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
The Amendment filed on May 12th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10–15, and 18 are currently pending. Claims 1, 4, 5, 10–15, and 18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered. Some arguments are persuasive with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and the previous 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections over Krueger and Schumacher, as explained below.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 are persuasive with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Applicant's arguments, see page 9 of the Remarks, state that the application has been amended such that the claims no longer recite the purely functional “section” limitations (e.g., “body movement calculation section”) and instead recite a "processor" executing instructions to perform a method. Upon reconsideration, the Examiner agrees that the amended claim language recites sufficient structure to avoid interpretation under § 112(f). Therefore, the prior claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 are also persuasive with respect to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Applicant's arguments, see pages 10–12 of the Remarks, state that amended independent claims 1 and 14 now require "calculating a body movement... including calculating a respiratory movement in a first calculation and calculating a non-periodic body movement in another calculation," and that Krueger and Schumacher are silent regarding this dual-calculation limitation. The Examiner agrees that the cited portions of Krueger and Schumacher do not explicitly disclose separating respiratory and non-periodic movements into two distinct calculations. Therefore, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Krueger alone, and over Krueger in view of Schumacher, have been withdrawn.
However, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is made in this Office Action applying Krueger in view of newly cited prior art [Meir et al] to address the newly added dual-calculation limitation. This modification to the rejection is directly necessitated by Applicant's amendment adding new limitations to independent claims 1 and 14.
Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant's amendments introduce new informalities and indefiniteness issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Specifically, the amendments introduced typographical errors resulting in duplicated step labels (e.g., two steps labeled "(a)" in claim 14), contradictory extraction references (claims 11 and 12), and lack of proper antecedent basis (claims 4 and 15). These new issues are addressed in the detailed 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections below.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, 5, 10–15, and 18 have been fully considered. The newly added limitations from the amended claims have been considered and addressed in the updated rejections utilizing newly cited prior art. Because the necessity to apply a new reference to independent claims 1 and 14, as well as the necessity to make new 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections, were directly necessitated by Applicant’s substantive amendments adding new limitations and introducing drafting errors, this action is properly made final in accordance with MPEP § 706.07(a).
Based on these facts, this action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4–5 and 10–13 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims use the phrase: “the body movement information processing device including the processor performing a method…” or “the method performed by the body movement information processing device including the processor further comprises…”. The wording is awkward because a device does not “include the processor performing a method” in the normal claim-drafting sense. Device (or apparatus) claims and method (or process) claims are distinct categories. A claim is invalid if it covers both a device (what the device is) and a method of using that device (what a user does) in the same claim. Because the intended processor functionality remains reasonably understandable, the Examiner treat this primarily as a claim-form objection, not necessarily a mixed apparatus/ method §112(b) rejection. Appropriate correction is required. A clearer formulation would be: “wherein execution of the program of instructions causes the processor to perform operations comprising…”; For dependent claims: “wherein the operations performed by the processor further comprise…”.
Claim 10 is further objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 recites “-- to discriminate between a periodic movement and a non-steady movement for calculation”. The phrase is awkward, “for calculation” is a dangling, unclear modifier with no clear referent, but the specification explains that the movements are separately calculated using different directional components or equations. Appropriate correction is required. The clearest correction could be: “-- using the movement vectors in the two directions to separately calculate a periodic movement and a non-steady movement, thereby discriminating between the periodic movement and the non-steady movement.”
Claim 12 is further objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12 ends with “presenting information … to an outside.”. “An outside” is grammatically incomplete and should be corrected. Depending on Applicant’s intended scope, suitable language might be: “presenting the information externally”, “outputting the information outside the body movement information processing device”; or “presenting the information to an external device or user.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is further objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 labels its operations: “(a) calculating; …”; “(b) determining …; and”; “(a) extracting …”. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant labels the final step as (a). It appears likely that Applicant intended (c), but the submitted claim says (a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4, 11-12 and 15 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 4 recites the limitation “ -- as the spatial regions, respectively” in claim. However, independent claim 1 – step (b) only provides antecedent basis for a singular spatial region (“determining a spatial region --”). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “setting a threshold value … with respect to the body movement calculated in (c)”. However, independent claim 1 recites calculating the body movement in operation (a), whereas operation (c) recites extracting the body movement calculated in operation (a). It is therefore unclear whether claim 11 intends to apply the threshold value to the body movement calculated in operation (a) or to the body movement extracted in operation (c). Because claim 12 depends from claim 11, it inherits this ambiguity and fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 12 is further indefinite because it refers to “the non-steady movement extracted in (c)”. Operation (c) of claim 1 recites generally extracting the body movement calculated in operation (a), while claim 11 separately recites extracting non-steady movement based on a threshold value. It is therefore unclear whether claim 12 refers to the extraction performed in claim 1 – operation (c) or the threshold-based extraction separately recited in claim 11.
Claim 15 is indefinite because it refers to “a non-steady movement extracted in (c)”. But claim 14, as submitted, contains no operation (c) because the final operation is labeled (a). Thus, claim 15 refers to a nonexistent operation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 10–15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger (Krueger et al., US 2021/0244283 A1, 2021) in view of Meir (Meir et al., US 2009/0187112 A1, 2009).
Regarding claim 1, Krueger discloses a body movement information processing device that receives a signal from a measuring device which measures movement information of a subject disposed in an imaging device and that processes the movement information of the subject,
( [0010–0014], [0026], [0072–0077], [0088–0089], [Figs. 1 and 4]: Krueger discloses a medical instrument 100/300/400 comprising a camera system 102 configured for imaging a portion of a subject 108 reposing on a subject support 106, wherein the subject 108 is disposed within an imaging zone 408 of a magnetic resonance imaging system 402 (an imaging device); the camera system 102 generates a signal comprising a base position image 122 and repeatedly acquired subsequent images 124, which are received and processed by a processor 114 to calculate an image transformation 126 representing movement information of the subject 108. )
the body movement information processing device comprising:
a processor; and
a program storage device tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the processor,
( [0040–0041], [0044–0051], [0072–0075], [Fig. 1]: Krueger discloses computer system 110 comprising processor 114 and memory 118. Memory 118 constitutes a computer-readable program storage device and stores machine-executable instructions 120 and image-transformation algorithm 128 executable by processor 114. Execution of the stored instructions causes processor 114 to control the medical instrument, acquire and process the base and subsequent camera images, calculate image transformation 126, perform calculations and data manipulation, and generate movement-related output. Krueger expressly describes the memory as including nonvolatile storage and as a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and describes the processor as an electronic component that executes a program or machine-executable instructions. )
the body movement information processing device including the processor performing a method comprising:
(a) calculating a body movement of the subject by using the signal from the measuring device, including calculating a respiratory-associated body movement in a first calculation
( [0073–0075], [0088–0089], [0094]: Krueger teaches calculating image transformations, displacement vectors, and average movement quantities from camera-image signals representing movement of the subject. Krueger further expressly teaches applying the disclosed camera-based movement-calculation system to general breathing-motion management, including breathing sensing, breathing type classification, and reproduction of breath-holds. Therefore, Krueger teaches using a first camera-based movement calculation to calculate body movement associated with respiration, i.e., respiratory movement. )
(b) determining a spatial region of a movement of the subject; and
( [0018–0019], [0023], [0095–0096], [Figs. 8–9]: Krueger teaches selecting a region of interest within the base-position image and calculating the image transformation, including an average vector displacement, for the voxels or pixels located within the selected region. Krueger explains that the region of interest correspond to a particular spatial portion of the subject’s anatomy, such as the face, thorax, limb, or other body part. Krueger further illustrates region of interest 800 selected in base-position image 122 specifically to identify motion of subject 108, with the image transformation for that selected region rendered as vector mapping 900. Accordingly, selection of the region of interest in which subject movement is identified and evaluated constitutes determining a spatial region of the movement of the subject. )
(c) extracting the body movement calculated in (a) for the spatial region determined in (b).
( [0018–0019], [0095–0096], [Figs. 8–9]: Krueger discloses that execution of the machine-executable instructions further causes the processor 114 to calculate an average transformation quantity 132 for voxels within the region of interest of the base position image, using the image transformation 126 calculated in step (a), wherein "the vectors that are determined for this region may then be used to calculate an average vector displacement" by summing the value of the vectors within the region of interest and dividing by the number of vectors. Krueger thereby discloses extracting the body movement calculated in (a), i.e., the image transformation 126, specifically for the spatial region (region of interest) determined in (b), by isolating and processing only the portion of the image transformation 126 corresponding to voxels located within the selected region of interest, rather than the entirety of the base position image 122. Krueger further discloses at that the rendering of the image transformation may be displayed superimposed on the base position image so that the subject can see which portion of the subject is out of position, further confirming that the calculated body movement is extracted and presented specifically with respect to the determined spatial region. )
Krueger teaches calculating respiratory movement from camera-derived subject-motion information, but does not expressly disclose calculating non-periodic body movement in another calculation. Meir teaches this additional feature as follows:
(a) calculating a body movement of the subject by using the signal from the measuring device, including calculating a respiratory movement in a first calculation and calculating a non-periodic body movement in another calculation;
( [0025–0031], [0034–0038], [0071–0074], [0082–0089], [0095–0105], [Figs. 2, 8, and 9]: Meir teaches a stereoscopic camera 10 that acquires images of a patient and supplies the image signals to computer 14. The computer processes the camera images to determine three-dimensional positions of a marker or a plurality of points on the patient’s surface and calculates distance measurements representing movement of the patient. In a first calculation, Meir uses the calculated patient-position and timing data to derive a breathing signal, divide the signal into breathing cycles, and generate a breathing model representing variation in the position of the patient’s chest surface during respiration, thereby calculating respiratory movement. Meir separately performs another calculation during monitoring by generating a current three-dimensional patient-surface model, fitting or comparing the current surface to the stored respiratory model, calculating a fit-distance or deviation, and calculating the translation required to bring the current surface into alignment with the expected respiratory-model surface. Meir explains that when the corrective translation is approximately consistent, the calculation indicates that the patient has moved. Accordingly, Meir calculates patient body movement occurring apart from, and not represented by, the modeled periodic respiratory movement, thereby calculating non-periodic body movement in another calculation. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Krueger to incorporate Meir’s known technique of separately calculating patient movement outside a modeled respiratory cycle. Doing so would predictably distinguish expected respiratory motion from non-periodic patient movement using the same type of camera-derived patient-position data, thereby improving the detection of motion that may adversely affect medical imaging.
Regarding claim 4, Krueger [as modified by Meir] teaches the body movement information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the method performed by the body movement information processing device including the processor further comprises:
determining a first region that is a part of the subject and that includes an imaging target part, and a second region that includes the imaging target part of the subject and a region other than the imaging target part, as the spatial regions, respectively.
( Krueger explicitly teaches determining two distinct spatial regions: Krueger, in [0076–0079], describes an MRI system 402 in which the subject 108 on subject support 106 is positioned so that at least a portion of the subject lies within the imaging zone 408 of magnet 404, and a region of interest 409 within this imaging zone is defined for motion analysis; Krueger, in [0095–0096], further illustrates in a base position image 122 that a region of interest 800 is selected to monitor movement of a specific portion of the subject during imaging. The selected regions of interest 409 and 800 correspond to a first region that is a part of the subject including the imaging target part, while the portion of the subject located within the imaging zone (which encompasses the target part and adjacent portions) corresponds to a second, larger region that includes the imaging target part and a region other than the imaging target part. )
Regarding claim 10, Krueger [as modified by Meir] teaches the body movement information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the method performed by the body movement information processing device including the processor further comprises:
calculating movement vectors in two directions orthogonal to each other; and
( [0016-0019], [0078], [0089]: Krueger teaches calculating movement vectors in two directions orthogonal to each other by performing optical flow-based movement recognition using standard optical-flow methods, such as the and Lucas-Kanade method that compute, for each pixel, vectors in the x direction (Vx) and the y direction (Vy), the horizontal and vertical pixel axes, which are orthogonal directions. )
using the movement vectors in the two directions to discriminate between a periodic movement and a non-steady movement for calculation.
( [0018–0021], [0027–0030], [0091], [0097]: Krueger further teaches calculating statistical measures from the frame-to-frame image transformation for the region of interest and comparing these motion-related measures to a predetermined criteria to decide whether the motion is acceptable or excessive and to validate or invalidate portions of the MRI data accordingly, thereby using the time-varying motion vectors as a control quantity to distinguish normal or regular motion from non-steady motion in the calculation. )
Regarding claim 11, Krueger [as modified by Meir] teaches the body movement information processing device according to claim 10, wherein the method performed by the body movement information processing device including the processor further comprises:
setting a threshold value for at least one of a magnitude, a duration time, or an occurrence interval with respect to the body movement calculated in (c); and
( [0027-0031] & [0091-0092]: Krueger expressly teaches that the statistical measure may be a degree or magnitude of motion, including a maximum displacement, an average displacement, or a maximum displacement within a specified neighborhood of voxels. Krueger further teaches calculating a mean motion magnitude and transmitting it to the scanner together with a calculated reasonable threshold for the subject, and adapting the motion or invalidation threshold during scanning. Accordingly, Krueger sets a threshold value for the magnitude of the body movement extracted for the spatial region in step (c). )
extracting the non-steady movement of the subject based on the threshold value.
( [0027–0033], [0091], [0097]: Krueger further explains that portions of medical imaging data corresponding to motion that exceeds the criteria, e.g. transient motion events such as eye blinking, swallowing, coughing, or other short-timescale motions, are invalidated and may be reacquired or excluded from reconstruction, effectively extracting non-steady movement based on the threshold. )
Regarding claim 12, Krueger [as modified by Meir] teaches the body movement information processing device according to claim 11, wherein the method performed by the body movement information processing device including the processor further comprises:
presenting information regarding the non-steady movement extracted in (c) to an outside.
( [0134], [Fig. 9]: Meir teaches comparing a calculated distance or model-fit measure for a currently captured patient surface with a predetermined threshold to determine whether the patient’s position and shape are inconsistent with normal respiratory movement. When the threshold comparison indicates irregular breathing or patient movement, Meir outputs a signal to the treatment apparatus to halt treatment and, where patient movement is detected, outputs corrective movement instructions to the mechanical couch. Meir further expressly teaches connecting the monitoring system to a display and outputting a warning when irregular breathing or patient movement is detected. Accordingly, Meir presents, to an external display, treatment apparatus, or mechanical couch, information regarding the detected non-steady patient movement. )
Regarding claim 13, Krueger [as modified by Meir] teaches the body movement information processing device according to claim 10, wherein the method performed by the body movement information processing device including the processor further comprises:
calculating at least one of a displacement, a period, or the number of times per predetermined time for the periodic movement.
( [0006], [0012], [0018–0019], [0021–0022], [0028]: Krueger teaches that the image transformation algorithm may be a displacement-mapping or optical-flow algorithm that maps the displacement of voxels/ pixels between a base position image and subsequent images, and that the processor computes an average transformation quantity such as an average vector displacement for voxels within a region of interest, which represents the displacement of the subject relative to its initial position and further allows statistical measures of motion magnitude (e.g., maximum or average displacement) to be derived from the motion field. )
Regarding claim 14, The rationale provided for claim 1 is incorporated herein. Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations to the system of claim 1. In addition, claim 14 further recites the limitation:
a magnetic resonance imaging device comprising an imaging unit configured to measure a nuclear magnetic resonance signal generated by a subject and from which an image of the subject is acquired;
( [0059], [0077–0083], [Fig. 4]: Krueger teaches magnetic resonance imaging system 402 comprising magnet 404 defining imaging zone 408, magnetic-field gradient coils 410 configured to spatially encode magnetic spins within imaging zone 408, radio-frequency coil 414 configured to manipulate the magnetic spins and receive radio-frequency signals emitted by the magnetic spins of subject 108, and transceiver 416 coupled to radio-frequency coil 414. Krueger defines magnetic resonance imaging data as recorded measurements of radio-frequency signals emitted by atomic spins and received by an antenna of a magnetic resonance apparatus during an MRI scan. Krueger further teaches that pulse-sequence commands 420 control magnetic resonance imaging system 402 to acquire magnetic resonance imaging data 422 from subject 108 according to an MRI protocol and that magnetic resonance image 424 is reconstructed from the acquired magnetic resonance imaging data 422. Accordingly, Krueger teaches a magnetic resonance imaging device comprising an imaging unit configured to measure nuclear magnetic resonance signals generated by the subject and acquire an image of the subject. )
Regarding claim 15, Krueger [as modified as Meir] teaches the magnetic resonance imaging device according to claim 14, wherein the imaging unit, based on information on a non-steady movement extracted in (c):
deletes measurement data obtained in a case where the movement has occurred; and
( [0027–0030]: Krueger teaches calculating a statistical measure from the frame-to-frame image transformation for the region of interest and comparing this measure with a predetermined criteria, and then invalidating or rejecting portions of the MRI data when the motion measure exceeds the criterion, i.e., data acquired during excessive/ non-acceptable movement are treated as motion corrupted and discarded; see [0097]. )
performs image reconstruction by using measurement data other than the deleted measurement data.
( [0028–0033], [0083]: Krueger further explains that MRI images are reconstructed using only the validated portions of the MRI data and/or reacquired data, excluding those portions invalidated due to excessive motion, so reconstruction is performed from measurement data other than the discarded motion-corrupted data. )
Regarding claim 18, Krueger [as modified as Meir] teaches the magnetic resonance imaging device according to claim 14, wherein the method performed by the processor further comprises:
determining a region of the subject located within an imaging space of the magnetic resonance imaging device, as the spatial region.
( in [0077–0078], Krueger describes a magnetic resonance imaging system 402 having a magnet 404 with a bore 406 and an imaging zone 408, and shows that a region of interest 409 is defined within the imaging zone 408 where the subject 108 on subject support 106 is positioned so that at least a portion of the subject lies within the imaging zone and region of interest. Krueger further illustrates a base position image in which a region of interest is selected to identify motion of the subject in the MRI setting, i.e., a spatial region of the subject located within the imaging space for motion analysis; [0095–0096]. )
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger [ as modified by Meir ] in view of Schumacher (Schumacher et al., Weighted Medical Image Registration with automatic mask generation, 2006).
Regarding claim 5, Krueger [as modified by Meir] teaches the body movement information processing device according to claim 1, the method performed by the body movement information processing device including the processor further comprises:
Krueger [as modified by Meir] teaches determining a spatial region of the subject and extracting body-movement information for that region, but does not expressly disclose generating a mask based on the determined spatial region and extracting the body movement using the generated mask, where Schumacher teaches:
generating a mask based on the spatial region determined in (b),
wherein the body movement is extracted in (c) by using the mask.
( Schumacher, in [Sec. 2 (“Method”)], explicitly describes selecting “problematic” spatial regions
B
T
i
,
B
R
i
in the template and reference images and constructing weighting masks
M
T
x
,
M
R
x
,
M
A
x
that take prescribed values inside those regions and different values elsewhere, and further discloses automatically generating the reference mask from an initial region using grey-value statistics and a snake / GVF segmentation. )
It would have been prima facie obvious to a POSITA, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Krueger [as modified by Meir]’s ROI-based motion system in view of Schumacher’s weighting-mask technique. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of medical imaging of a subject, and both address the same problem of obtaining a motion / registration measure that is driven primarily by clinically relevant regions while suppressing the influence of less relevant or problematic areas. Schumacher teaches that this is effectively achieved by defining a mask over the image domain with region-specific weights and using that mask inside the similarity measure so that certain regions contribute more strongly or weakly to the computed deformation. A POSITA seeking to improve Krueger [as modified by Meir]’s ROI-based motion feedback would therefore have been motivated to implement the ROI as a weighting mask in the same manner, so that motion in more important parts of the spatial region (e.g., near the imaging target) has greater impact on the extracted motion value, while motion in other regions is down-weighted. This is a predictable use of a known technique (weighting masks in medical image registration) to improve a similar system (ROI-based MRI motion tracking) according to its established function, with a reasonable expectation of success and without changing the fundamental operation of Krueger [as modified by Meir]’s device.
Regarding claim 7, Krueger [as modified by Meir and Schumacher] teaches the body movement information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the mask is a mask including weighting corresponding to at least one of:
a distance between the measuring device and each position of the spatial region; or
( Schumacher teaches using weighting masks in which different spatial sub-regions
B
i
of the image domain
Ω
are assigned respective weighting factors
b
i
, so that the masks
M
T
x
,
M
R
x
take different values depending on the voxel position
x
within the region of interest; this defines a spatially varying weight distribution over the region used in registration, i.e., the mask weight at each voxel is a function of that voxel’s position, which to a POSITA corresponds to the voxel’s distance / geometry relative to the imaging setup; see [Section 2.1 “Weighted non-linear image registration”, eq. (2) and the definitions of
M
T
,
M
R
,
M
A
]. )
a measurement sensitivity distribution of the imaging device.
( Given claim 7 is satisfied by any one of the listed types, Krueger [as modified by Meir and Schumacher] fully teaches the limitations of claim 7. Furthermore, Applicant is directed to Krueger [as modified by Meir and Schumacher] ‘s other discussions, from which it is readily apparent that Krueger [as modified by Meir and Schumacher] also discloses other listed types for weighting. )
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 KEN KUDO whose telephone number is (571)272-4498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 571-272-8243. 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.
KEN KUDO
Examiner
Art Unit 2671
/KEN KUDO/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights