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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/23/2026 has been entered.
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)(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, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Van Den Engh (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0123854 A1).
As to claims 1 and 24, Van Den Engh discloses and shows in figures 3 and 4, a flow cytometer, comprising:
a flow cell (210) defining a flow channel (216) for flowing a liquid containing a particle (220) through the flow cell, a flow direction of the particles through the channel being on a YZ plane and a XY plane perpendicular to the YZ plane (the planes as claimed can be explicitly drawn through the figures 3/4) ([0024], ll. 1-10);
a light source (212) arranged to emit light to a single particle at a time (explicitly shown via beam diameter in figure 3) flowing through the channel, the light being incident to the particle at an incidence angle inclined to a normal direction (explicitly shown in figures 3/4, θ) with respect to a flow direction of the particle through the channel (i.e. along axis A2) at the interrogation point, the light being on the YZ plane and the normal direction being on a XZ plane perpendicular to the YZ plane and the XY plane (again the planes as define by applicant are taught by the figures) ([0024], ll. 1-11; [0025], ll. 1-5); and
a plurality of light detectors (322a and 322b) arranged around the flow cell and arranged for receiving light diverging from the particle (i.e. scatter detection) ([0028]).
wherein each of the plurality of light detectors is arranged without a lens between each light detector and the flow cell, and no element with optical power is arranged between the flow cell and each of the plurality of light detectors ([0028]; as disclosed the only optical element present is aperture 326a/b which are not disclosed as having any optical power).
The subject matter of claims 1 and 24 relate in that the technical features of apparatus claim 1 are in each case suitable for implementing the method of claim 24, therefore the method is inherent, in view of the above apparatus rejection.
As to claim 25, Van Den Engh discloses and shows in figure 4 a flow cytometer, wherein the plurality of light detectors comprises at least three light detectors ([0028]; as disclosed up to 6 detectors can be placed around the intercept point).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 24 and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Prior art made of record
Kay et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,293,221) explicitly also shows using a beam profile designed to illuminate one particle at a time in figure 2.
Padmanabhan et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2005/0118723 A1) shows in figure 20 the focusing of light to illuminate one particle 512 at a time in figure 20.
Gu et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2007/0190525 A1) appears to discloses and shows all the features of claims 1, 24 in figure 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights