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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 1/15/26 wherein:
Claims 1-16 are currently pending;
Group 1, claims 1-11, 14 have been elected with traverse.
Notice to Applicant(s)
Applicant's response to Election/Restriction filed on 1/15/26 is acknowledged. As per request, group I (claims 1-11 and 14) has been elected with traverse. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “it should be no undue burden on the Examiner to consider all claims in the single application” (remark pages 2-3). However, this is not found persuasive. As providing in the previous action, the Examiner indicated that groups I, II, II are unrelated because the search required for group 1 is not necessarily required for groups II and II due to their scope and subject, and vice versa, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper since it’s serious burden for the examiner to examine all of these claims. Even though there may be one or two common steps, the different inventions have different modes of operation and thus producing different effects and are not capable of use together to achieve their respective scopes.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a manipulator drive mechanism” (claim 1).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TANAKA (US 2013/0023052).
As for claim 1, TANAKA discloses a manipulation system (figure 1, par. 0121, manipulator system 10} comprising:
a manipulator for manipulating a sample {see at least abstract, figure 1, manipulator 14, 16, figure 7, par. 0121, 0123-0124};
a manipulator drive mechanism for moving the manipulator {see at least abstract, figure 1, driving devices 30, 40 and par. 0124-0130};
an imaging apparatus for imaging the sample through an objective lens {see at least figure 1, pars. 0122-0123 discloses the microscope unit 12 includes a camera 18 serving as an image capturing element, a microscope 20};
a control apparatus that generates force information indicating a magnitude of a force sensation presented to a user, based on an image captured by the imaging apparatus {see at least abstract, figure 1, control 43, figure 7, figures 10a, 10c and pars. 0124-0125, 0127-0128, 0184-0185, 0187 which discloses the driving force of the driving devices 30, 32, 40. 42 connected to the controller 43 for generating the force based on image captured}; and
a force sensation presentation apparatus configured to receive an input operation from the user for designating a position of the manipulator and to present a force sensation according to the force information generated by the control apparatus to the user {see at least figure 1, item 47, figure 7, items 45, 47, 49, figure 8, figure 10a, 10c and pars. 0046, 0126-0130; 0184, 0187 which discloses e.g. “the manipulation means (joystick 47) includes a manipulation unit manipulated by an operator for instructing the control means to perform the motion of the capillary, and the manipulation unit includes a turn manipulation unit which turns at least a portion of the manipulation unit, and the capillary performs at least a part of the injection manipulation by turning the turn manipulation unit; see also figure 39, pars. 0393-0398 the manipulator 14 is driven, and the holding capillary 25 holds the ovum D on the base 22, in which the joystick 47 is operated}.
As for claim 2, TANAKA discloses wherein the control apparatus identifies, based on the image, an amount of change in at least one of a position or a shape of the sample and generates the force information based on the amount of change identified {see at least figures 26-28 and at least pars. 0306-0315}.
As for claim 3, TANAKA discloses wherein the control apparatus identifies, based on the image, an amount of deformation of the sample in a direction of protrusion of a leading end of the manipulator and generates the force information based on the amount of deformation {see at least figures 28 and 39 and at least pars. 0325-0326}.
As for claim 4, TANAKA discloses wherein the control apparatus identifies the amount of deformation based on a position of the leading end of the manipulator, a central position of the sample, and a position of an end of the sample in the direction of protrusion {see at least figures 28, 39 and 42}.
As for claim 5, TANAKA discloses wherein the control apparatus identifies an amount of displacement of the sample based on the image and generates the force information based on the amount of displacement {see at least figures 27-28 and at least pars. 0314-0317.
As for claim 6, TANAKA discloses wherein the control apparatus estimates a force applied between the sample and the manipulator based on the image and generates the force information indicating a force derived from amplifying a magnitude of the force thus estimated by 100 times or more {see at least figure 39, and pars. 0393-0398}.
As for claim 11, TANAKA discloses wherein the control apparatus detects a reversal of a direction of deformation of the sample in a state where a force is applied from the manipulator to the sample in a direction of protrusion of a leading end of the manipulator and evaluates extensibility of the sample based on the amount of deformation of the sample identified when the reversal is detected {see at least par. 0357}
Claims 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 is allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhargav (US 2021/0208170): a method for regulated manipulation of a biological sample and a system thereof.
Gonene et al (US 2016/0030240): the micromanipulation tool determines a force due to interaction of the micromanipulation tool with a region of interest. The processor outputs an indication of at least one of a magnitude and a direction of the determined force.
Kanemoto et al (US 2021/0094187): A control apparatus includes a force sensation information acquiring unit for acquiring force sensation information representing a magnitude of at least one of a force and a torque at a distal end of a manipulator while a target item is being transported.
Saketi et al (US 2018/0178398): A micro handling device for handling micro objects and measuring forces exerted on the micro objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. 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.
/KIRA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656