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 06/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-8, 12, 14-21, and 40 remain pending in the application. Claim 21 is withdrawn.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 12, 14-15, 20, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20130200277 A1) in view of Blasenheim (US 20040061853 A1; cited in the IDS filed 01/10/2022) and Unterleitner (US 4498766 A; cited in the IDS filed 01/10/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a flow cytometer (Fig. 1; paragraph [0021]) comprising:
a flow cell (Fig. 1, flow channel);
a light source (Fig. 1, light 1, light 2) configured to produce a beam for irradiating particles in the flow cell at an interrogation point (Fig. 1 shows light 1 and light 2 configured to produce light beams for irradiating particles in the flow channel at ODZ1 and ODZ2, i.e. interrogation point), wherein the light source comprises:
a first light (Fig. 1; paragraph [0004], light 1, which is a laser) operably configured to convey a first laser light beam to a first position on the flow cell (Fig. 1 shows light 1 configured to convey first laser light beam S1 to a first position ODZ1); and
a second light (Fig. 1; paragraph [0004], light 2, which is a laser) operably configured to convey a second laser light beam to a second position on the flow cell (Fig. 1 shows light 2 configured to convey first laser light beam S2 to a first position ODZ2); and
a beam shaping optical component positioned between the light source and the flow cell (Fig. 1 interpreted as the beam shaping component between Light 1 and Light 2 and the flow channel) and configured to receive the first laser light beam and the second laser light beam (Fig. 1), wherein the beam shaping optical component is configured to create an astigmatism and thereby generate ellipticity in the beam (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0004] teaches the beam shaping component creates elliptical laser beams S1 and S2, therefore it is implied that the beam shaping component is configured to create an astigmatism in order to generate the elliptical beams).
Li fails to teach: wherein the light source comprises a fiber optic bundle comprising: a first fiber optic operably configured to convey the first laser light beam to the first position on the flow cell; and a second fiber optic operably configured to convey the second laser light beam to the second position on the flow cell; the beam shaping optical component is a tilted beam shaping optical component; and wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a lens or a concave mirror.
Blasenheim teaches a flow cytometer (abstract; Figs. 1-6) comprising: a flow cell (Fig. 4, flow cell 41); a light source (Fig. 6, lasers 111, 112, 113) configured to produce a beam (beams 115, 116, 117) for irradiating particles in the flow cell at an interrogation point (Fig. 4 shows light beams are capable of irradiating particles in a flow cell at a point in flow cell 41; paragraphs [0015],[0018]); and a tilted beam shaping optical component (Fig. 4, interpreted as comprising prisms 23-26 and lens 30) positioned between the light source and the flow cell (Figs. 2-6 shows prisms 23-26 and lens 30 are positioned between lasers and flow cell 41), wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component is configured to generate ellipticity in the beam (paragraphs [0006], [0021] teach the prisms make the light beams elliptical), and wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component comprises a lens, a concave mirror, or both (Fig. 4, lens 30). Blasenheim further teaches wherein the light source comprises a fiber optic bundle (paragraph [0014] teaches three optical fiber mounts to each receive an optical fiber, which is interpreted as a fiber optic bundle): a first fiber optic (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0014] teach optical fiber mounts 11, 12, and 13 that each receive an optical fiber bringing illumination light from a laser, where one of the optical fibers is interpreted as a first fiber optic) operably configured to convey a first laser light beam to a first position on the flow cell (interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed optic, see MPEP 2114; Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs [0007] and [0014] teach laser beams are fed to the prism via optical fibers, thus the optical fibers are capable of receiving light from a laser at one end of the fiber and conveying the beam at the other end of the fiber to a first position on flow cell 41; paragraph [0021] teaches the light beams are focused on the flow channel of flow cell 41 at closely spaced spots, i.e. positions, where one spot is interpreted as a first position); and a second fiber optic (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0014] teach optical fiber mounts 11, 12, and 13 that each receive an optical fiber bringing illumination light from a laser, where another one of the optical fibers is interpreted as a second fiber optic) operably configured to convey a second laser light beam to a second position on the flow cell (interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed optic, see MPEP 2114; Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs [0007] and [0014] teach laser beams are fed to the prism via optical fibers, thus the optical fibers are capable of receiving light from a laser at one end of the fiber and conveying the beam at the other end of the fiber to a second position on flow cell 41; paragraph [0021] teaches the light beams are focused on the flow channel of flow cell 41 at closely spaced spots, i.e. positions, where one spot is interpreted as a second position). Blasenheim teaches positioning the laser fiber at fixed locations (paragraph [0016]) and fiber mounts allows for beam pointing stability (paragraph [0030]). Blasenheim teaches a variation without optical fibers can have optical losses of up to 35% (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light source of Li to incorporate the teachings of a bundle of optical fibers of Blasenheim (paragraphs [0007],[0014],[0016],[0021]; Figs. 2-4) to provide: wherein the light source comprises a fiber optic bundle comprising: a first fiber optic operably configured to convey the first laser light beam to the first position on the flow cell; and a second fiber optic operably configured to convey the second laser light beam to the second position on the flow cell. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving beam pointing stability and reducing optical losses as taught by Blasenheim (paragraphs [0016],[0030]-[0031]).
While Li teaches those who are skilled in the art of light beam shaping can readily design different beam shaping optic components to shape the light from the source to desired shape, typically an elliptical shape (paragraph [0050]), modified Li fails to teach: the beam shaping optical component is a tilted beam shaping optical component; and wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a lens or a concave mirror.
Unterleitner teaches a flow cytometer (abstract; Figs. 1-2) comprising: a flow cell (Fig. 1, nozzle 40 comprising a fluid stream 38); a light source (Fig. 1, lasers 12, 14) configured to produce a beam for irradiating particles in the flow cell at an interrogation point (Figs. 1-2); and a tilted beam shaping optical component (Fig. 2, tilted lens 30) positioned between the light source and the flow cell (Fig. 1), wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component has an astigmatism is configured to generate ellipticity in the beam (Fig. 2 and column 4, lines 37-48 teaches when the lens is placed at an angle, an elliptical focal spot is formed as a result of astigmatism introduced into the beam; therefore, the optical component has an astigmatism to generate ellipticity of a beam), and wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a lens (Fig. 2, lens 30). Unterleitner teaches this elliptical focal spot allows the light energy from the laser to be focused into a focal spot wherein the energy distribution in the direction of particle travel is optimized thereby affecting fluorescence sensitivity (column 2, lines 40-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the beam shaping optical component of modified Li to incorporate the teachings of a tilted beam shaping optical component consisting of a tilted lens of Unterleitner (Figs. 1-2) to provide: the beam shaping optical component is a tilted beam shaping optical component; and wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a lens (i.e. tilted lens). Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully creating an astigmatism and thereby generate ellipticity in the beam, thus optimizing the energy distribution of the light source to improve fluorescence sensitivity as taught by Unterleitner (column 4, lines 37-48; column 2, lines 40-43).
Regarding claim 3, modified Li fails to teach wherein the ellipticity generated by the tilted beam shaping optical component is characterized by an aspect ratio ranging from 3 to 20.
Unterleitner further teaches wherein the ellipticity generated by the tilted beam shaping optical component is characterized by an aspect ratio of 9.23 (column 4, lines 43-48 teaches the elliptical focal spot has a 120 micrometer horizontal and 13 micrometer vertical cross-section, therefore 120/13=9.23). Unterleitner teaches this elliptical focal spot allows the light energy from the laser to be focused into a focal spot wherein the energy distribution in the direction of particle travel is optimized thereby affecting fluorescence sensitivity (column 2, lines 40-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the beam ellipticity of modified Li to incorporate the teachings of aspect ratios of elliptical shaped light of Unterleitner (column 4, lines 43-48) to provide the ellipticity generated by the tilted beam shaping optical component is characterized by an aspect ratio ranging from 3 to 20. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully providing an elliptical shaped focal point as taught by Unterleitner (column 4, lines 43-48) and thus optimize energy distribution of the light source (Unterleitner , column 2, lines 40-43).
Furthermore, since the claimed range of the aspect ratio of 3 to 20 overlaps with Unterleitner aspect ratio of 9.23 (column 4, lines 43-48), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ellipticity of modified Li to provide the ellipticity generated by the tilted beam shaping optical component is characterized by an aspect ratio ranging from 3 to 20 (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, modified Li further teaches wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a lens (see above claim 1; the combination of Li and Unterleitner teaches the tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a lens).
Regarding claim 6, modified Li fails to teach wherein the tilt of the tilted beam shaping optical component ranges from 1 to 15 degrees.
Unterleitner further teaches wherein the tilt of the tilted beam shaping optical component is 8.6 degree (column 4, lines 43-44, teaches a 8.6 degree tilt). Unterleitner teaches the tilt of the lens lie between zero and ten degrees for optimal purposes (column 4, lines 33-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tilt of the tilted beam shaping optical component of modified Li to incorporate the teachings of the tilted lens of Unterleitner (column 4, lines 33-37; column 4, lines 43-44) to provide wherein the tilt of the tilted beam shaping optical component ranges from 1 to 15 degrees. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully providing an elliptical shaped focal point as taught by Unterleitner (column 4, lines 33-37,43-48) and thus optimize energy distribution of the light source (Unterleitner , column 2, lines 40-43).
Furthermore, since the claimed range of the tilt of 1-15 degrees overlaps with Unterleitner’s tilt range of 0-10 degrees (column 4, lines 33-37; column 4, lines 43-44), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tilt of the tilted beam shaping optical component of modified Li to provide the tilt of the tilted beam shaping optical component ranges from 1 to 15 degrees (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, modified Li fails to teach wherein the tilt of the tilted beam shaping optical component ranges from 5 to 7 degrees.
Unterleitner teaches the tilt of the lens lie between zero and ten degrees for optimal purposes (column 4, lines 33-37). Unterleitner teaches the lens is adjustable to allow the angle of tilt to be varied by the operator to vary the amount of ellipticity (column 4, lines 48-54).
Since Unterleitner teaches tilt is between zero and ten degrees (column 4, lines 33-37), wherein the range of between zero and ten degrees overlaps with the claimed range of at 5-7 degrees, i.e. 5-7 degrees, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to provide wherein the tilt of the tilted beam shaping optical component ranges from 5 to 7 degrees. I.e., it would have been prima facia obvious to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. 5-7 degrees) from the taught range of between zero and ten degrees (column 4, lines 33-37) (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 8, modified Li fails to teach wherein the tilt of the tilted beam shaping optical component is adjustable.
Unterleitner teaches the lens is adjustable to allow the angle of tilt to be varied by the operator to vary the amount of ellipticity (column 4, lines 48-54). Unterleitner teaches the tilt of the lens lie between zero and ten degrees for optimal purposes (column 4, lines 33-37). Unterleitner teaches this elliptical focal spot allows the light energy from the laser to be focused into a focal spot wherein the energy distribution in the direction of particle travel is optimized thereby affecting fluorescence sensitivity (column 2, lines 40-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tilt of modified Li to incorporate the teachings of adjusting the angle of tilt of Unterleitner (column 4, lines 48-54) to provide: wherein the tilt of the tilted beam shaping optical component is adjustable. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving adjustment and optimization of the beam shape as discussed by Unterleitner (column 4, lines 33-37; column 4, lines 48-54; column 2, lines 40-43).
Regarding claim 12, modified Li fails to teach wherein the light source comprises three or more lasers.
Li teaches an embodiment where multiple light sources comprise 3 light sources having different wavelengths (paragraph [0015]).
Blasenheim further teaches wherein the light source comprises three or more lasers (paragraph [0014], “three lasers”). Blasenheim teaches three light beams of three different wavelengths are brought to three spots on a flow channel (paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light source of modified Li to incorporate the teachings of more than three light sources of Li (paragraph [0015]) and the teachings of three lasers and three light beams of different wavelengths of Blasenheim (paragraphs [0014],[0021]) to provide: wherein the light source comprises three or more lasers. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving practicality and versatility of the flow cytometer.
Regarding claim 14, modified Li fails to teach wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component generates beam ellipticity in each of the two or more beams produced by the fiber optic bundle.
Li teaches a beam shaping component creating shaped elliptical laser beams from multiple sources (Fig. 1, S1, S2; paragraph [0004]).
Blasenheim further teaches wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component generates beam ellipticity in each of the two or more beams produced by the fiber optic bundle (Fig. 4 and paragraph [0021] teach the prisms make the three light beams elliptical, thus the prisms are capable of the claimed functional limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tilted beam shaping optical component of modified Li to incorporate the teachings of making three light beams elliptical of Blasenheim (Fig. 4; paragraph [0021]) and the teachings of creating elliptical shaped laser beams from multiple sources of Li (Fig. 1; paragraph [0004]) to provide: wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component generates beam ellipticity in each of the two or more beams produced by the fiber optic bundle. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving control of ellipticity of the beams produced by the fiber optic bundle.
Regarding claim 15, modified Li fails to teach wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component generates an achromatic beam focus (interpreted as an intended use of the tilted beam shaping optical component; see above claim 1; note that the instant specification, page 9, lines 28-31, discusses that “achromatic imaging” is when all wavelengths of light emitted by a light source are focused in the same manner; Li, Fig. 1 teaches the beam shaping component focus the beams in the same manner towards the flow channel, thus the tilted beam shaping optical component is structurally capable of generating an “achromatic” beam focus; additionally, since modified Li’s tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a lens, the lens is structurally capable of focusing light in the same matter, i.e. generating an “achromatic” beam focus, MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 20, Li further teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 1, further comprising a detector for collecting particle-modulated light from the flow cell (Fig. 1 teaches photodetectors D1-D4 for collecting particle-modulated light from the flow channel).
Regarding claim 40, modified Li further teaches wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component is oblique to the first laser light beam, the second laser light beam, or both (see above claim 1; the combination of Li and Unterleitner teaches the tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a tilted lens, wherein a tilted lens is interpreted as being oblique to the first laser light beam, the second laser light beam, or both).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Blasenheim and Unterleitner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuda et al. (US 20040011974 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Li fails to teach wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a concave mirror.
Matsuda teaches a flow cytometer (Figs. 1-2) comprising a laser and flow channel (Fig. 1). Matsuda teaches making the cross section of the laser light irradiated from the solid-state laser an elongated shape (paragraph [0050]). Matsuda teaches by using laser light having an elongated shape in the transverse mode pattern, it is possible to broaden the particle detecting region without deteriorating the energy density (intensity) of the laser light (paragraph [0057]). Matsuda teaches an embodiment of a concave mirror used to create a laser light having an elongated pattern in the same manner as a different embodiment that uses a condenser lens system (paragraph [0222]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tilted beam shaping optical component of modified Li to incorporate the teachings of a concave mirror of Matsuda (paragraphs [0057],[0222]) to provide: wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a concave mirror. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully allowing for desired shaping of the beam as discussed by Matsuda (paragraph [0057]).
Furthermore, since Matsuda teaches known structures for producing elongated light (paragraph [0222]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the lens of modified Li (Fig. 3) to incorporate the teachings of alternative optical component such as the concave mirror of Matsuda (paragraphs [0057],[0222]) to provide: wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a concave mirror. The result of the substitution would have been predictable, such as successfully allowing for desired shaping of the beam as discussed by Matsuda (paragraph [0057]) (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Blasenheim and Unterleitner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrell et al. (US 20100220315 A1; cited in the IDS filed 01/10/2022).
Regarding claim 16, modified Li fails to teach wherein the light source is configured to produce a flat-top beam.
Morrell teaches a particle analyzer that includes optical waveguides, a support, and a detector to measure beams in a sample flow area (abstract), wherein the invention relates to flow cytometers (paragraph [0003]). Morrell teaches flow cytometer systems with fixed optical alignment can experience instabilities in measurement performance (paragraph [0084]), therefore, to improve this stability, an interrogating light beam of the optical excitation system includes a predetermined shape, e.g., a flat-top beam shaping optic, which can create a spatial light intensity profile that is significantly more uniform, over a greater distance across the width of the sample stream, and more concentrated into a narrower height along the core axis of the sample stream, than the e.g., Gaussian spatial intensity profile for a non flat-top laser beam (paragraph [0084]). Morrell teaches a bundle of fiber optics that can be used to provide an elliptical biased excitation beam intensity (paragraph [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light source of modified Li to incorporate the teachings of flat-top beams of Morrell (paragraph [0084]) to provide wherein the light source is configured to produce a flat-top beam. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving stability of optical alignment during measurement as taught by Morrell (paragraph [0084])
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Blasenheim, Unterleitner, and Morrell as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Fortin et al. (US 20160320288 A1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Li fails to teach wherein the light source comprises a square core fiber.
Fortin teaches a chip assembly, a flow cell, and a cytometer (abstract). Fortin teaches comprising an excitation fiber (abstract). Fortin teaches the shape of channels is adapted to the shape of the optical fibers to be received, such as square cross section (paragraph [0047]). Fortin teaches an excitation fiber and collection fiber(s) may have a square, rectangular, or circular cross section (paragraph [0079]). Fortin teaches the excitation fiber transports an excitation light generated by a light source (paragraph [0004]). Fortin teaches the excitation fiber has a core for transporting the excitation light (paragraph [0077]). Fortin teaches there is a need for an improved flow cell for characterizing particles in a solution (paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light source of modified Li to incorporate the teachings of square cross sections of optical fibers of Fortin (paragraph [0079]) to provide wherein the light source comprises a square core fiber. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a fiber to transport light from a light source as discussed by Fortin (paragraphs [0004],[0077]).
Additionally, since Fortin teaches a need to improve flow cells for characterizing particles (paragraph [0007]), and Fortin teaches a finite number of identified, predictable shapes for optical fibers (paragraph [0079]), it would have been obvious to choose a square core fiber from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for shapes of optical fibers as taught by Fortin (paragraph [0079]), i.e. it would have been obvious to try the specific structure of the square core fiber to improve transmission of light from the light source to the flow cell with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Blasenheim and Unterleitner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 20090073579 A1; herein, “USPub ‘579”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Li fails to teach wherein the light source is a collimated light source.
USPub ‘579 teaches an optical analyzer having illumination optics that include a light source, such as a laser, adapted to emit a collimated light beam (abstract). USPub ‘579 teaches the light source, such as a laser, is adapted to emit a collimated beam which is focused onto a focus spot with a focusing lens (paragraph [0008]), wherein the light beam source and focusing lens allows for precise positioning of the focus spot of the focused light beam (paragraph [0008]). USPub ‘579 teaches that it is understood that a light source may include collimating optics (paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light source of Li to incorporate the teachings of collimated optics of USPub ‘579 (paragraph [0008],[0028]) to provide wherein the light source is a collimated light source. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving positioning of the light beam as discussed by USPub ‘579 (paragraph [0008]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Blasenheim and Unterleitner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nicoli et al. (US 20040011975 A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Li fails to teach wherein the light source is configured to emit a circular beam.
Nicoli teaches a single particle optical sensor for illuminating an optical sensing zone to respond to particles flowing through a channel (abstract). Nicoli teaches a source of illumination is typically a laser diode having either an elliptical or circular shaped beam (paragraph [0006]). Nicoli teaches a laser diode module utilized to produce a collimated, circular beam (paragraph [0265]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light source of modified Li to incorporate the teachings of circular shaped beams of Nicoli (paragraph [0006]) to provide wherein the light source is configured to emit a circular beam. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a light beam to illuminate towards a sensing zone for the flow cell.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements (i.e. light source configured to emit a circular beam) by known methods with no change in their respective functions (i.e. illuminating a zone), and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results (i.e. having the light source configured to emit a circular beam would yield nothing more than the obvious and predictable result of enabling illumination of an optical sensing zone). See MPEP 2143(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-15, filed 10/17/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references since Li and Unterleitner fail to teach a single lens or concave mirror receives light from two different laser beams (Remarks, pages 10-11), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Li does provide teachings and suggestion of a single optical system or element to receive light from two different laser beams (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0004] teach a single beam shaping/combination component receiving light from two laser sources). Specifically, Li teaches: a beam shaping optical component positioned between the light source and the flow cell (Fig. 1 interpreted as the beam shaping component between Light 1 and Light 2 and the flow channel) and configured to receive the first laser light beam and the second laser light beam (Fig. 1). However, as discussed by the applicant (Remarks, pages 7-11), Li fails to teach at least: the beam shaping optical component is a tilted beam shaping optical component; and wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a lens or a concave mirror.
Unterleitner provides teachings of a tilted beam shaping optical component consisting of a tilted lens to provide an elliptical shaped beam (Figs. 1-2; column 4, lines 37-48). Unterleitner provides motivation of: the elliptical focal spot allows the light energy from the laser to be focused into a focal spot wherein the energy distribution in the direction of particle travel is optimized thereby affecting fluorescence sensitivity (column 2, lines 40-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the beam shaping optical component that receives light from two laser light beams of modified Li to incorporate the teachings of a tilted beam shaping optical component consisting of a tilted lens of Unterleitner (Figs. 1-2) to provide: the beam shaping optical component is a tilted beam shaping optical component; and wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a lens (i.e. tilted lens). Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully creating an astigmatism and thereby generate ellipticity in the beam, thus optimizing the energy distribution of the light source to improve fluorescence sensitivity as taught by Unterleitner (column 4, lines 37-48; column 2, lines 40-43).
Therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Li’s single beam shaping optical component that receives two laser light beams to be a tilted beam shaping optical component consisting of a lens in order to successfully creating an astigmatism and thereby generate ellipticity in the beam, thus optimizing the energy distribution of the light source to improve fluorescence sensitivity.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Remarks, page 8, the specific embodiment of Fig. 5, including the structures and arrangement of the structures are not claimed, e.g. three beams of light, concave mirror with fold mirror; Remarks, page 9, “use of a single tilted beam shaping optical component for generating ellipticity in a plurality of light beams”) are not explicitly recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually regarding claim 5 (Remarks, pages 11-12, regarding Blasenheim teaches away from using mirrors), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Blasenheim is not being used to arrive at the claimed “concave mirror”. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Blasenheim is used in combination with Li to arrive at the claimed “wherein the light source comprises a fiber optic bundle comprising: a first fiber optic operably configured to convey the first laser light beam to the first position on the flow cell; and a second fiber optic operably configured to convey the second laser light beam to the second position on the flow cell.”
Matsuda is used in combination with Li to arrive at the limitations of claim 5, “wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a concave mirror.” Matsuda provides teachings and suggestions of: a concave mirror used to create laser light having an elongated shape, i.e. elliptical shape (paragraphs [0050],[0057],[0222]). Matsuda provides motivation of using laser light having an elongated shape in the transverse mode pattern, it is possible to broaden the particle detecting region without deteriorating the energy density (intensity) of the laser light (paragraph [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the tilted beam shaping optical component of modified Li to incorporate the teachings of a concave mirror of Matsuda (paragraphs [0057],[0222]) to provide: wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a concave mirror. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully allowing for desired shaping of the beam as discussed by Matsuda (paragraph [0057]).
Furthermore, since Matsuda teaches known structures for producing elongated light (paragraph [0222]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the lens of modified Li (Fig. 3) to incorporate the teachings of alternative optical component such as the concave mirror of Matsuda (paragraphs [0057],[0222]) to provide: wherein the tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a concave mirror. The result of the substitution would have been predictable, such as successfully allowing for desired shaping of the beam as discussed by Matsuda (paragraph [0057]) (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed “the tilted beam shaping optical component consists of a concave mirror”.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims 16-19 (Remarks, pages 12-15), the examiner disagrees for the same reasons as above regarding claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sinha et al. (US 11828697 B2; cited in the OA filed 08/22/2025) teaches a flow cytometer (abstract; Fig. 1). Sinha teaches one or more cylindrical lenses 114, i.e. one lens, may be provided to shape each of the excitation beams 108, 110, 112 so that the desired beam profile is delivered to the fluidic channel 116 positioned below the microscope objective 120; wherein in flow cytometry applications, it can be desirable to shape the excitation lasers such that they have an elliptical profile and orient the laser spots so that the longer axis of each ellipse is perpendicular to the direction of flow in the fluidic channel (column 3, lines 44-52).
Di (CN 108333787 A; see machine translation) teaches a flow cytometry system (Fig. 1; paragraph [0007]) comprising a plurality of laser sources (10, 20, 30) and a single beam shaping optical component consisting of a lens (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0014] teaches optical shaping module 4 consist of a plano-convex cylindrical lens) configured compress or expand the laser beam in a horizontal or vertical direction (paragraph [0014]), therefore forming elliptical waist spots (paragraph [0010]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights