DETAILED ACTION
Status
This Final Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 1 May 2026. Claims 4-5 and 8-9 have been cancelled, claims 1-3, 7, and 10-12 have been amended, and no new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-7, and 10-12 are pending and presented for examination.
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
A summary of the Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s amendment:
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 112; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the rejection(s).
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection(s) while updating phrasing in keeping with current examination guidelines.
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the prior art rejection(s) under 35 USC §§ 102 or 103; therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection(s) as below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see the Response to Arguments below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 5 March 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 15 November 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that the claims recite “to calculate a cost” (at claim 1, similar or parallel phrasing at claims 11 and 12), where “cost” is not used in a monetary sense. Per Applicant’s description, the “cost” reflects risk (such as more or increased side effects) when a treatment such as radiation is applied to an area that is too large (or perhaps, too small). As such, the “cost” is related to the distance, area, or volume inconsistency between various areas of interest – see, e.g., Applicant ¶ 0069-0073 related to the cost function, and ¶ 0035 regarding the areas of interest. See also dependent claim 6.
The Examiner notes that the claims recite “output a movement amount signal for moving a bed on which the patient is fixed at a time of treatment based on the relative position” (at claim 1, similar or parallel phrasing at claims 11 and 12); however, there is no indication of any movement of any bed. Apparently, at the claims, any difference or change in any relative position would be, or could be, attributed/attributable to movement of a bed.
The claims merely require “a second image … at a time point different from that of the first image” – this time difference can be hours, days, weeks, months, years, etc. Therefore, the “relative position” can literally be just that the patient came back for another treatment or imaging at a later time or date. There is no indication that there ever is any movement related to “moving a bed on which the patient is fixed at a time of treatment” – the claims merely indicate that any relative position change or movement is, or is considered to be, “a movement amount … for moving a bed”.
This appears to be a breadth issue rather than a definiteness issue; therefore, no rejection based on this is currently being made. See, e.g., MPEP § 2173.04.
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 1-3, 6-7, and 10-12 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.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 12 each recite to acquire a first and second image, the second image being at a different time than the first image. These claims then recite “acquiring two or more areas corresponding to one or both of the first image and the second image, the areas comprising an area of an irradiation field of a treatment beam with which the patient is irradiated, and an area of a tumor in the internal body of the patient”, then calculating a cost (an area or volume of non-overlap), and to “calculate a relative position of the first image with respect to the second image to increase the similarity and to decrease the cost; and output a movement amount signal for moving a bed on which the patient is fixed at a time of treatment based on the relative position” (citing claim 1, parallel phrasing at claims 11 and 12).
However, there is no indication that either the first or second image is at a time of treatment or irradiation, that the patient is somehow “fixed” to a bed (or, for that matter, that there is a bed involved at all in relation to the images acquired), that any movement is for or about “moving a bed” (instead of patient movement, or treatment device movement, e.g.), or that there is any relation to “a time of treatment”. The acquired areas – since they may be from either the first and second image, but particularly when/if they are from the first image – are apparently related to an area that to be (i.e., a prospective, future tense), or would potentially be, irradiated (and an area of a tumor). The most apparent support for this is Applicant page 6, lines 12-15, “The cost calculator calculates a cost based on a positional relationship between the areas. The registrator calculates a relative position of the first image with respect to the second image to increase the similarity and to decrease the cost.”
Based on the above, it is indefinite whether or how any claimed “movement amount signal” could be output since there is no calculation of a distance (only an area or volume is calculated for the cost) and if or when the “relative position” is (or could be) considered as a distance, this is (or would be) a distance on an image (which may be areas on a single image per the third element). There simply does not appear to be data indicating how much a bed would or could be moved.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 10 depend from claim 1, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore claims 2-3, 6-7, and 10 are also indefinite.
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 1-3, 6-7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a device (claims 1-3, 6-7, and 10), method (claim 11), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 12), which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 1 recites a medical image processing device comprising: a hardware processor configured to execute a program to: acquire a first image which is captured by imaging an internal body of a patient; acquire a second image which is captured by imaging the internal body of the patient at a time point different from that of the first image; acquire two or more areas corresponding to one or both of the first image and the second image, the areas comprising an area of an irradiation field of a treatment beam with which the patient is irradiated, and an area of a tumor in the internal body of the patient; calculate a similarity between the first image and the second image; calculate a cost which is a value based on an area or a volume of a non-overlap part where the area of the tumor departs from the area of the irradiation field, the cost increasing as the area or the volume of the non-overlap part increases; calculate a relative position of the first image with respect to the second image to increase the similarity and to decrease the cost; and output a movement amount signal for moving a bed on which the patient is fixed at a time of treatment based on the relative position.
Claims 11 and 12 are analyzed similarly to claim 1 since claim 11 is directed to a method performed by a computer comprising the same or similar activities as at claim 1, and claim 12 is directed to a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform the same or similar activities as at claim 1.
The dependent claims (claims 2-3, 6-7, and 10) appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate approximating an image based on patient posture degrees of freedom, calculate its cost, and determining movement (claim 2), acquiring the first and second images as integral images (claim 3), the cost is the shortest distance between areas (claim 6), acquiring the second image by modifying the first area of the first image (claim 7), including a treatment device, an imaging device, a bed, and bed controller (claim 10).
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of acquiring images and image areas and calculating possible differences; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the following grouping(s) of subject matter:
Mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) based on the acquiring images and areas – a person can view images mentally and form evaluations, judgments, or opinions regarding the areas.
Mathematical concepts (e.g., relationships, formulas, equations, and/or calculations) based on the similarity, cost, and relative position calculations;
Based on the amendment, the independent claims now appear more closely aligned with the mental processes grouping, with mathematical calculations also being implicated.
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are the claims to a device comprising device comprising: a hardware processor configured to execute a program to perform the claim activities (at claim 1), the method being performed by a computer (at claim 11), and a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform the same or similar activities (at claim 12). These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as currently phrased, the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity.
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.
NOTICE
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirai et al. (WO 2018/051557 A1; hereinafter Hirai).
Claim 1: Hirai discloses a medical image processing device comprising a hardware processor configured to execute a program (see Hirai at least at, e.g., ¶ 0042, “functions by execution of a program stored in storage device by a processor, such as a CPU (central processing unit) or GPU (graphic processing unit)” and “The program executed by the processor such as a CPU or GPU”; citation hereafter by number only) to:
acquire a first image which is captured by imaging an internal body of a patient (0010, “a medical image processing apparatus of an embodiment may include, but is not limited to, include a first image acquirer, a second image acquirer, a path acquirer, and a searcher. The first image acquirer acquires a three-dimensional first image of an object to be treated. The second image acquirer acquires a three-dimensional second image of the object to treated, captured at a time different from the first image”);
acquire a second image which is captured by imaging the internal body of the patient at a time point different from that of the first image (0010, “a medical image processing apparatus of an embodiment may include, but is not limited to, include a first image acquirer, a second image acquirer, a path acquirer, and a searcher. The first image acquirer acquires a three-dimensional first image of an object to be treated. The second image acquirer acquires a three-dimensional second image of the object to treated, captured at a time different from the first image”);
acquire two or more areas corresponding to one or both of the first image and the second image, the areas comprising an area of an irradiation field of a treatment beam with which the patient is irradiated, and an area of a tumor in the internal body of the patient (0010, “The path acquirer acquires the path of a radio beam set in the first image. The searcher, based on first integrated values of the integrated pixel values of the three-dimensional first pixels through which the radiation path passes within the first image and on second integrated values of the integrated pixel values of the three-dimensional second pixels through which the path corresponding to the radiation path within the second image passes”, 0018, irradiation beam controlled by controller, 0024, “At the treatment planning stage, the direction and intensity of the treatment beam B to be radiated are planned so as to reduce the irradiation by the treatment beam B of the normal tissue in the body of the patient P. The first image acquirer 101 may include an interface for connecting to the CT imaging apparatus 12 of the treatment apparatus 10”, 0025, “The second image acquirer 102 acquires a second image regarding the patient P immediately before the start of treatment. The second image acquirer 102 outputs the acquired second image to the searcher 120. In this case, the second image is the CT image of the inside of the body of the patient P captured immediately before the start of treatment for the purpose of positioning of the patient P. That is, the second image is a CT image captured and generated by the CT imaging apparatus 12 in the state of the treatment beam B not being radiated by the treatment beam irradiation gantry 13. The second image is captured in a state of an attitude made to approach an attitude the same as the attitude when the first image was captured”);
an image similarity calculator configured to calculate a similarity between the first image and the second image (0037, “The comparator 122 compares the first integrated image and the second integrated image output from the integrated image calculator 121 and outputs information indicating the comparison result to the determiner 123”);
calculate a cost which is a value based on an area or a volume of a non-overlap part where the area of the tumor departs from the area of the irradiation field, the cost increasing as the area or the volume of the non-overlap part increases (0010, “outputs a movement amount signal that indicates an amount of movement of the second image to adjust the position of the object to be treated appearing in the second image to the position of the object to be treated appearing in the first image”);
calculate a relative position of the first image with respect to the second image to increase the similarity and to decrease the cost (0020, “the medical image processing apparatus 100 outputs information for adjustment of the position of a lesion or tissue within the body of the patient P to be treated by radiotherapy. The processing in the medical image processing apparatus 100 to position the lesion or tissue is performed based on a CT image of the patient P captured before performing radiotherapy such as at the treatment planning stage and a current CT image of the patient P output from the CT imaging apparatus 12.”, 0021, “When this is done, the medical image processing apparatus 100, after virtually moving the position of the lesion or tissue in the body of the patient P, determines the tissue on the path of the treatment beam B to reach the lesion. That is, the medical image processing apparatus 100 determines whether or not there is coincidence of the tissue in the body of the patient P on the path (radiation path) through which the treatment beam B passes. This is to give notification of whether or not the amount of energy that is lost by the radiated treatment beam B passing through the tissue in the body of the patient P (the energy loss amount) is within an allowed range with respect to the energy loss amount calculated at the treatment planning stage”); and
output a movement amount signal for moving a bed on which the patient is fixed at a time of treatment based on the relative position (0010, “outputs a movement amount signal that indicates an amount of movement of the second image to adjust the position of the object to be treated appearing in the second image to the position of the object to be treated appearing in the first image”).
Claim 2: Hirai discloses the medical image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the program to:
calculate an approximate image which is generated by misaligning the first image by a predetermined width for each degree of freedom in which a posture of the patient changes (0162, “Given this, the user interface 330 generates one or a plurality of cross-sectional images corresponding to the first integrated image and the second integrated image and displays them on the display device. When this is done, the user interface 330, in order to facilitate viewing of a comparison of the first integrated image and the second integrated image, displays difference images of each of the cross-sectional images. The user interface 330 may make a color map display, applying colors in accordance with the size of the difference values of the cross-sectional images. The user interface 330 may also make an overlaid display of the outline of the PTV or PRV. The user interface 330 may also display as information the cost function value for each of the PTV and PRV. By doing this, the user can verify the cross-sectional images of the first integrated image and the second integrated image and can determine the offset between the first integrated image and the second integrated image’);
move the area by a predetermined width for each degree of freedom in which the posture of the patient changes and calculate a change in cost from the area before movement as a movement cost (0162, “Given this, the user interface 330 … may also display as information the cost function value for each of the PTV and PRV. By doing this, the user can verify the cross-sectional images of the first integrated image and the second integrated image and can determine the offset between the first integrated image and the second integrated image”), and
determine an amount of movement of the first image on a basis of an amount of misalignment between the first image and the second image using the approximate image and an amount of misalignment calculated from the movement cost and outputs the movement amount signal corresponding to the determined amount of movement (0010, “outputs a movement amount signal that indicates an amount of movement of the second image to adjust the position of the object to be treated appearing in the second image to the position of the object to be treated appearing in the first image”).
Claim 3: Hirai discloses the medical image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the program to acquire the first image and the second image as integral images by converting an image of the internal body of the patient on a basis of an irradiation route of a treatment beam with which the patient is irradiated (0023, “.The medical image processing apparatus 100 shown in FIG. 2 has a first image acquirer 101, a second image acquirer 102, a path acquirer 110, and a searcher 120. The searcher 120 has an integrated image calculator 121”)
Claim 6: Hirai discloses the medical image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the cost is a shortest distance between the two or more areas (0096-0099 and Equation 11, with 0143-0144 and Equation15, where optimizing would be shortest distance).
Claim 7: Hirai discloses the medical image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the two or more areas comprise a first area corresponding to the first image and a second area corresponding to the second image, and wherein the processor is further configured to execute the program to the second area by modifying the first area (0010, “outputs a movement amount signal that indicates an amount of movement of the second image to adjust the position of the object to be treated appearing in the second image to the position of the object to be treated appearing in the first image”).
Claim 10: Hirai discloses a treatment system comprising: the medical image processing device according to claim 1; and a treatment device comprising an irradiator configured to irradiate the patient with radiation, an imaging device configured to capture the first image and the second image, a bed on which the patient is loaded and fixed, and a bed controller configured to control movement of the bed in response to the movement amount signal (0010, “a treatment system may, but is not limited to, include a medical image processing apparatus; and a treatment apparatus that includes a ray irradiator radiating the object to be treated with the treatment beam, the radiographic imaging apparatus capturing the first image and the second image, and a treatment bed controller controlling the movement of a treatment bed onto which the object to be treated is placed and fixed, in accordance with the movement amount signal”).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected on the same basis as claim 1 above since Hirai discloses a medical image processing method that is performed by a computer and a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform the medical image processing method comprising the same or similar activities as at claim 1 above (see Hirai at least at 0042).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues the 112 rejections (Remarks at 6-7); however, the amendment appears to overcome the earlier 112 rejections. Therefore, the previous rejections are withdrawn and Applicant’s argument is considered moot and not persuasive.
Applicant then argues the 101 rejection (Id. at 7-8), first repeating claim 1 (Id. at 7), then alleging “The claim is not an abstract idea, it recites additional elements related to acquiring areas, calculating cost as defined, and outputting a movement signal that in the context claimed integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application (consistent with the Examiner's remarks on page 10 of the Office Action)” (Id. at 7-8). However, the claims are still to an abstract idea. The Examiner’s remarks were in relation to a potential practical application, but the claims do not measure or calculate a distance, or indicate that the images are related to when a patient is on (or “fixed to”) a bed, or that there is treatment; therefore, merely alleging something that is not required or encompassed by the claims does not generally constitute a practical application.
Should Applicant wish to further consider this approach, the Examiner suggests that the claims be clarified to indicate that the first and/or second image be when the patient is “fixed” to a bed and at a time of treatment, that the areas be acquired as set or determined by the planned treatment, that one area be from the first image and another area be from the second image, that the relative position actually be a calculation of a distance to move the bed and patient so as to align the first and second images or image areas, that the bed movement be made in such a manner that the movement cannot be calculated and performed by a person (such as a person aligning the patient), and that the treatment being performed is particular for the disease or condition – it appears only then would Thales, BASCM, etc. apply as within the particular treatment or prophylaxis discussion indicated at MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2).
Applicant then argues that “Hirai does not disclose in paragraph [0010] or elsewhere elements (i) and (ii) in the context of claim 1. Thus, Hirai does not disclose or suggest acquiring an area of an irradiation field, an area of a tumor in a patient, and calculating a cost that is based on the area or volume of a non-overlap part where the area of the tumor departs from the area of the irradiation field (with cost increasing with greater area or volume of the non-overlap part)” (Remarks at 8). However, first, the argument is a mere allegation of patentability asserting that elements are not disclosed by the reference without further discussion of the differences. Second, Hirai does disclose these aspects as indicated by the further citations based on the amendment.
Applicant then argues that “Amended claim 1 provides the advantage of making it possible to perform image comparison at a high speed and with high accuracy” (Remarks at 9). However, there does not appear to be anything in the claims that requires speed or accuracy – the claim activities can be performed exceedingly slowly, over a long period of time, and with very little accuracy and the activities would still allegedly infringe should the claims be allowed. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims and hence not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marchant, T. E. et al., Measurement of inter and intra fraction organ motion in radiotherapy using cone beam CT projection images, 2008 Phys. Med. Biol., Vol. 53, No. 4, 1087-1098, DOI 10.1088/0031-9155/53/4/018, downloaded 16 January 2026 from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18263960/, indicating “A method is presented for extraction of intra and inter fraction motion of seeds/markers within the patient from cone beam CT (CBCT) projection images. The position of the marker is determined on each projection image and fitted to a function describing the projection of a fixed point onto the imaging panel at different gantry angles. The fitted parameters provide the mean marker position with respect to the isocentre. Differences between the theoretical function and the actual projected marker positions are used to estimate the range of intra fraction motion and the principal motion axis in the transverse plane. The method was validated using CBCT projection images of a static marker at known locations and of a marker moving with known amplitude. The mean difference between actual and measured motion range was less than 1 mm in all directions, although errors of up to 5 mm were observed when large amplitude motion was present in an orthogonal direction. In these cases it was possible to calculate the range of motion magnitudes consistent with the observed marker trajectory. The method was shown to be feasible using clinical CBCT projections of a pancreas cancer patient.” (at Abstract).
Skin-Directed Therapies, by the Cutaneous Lymphoma Foundation’s Medical Advisory Council, dated April 2019, downloaded 6 July 2026 from https://www.clfoundation.org/skin-directed-therapies, indicating that “Radiation therapy is considered the most effective single treatment for primary cutaneous lymphoma. Advances in radiation therapy have led to the use of low-energy orthovoltage X-rays and electron beam radiotherapy which, when administered properly, effectively treat the skin without damaging the underlying tissues, such as blood vessels, muscles, and bone marrow.” (at p. 7) – indicating control of the irradiation field of a treatment beam to particular areas in relation to the area of a tumor.
Romanyukha et al., CT patient positioning plays key role in radiation dose reduction, dated 28 April 2022, downloaded on 10 July 2026 from https://www.auntminnie.com/clinical-news/ct/article/15630823/ct-patient-positioning-plays-key-role-in-radiation-dose-reduction, discussing the importance and ramifications regarding patient positioning both vertically and laterally and providing various recommendations and references (at pp.7-8) regarding patient positioning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT D GARTLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/SCOTT D GARTLAND/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights