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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are still pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 20180216155) in view of and Nahmias (US 20200318077
Regarding claim 15, Son teaches a measurement system (fig. 1) comprising: a stimulus generation device configured to generate an external stimulus complying with a chemotaxis condition of an organism (p0111: the addition of chemical agents (including for example specific nutrients or EDTA) that stimulate motility); a stimulus control unit configured to cause the stimulus generation device to generate the external stimulus (p007: At least one environmental condition is changed to stimulate motility of the at least one individual microorganism in order to favor the detection of the microorganism); capture an image of a predetermined imaging range to which the external stimulus is output (p0007: The imaging device is used to capture at successive times two or more digital images of the at least one individual microorganism) ; and a measurement unit configured to measure the target organism on a basis of the image captured by the imaging unit (p0007: The generated motility kinematics data are obtained from digital images captured for a first portion of a sample containing the at least one individual microorganism.. feature includes one or a combination of two or more of the following: shape, aspect ratio, convexity, area, size, dimension, direction of major axis).
Son does not explicitly disclose cause the stimulus generation device to generate the external stimulus in accordance with a predefined operation time chart that specified a timing and a characteristic of the external stimulus.
Nahmias teaches the stimulus generation device to generate the external stimulus in accordance with a predefined operation time chart that specified a timing in minutes (abstract: two stimuli provided in an oscillating manner with a periodicity of 24±4 hours) and a characteristic of the external stimulus (abstract: stimulus is provided in a first time period and reaches a first peak. P0022: the duration of the time period of the first peak is at least about 1 minute ,P0025:the duration of the first time period is at least about 30 minutes), the operational time chart specifying application of the external stimulus for less than one hour (P0022: the duration of the time period of the first peak is at least about 1 minute ,P0025:the duration of the first time period is at least about 30 minutes).
Son and Nahmias are combinable because they both deal with biochemical stimulus system Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Son with the teaching of Nahmias for provided an in-vitro method of sustaining a synchronized circadian rhythm in cells of a cell culture (p0017).
Regarding claim 1, recite the same limitations as claim 15, therefore it is rejected for the same reason as claim 15.
Regarding claim 14, The structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 14. Thus, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Son teaches the measurement device according to claim 1, wherein the imaging unit includes a vision sensor configured to asynchronously acquire pixel data in accordance with an amount of light incident on each of a plurality of pixels two-dimensionally arranged (p0037: The camera acquires sequences of images of the bacterial suspension in each well).
Regarding claim 8, Son teaches the measurement device according to claim 1, wherein the imaging unit captures the image while being moved along a predetermined direction (p0007).
Regarding claim 9, Son teaches the measurement device according to claim 1, wherein the measurement unit derives information based on a behavior performed by the target organism in exhibiting chemotaxis on a basis of the image captured by the imaging unit, and specifies the target organism on a basis of the information (p0007).
Regarding claim 10, Son teaches the measurement device according to claim 9, wherein the measurement unit derives at least one of the number, density, or average activity level of the target organism (p0007: shape, aspect ratio, convexity, area, size).
Regarding claim 11, Son teaches the measurement device according to claim 2, wherein the imaging unit includes the vision sensor and an imaging sensor configured to capture images at regular intervals in accordance with a frame rate (p0007: The imaging device is used to capture at successive times).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Nahmias as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Irimia (US 20120216601).
Regarding claim 3, Son in view of Nahmias does not teach the measurement device according to claim 1, wherein the stimulus control unit causes generation of the external stimulus by which the target organism exhibits positive chemotaxis.
Irimia teaches wherein the stimulus control unit causes generation of the external stimulus by which the target organism exhibits positive chemotaxis (p0007: chemotaxis effect, i.e., a movement of a motile cell in response to a chemical stimulus).
Son in view of Nahmias and Irimia are combinable because they both deal with biochemical stimulus system Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Son with the teaching of lrimia for analyzing one or more motile cells, e.g., neutrophil motility (p0006).
Claims 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Nahmias as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Poznansky et al. (US 6448054).
Regarding claim 4, Son in view of Nahmias does not teach the measurement device according to claim 1, wherein the stimulus control unit causes generation of the external stimulus by which a non-target organism other than the target organism exhibits negative chemotaxis.
Poznansky teaches wherein the stimulus control unit causes generation of the external stimulus by which a non-target organism other than the target organism exhibits negative chemotaxis (col.3 Lines:1-6: negative chemotaxis of peripheral blood cells from mammals has only been observed in response to non-specific stimuli such as cell lysates or tumor tissue fragments.
Son in view of Nahmias and Poznansky are combinable because they both deal with biochemical stimulus system Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Son in view of Irimia with the teaching of Poznansky for modulating movement of eukaryotic cells with migratory capacity.
Regarding claim 5, Son in view of Nahmias and Poznansky teaches the measurement device according to claim 4, wherein the stimulus control unit causes generation of the external stimulus by which a non-target organism other than the target organism exhibits negative chemotaxis (Poznansky: col.3 Lines:1-6) and the target organism does not exhibit negative chemotaxis (Irimia: Irimia: p0007: chemotaxis effect, i.e., a movement of a motile cell in response to a chemical stimulus).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 6-7 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Nahmias as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schettino (US 5417006).
Regarding claim 6, Son in view of Nahmias does not teach the measurement device according to claim 1, wherein the stimulus control unit causes generation of the external stimulus by which the target organism does not exhibit chemotaxis.
Schettino teaches wherein the stimulus control unit causes generation of the external stimulus by which the target organism does not exhibit chemotaxis (col.1, Line:35-50:to external stimuli such as sound, bubble screens, olfaction, themoreception, light and predator…. this experimentation has clearly shown that these stimuli are not particularly effective in eliciting repeatable responses of fish).
Son in view of Nahmias and Poznansky and Schettino are combinable because they both deal with biochemical stimulus system Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Son in view of Irimia and Poznansky with the teaching of Schettino for provide apparatus for influencing living organisms by artificial magnetic fields.
Regarding claim 7, Son in view of Nahmias and Poznansky and Schettino teaches the measurement device according to claim 6, wherein the external stimulus is light, and the stimulus control unit causes application of light by which the target organism does not exhibit chemotaxis (Schettino: col.1, Line:35-50).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 12, Son in view of Nahmias and Poznansky and Schettino teaches the measurement device according to claim 1, wherein the stimulus control unit causes the stimulus generation device to apply light having a specific wavelength and intensity, or generate heat (Schettino: col.1, Line:35-50).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 13, Son in view of Nahmias and Poznansky and Schettino teaches the measurement device according to claim 1, wherein the stimulus control unit causes the stimulus generation device to emit a specific substance (Schettino: col.1, Line:35-50: bubble screens).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered. Nahmias (paragraph 0022 and 0025 cited for amended claim limitations: P0022: the duration of the time period of the first peak is at least about 1 minute ,P0025:the duration of the first time period is at least about 30 minutes), the operational time chart specifying application of the external stimulus for less than one hour (P0022: the duration of the time period of the first peak is at least about 1 minute ,P0025:the duration of the first time period is at least about 30 minutes).
Therefore Son in view of Nahmias limitations of claim 1,
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 5712705254. 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights