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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This communication is in response to the communication filed November 11, 2025.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite systems, apparatuses, or methods for physician escalation strategy for online adaptive radiotherapy, which are statutory categories of inventions.
Specifically, the independent claims, taking claim 1 as exemplary, recite receiving a planning image of a patient, performing a determinations based on the planning image, generating a contour of the image, performing a determinations based on the contour, and outputting an indication of the determination based on the contour, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because in this case, the claims involve collecting data, analyzing it, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are interpreted as reciting concepts relating to tracking or organizing patient information. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Here, the additional elements of the claims use processing circuitry, generating control signals, models, and machine-readable medium.
The claims merely use the additional elements as tools to perform abstract ideas and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of the additional elements as tools to implement the abstract idea and generally to link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not render the claim patent eligible, because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, the machine readable medium and processing circuitry function to execute computer functions of inputting, outputting, processing, and storing data and may be any kind of non-transitory medium used to store information or any other type of computer device (specification par. 18-20). The generating of control signals is interpreted as extra solution activity. The models are recited at a high level of generality and may be any machine learning model functioning to process workflow.
The additional elements do not show an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology, rather the additional elements perform general computing functions and do not indicate how the particular combination improves any technology or provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See Apple v. Ameranth, 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The additional elements do not use the exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease, do not apply the exception using particular machines, and do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, rather the computer elements are generally stated as to their structure and function and are only used to output a determination instead of directly providing specific treatment or prophylaxis. Therefore, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the additional limitations are not indicative of materializing into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the steps of the claim amount to no more than using computer related devices to automate or implement the abstract idea of physician escalation strategy for online adaptive radiotherapy.
The use of a computer or processor to merely automate or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) where mere instructions to apply an exception do not render an abstract idea patent eligible). There is no indication that the additional limitations alone or in combination improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology, improves another technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims incorporate all of the limitations above. The claims do not provide additional limitations for analysis and address limitations of the abstract idea, which further describe planning image, models, generating contour, outputting an indication, generating dose objectives, comparing dose and volume metrics to a threshold. The claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied above. The claims individually and in ordered combinations do not offer significantly more than abstract ideas.
In conclusion, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of physician escalation strategy for online adaptive radiotherapy. The claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following limitations were not disclosed in the prior art: performing, using the processing circuitry, a determination based on the contour, using a second model, whether to proceed with the adaptive workflow path or the IGRT path for the radiation treatment of the patient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY M. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6793 and email is jay.patel2@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM.
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, Peter H. Choi can be reached on (469)295-9171. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAY M. PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights