiation source by triangulation according to electrical signals from a plurality of light detection units distributed around a treatment region, nor generating a velocity of a radiation source according to electrical signals from a plurality of light detection units and automatically updating the adaptive treatment plan in response to the velocity.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objection to the specification, as well as the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The objection and rejections have been withdrawn. However, as detailed supra, the amendments have introduced new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
