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
Examiner acknowledges the amendment filed 23 April 2026 wherein: claim 14 is canceled; claims 1-13 and 15 are pending.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 4 and 12 in the reply filed on 23 April 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s traversal has been fully considered and is persuasive, for the reasons described in the traversal and explained in the reasons for allowance below.
Claim 1 is allowable. Claims 2-3 and 5-11, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement among inventions I-X, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 01 April 2026, is hereby withdrawn and claims 2-3 and 5-11 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim does not end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–-----103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103) 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)(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 12
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otto (US 2012/0123184 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Otto discloses A computer-based method of optimizing a radiotherapy treatment plan for treating a patient involving radiation being delivered by a beam describing an arc (500), comprising: defining at least a first (572) and a second (582) part of the arc (500), the first part (572) being a first sector of the arc (500) and the second part (582) being a second sector; defining a first set of targets to receive radiation from the first part and a second set of targets, different from the first set of targets, to receive radiation from the second part (¶¶ 120, 131-132, ¶ 120: “sectioning the target volume into a plurality of target sub-volumes and principally targeting different ones of these sub-volumes in different radiation delivery arcs”; ¶¶ 113-150; Figs. 11-13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11, 13, and 15
Claims 1-11, 13, and 15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, the cited prior art does not expressly disclose or suggest the claimed invention, particularly wherein the first optimization function is related solely to the first part, in combination with the other elements of the claim.
The cited prior art discloses some elements of the claim.
Otto (US 2012/0123184 A1) discloses a computer-based method of optimizing a radiotherapy treatment plan for treating a patient involving radiation being delivered by a beam describing an arc (500), comprising: defining at least a first (572) and a second part (582) of the arc (500), the first part (572) being a first sector of the arc (500) and the second part (582) being a second sector, obtaining an optimization problem including at least a first optimization function related to the first part, and a second optimization function related to the second part, the optimization functions including at least one quantity (one or more of radiation delivery variables) that is important for the outcome of the treatment, optimizing the radiotherapy treatment plan based on the optimization problem (¶¶ 113-150; Figs. 11-12).
The method in Otto differs from that in the claimed invention in that the first optimization function in Otto is not related solely to the first part. As described in Applicant’s arguments filed 23 April 2026, both the first and second optimization functions in Otto each relate to both the first and second parts. While various methods for splitting a radiotherapy treatment plan into arcs and using optimization functions were generally known, the cited prior art discloses the optimization functions relate to all arcs (i.e., optimizing total dose across all arcs rather than optimizing arc doses separately). Thus, the cited prior art does not expressly disclose or suggest Applicant’s particularly claimed configuration. Accordingly, claim 1 is allowed.
Claims 2-11, 13, and 15
Regarding claims 2-11, 13, and 15, the claims are allowed due to their dependence.
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.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US 2003/0138077 A1) discloses a dose calculation optimization model using a number of arcs and target points, wherein optimization occurs across all arcs (¶¶ 41-63).
Bzdusek (US 2010/0219356 A1) discloses dose optimization across a number of arcs (¶¶ 21-39).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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 571-272-2995. 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.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights