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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/03/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The new amended limitation “wherein the telecentric lens is configured to image an entire region of the flow channel illuminated by the parallel beam on to the imaging plane” does not appear to have any clear support in the instant description. Firstly the phrase “entire region” or even “region” are not present in the instant description. Further the examiner is unclear what specific structural requirement would need to be disclosed (that currently is not present) that would define a telecentric lens from imaging a part of the flow channel vs the newly claimed “entire region” of the flow channel. For these reasons the instant claim does not appear to have sufficient written description to support the newly amened limitation noted above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2008/0231854 A1) in view of Beil et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2017/0315039 A1) in view of Perrault, Jr. et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2013/0334407 A1) further in view of Ikehata et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0331581 A1).
As to claim 1, Seifert discloses and shows in figure 5 an optical imaging system, adapted for presenting an image of a particles, the optical imaging system comprising ([0006]):
a collimated light source (via collimation optics disclosed but not shown), ([0043], ll. 1-6);
a flow channel (6), arranged on a transmission path of the beam and adapted for allowing the particles to pass through ([0037]); and
a telecentric lens (23 or 25), arranged on the transmission path of the parallel beam, wherein the parallel beam passes through the flow channel before transmitted to the telecentric lens (explicitly shown in figure 5), and the telecentric lens is adapted for converging (i.e. a focus range requires some amount of convergence) the parallel beam onto an imaging plane (surface area of detectors 19 and 20) ([0013]; [0051]),
wherein the optical imaging system does not include a holographic optical tweezer system (explicitly shown in figure 5), and
wherein the imaging plane is located at the output end of the telecentric lens (this is being interpreted as shown via the detectors (19 and 20) being directly attached to the telecentric lenses (23 and 25) ([0051]).
Seifert does not explicitly disclose where the collimated light source produces a parallel beam.
However, Beil does disclose and show in figure 7 and in ([0098], ll. 5-9) the use again a collimator lens (34) which as both explicitly disclosed and shown produces parallel light to image a sample under test.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seifert where the collimated light source produces a parallel beam in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency as well-known in the art providing collimated light to the sample under test reduces optical losses relative to divergent light as all the light from the source reaches the sample area under test resulting in a higher signal to noise ratio during measurement.
Seifert in view of Beil does not explicitly disclose a microfluidic chip, wherein the flow channel is arranged on the microfluidic chip.
However, Perrault Jr. does disclose and show in figure 5 and in ([0074], ll. 1-4; [0076]; [0125], ll. 5-8; [0139]) the use of a microfluidic chip, where the flow channel under processing is within said chip.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seifert in view of Beil with a microfluidic chip, wherein the flow channel is arranged on the microfluidic chip in order to provide the advantage of increased versatility and efficiency as explicitly noted in Perrault Jr. microfluidic chips allow for processing at high speeds, and deliver particles with high yield and high purity ([0076], ll. 12-14).
Seifert in view of Beil further in view of Perrault Jr. does not explicitly disclose wherein a beam diameter of the parallel beam at the flow channel is greater than an inner diameter of the flow channel, wherein the telecentric lens is configured to image an entire region of the flow channel illuminated by the parallel beam on to the imaging plane, wherein the particles across different positions along a depth direction of the flow channel are imaged with substantially uniform magnification within a defined tolerance range.
However, Ikehata does disclose and show in figure 1 and in ([0084]; [0087]) the use of collimated (i.e. parallel light) that illuminates a field Q1. As shown field Q1 is larger than that of the geometric dimensions of the flow cell. Obviously the concept of using a input/output field that is larger than the flow channel be it diameter or width yields the predictable result of ensuring all particles flowing in the flow field are accurately energized and measured. In other words rectangular or cylindrical does in no way define any unexpected result in providing sufficient light to cover the entire flow field of the sample stream under test. Further Q1 being the imaging field of lens telecentric lens 32 obviously also means entire region of the flow channel. Finally via this teaching it is being interpreted that the intended results of “wherein the particles across different positions along a depth direction of the flow channel are imaged with substantially uniform magnification within a defined tolerance range.” is taught by the prior art since the prior art shows the same structure, it is being interpreted as capable of the same result. Further, Ikehata explicitly discloses that the lens imagines at a magnification of 1. The examiner notes for compact prosecution that Ikehata was merely used as the clearest reference for dimensioned light input and imaged relative to the flow channel. Cited below in the “prior art made of record” section are multiple other references that disclose the above noted features.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seifert in view of Beil further in view of Perrault Jr. wherein a beam diameter of the parallel beam at the flow channel is greater than an inner diameter of the flow channel, wherein the telecentric lens is configured to image an entire region of the flow channel illuminated by the parallel beam on to the imaging plane, wherein the particles across different positions along a depth direction of the flow channel are imaged with substantially uniform magnification within a defined tolerance range in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy and expected results as obviously ensuring the input light is wide enough to cover the entire flow channel ensures that any particles imaged are fully illuminated within said channel. Further this illumination technique allows for sharp images and very accurate measurement as explicitly noted in Ikehata in the citation already provided.
As to claim 2, Seifert as modified by Beil discloses and shows in figure 7 of Beil an optical imaging system, wherein a beam angle of the parallel beam ranges from -5 degrees to 5 degrees of a central optical axis of the parallel beam (Fig. 7 explicitly shows the divergence angle as 0 thus between the range [0098], ll. 5-9, again the same motivation and modification as applied above is applied hereinwith).
As to claim 3, Seifert discloses an optical imaging system, wherein the collimated light source comprises a point light source (16) and a collimated lens (collimation optics) ([0041], ll. 1-3; [0043], ll. 1-6; where an LED is known in the art as a point light source).
As to claim 4, Seifert discloses an optical imaging system, wherein an included angle between the parallel beam and the flow channel ranges from -5 degrees to 5 degrees off 90 degrees (Fig. 5; [0034], where the angle is shown as 0 degrees off of 90).
As to claim 5, Seifert disclose an optical imaging system, wherein a portion of the flow channel irradiated by the parallel beam is located within a depth of field of the telecentric lens (i.e. area M) ([0045], ll. 1-11).
As to claim 7, Seifert in view of Beil does not explicitly disclose an optical imaging system, wherein the beam diameter of the parallel beam at the flow channel ranges from 10 millimeters to 80 millimeters.
However, Seifert does disclose in ([0041], ll. 3-6; [0043], ll. 8-12) the use of a beam diameter of 3 mm, in a rectangular 6-20mm. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a range of 10-80 mm. Since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seifert in view of Beil with an optical imaging system, wherein a beam diameter of the parallel beam at the flow channel ranges from 10 millimeters to 80 millimeters in order to provide the advantage of expected results in optimizing the beam diameter to ensure it matches that of the fluid flow under test, one can ensure the sample under test is accurately measured.
As to claim 13 Seifert discloses an optical imaging system, wherein a sizes of the particle range from 1 micrometer to 100 micrometers ([0050]).
As to claim 14, Seifert discloses an optical imaging system, wherein the optical imaging system further comprises an image sensing apparatus (cameras 19 and 20) arranged on the imaging plane ([0051]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert et al. in view of Beil et al. in view of Perrault Jr. et al. in view of Ikehata et al further in view of Schmidt et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2007/0146704 A1).
As to claim 8, Seifert in view of Beil in view of Perrault Jr. further in view of Ikehata does not explicitly disclose an optical imaging system, wherein the inner diameter of the flow channel ranges from 0.1 millimeter to 1 millimeter.
However, Schmidt does disclose in ([0091], ll. 14-21) that it is well-known to make the channel width inner diameter at least up to 1 mm in order to provide clogging and adhesion of particles flowing through the channel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seifert in view of Beil in view of Perrault Jr. Ikehata with an optical imaging system, wherein the inner diameter of the flow channel ranges from 0.1 millimeter to 1 millimeter in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency as noted by Schmidt, producing such a common inner diameter of 1mm reduces clogging and adhesion issues.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert et al. in view of Beil et al. in view of Perrault Jr. et al. in view of Ikehata et al further in view of Wu et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0246029 A1).
As to claim 9, Seifert in view of Beil in view of Perrault Jr. further in view of Ikehata does not explicitly disclose an optical imaging system according to claim 1, wherein a distance between the collimated light source and the flow channel ranges from 100 millimeters to 500 millimeters.
However, Wu does disclose in ([0064]) where the light source can be placed a position of 100 mm from the flow channel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seifert in view of Beil in view of Perrault Jr. further in view of Ikehata with an optical imaging system, wherein a distance between the collimated light source and the flow channel ranges from 100 millimeters to 500 millimeters in order to provide the advantage of expected results in using one of many known source location distances one can increase versatility in the measurement systems design in allowing many locations for mounting said source while still efficiently illuminating the sample under test.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert et al. in view of Beil et al. in view of Perrault Jr. et al. in view of Ikehata et al further in view of Berner et al. (CA 2640819 A1).
As to claim 10, Seifert in view of Beil in view of Perrault Jr. further in view of Ikehata does not disclose the optical imaging system further comprising of a circular polarizer, arranged on the transmission path of the parallel beam, and the parallel beam passes through the flow channel before transmitted to the telecentric lens through the circular polarizer.
However, Berner discloses in (page 7, ll. 11-24) the basic concept of using a circular polarizer (11) to removed unwanted interference or stray light. The examiner further takes Office Notice on the basic concept of using circular polarization based rejection in optical measurement systems to remove/reduce ambient light from reaching the detector surface
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date of the invention to modify Seifert in view of Beil in view of Perrault Jr. further in view of Ikehata with a circular polarizer, arranged on the transmission path of the parallel beam, and the parallel beam passes through the flow channel before transmitted to the telecentric lens through the circular polarizer in order to eliminate an influence of stray/interference light as described by Berner. (Page 7, Il. 11-24).
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seifert et al. in view of Beil et al. in view of Perrault Jr. et al. in view of Ikehata et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,053,540 B1).
As to claims 11-12, Seifert in view of Beil in view of Perrault Jr. further in view of Ikehata does not explicitly disclose an optical imaging system, wherein the particles are mixed in fluid, and the optical imaging system further comprises a fluid pump, adapted for driving the fluid for the particles to pass through the flow channel or optical imaging system, wherein the fluid pump cooperates with the flow channel so that a flow rate of the fluid ranges from 0.3 ml/min to 3 ml/min.
However, Chen does disclose in (col 77, ll. 13-18 and ll. 42-58) the basic concept of using a pump to the sample fluid into a flow cell under test. Further that the flow rate can fall within the claimed range as one obvious design choice.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seifert in view of Beil in view of Perrault Jr. further in view of Ikehata with an optical imaging system, wherein the particles are mixed in fluid, and the optical imaging system further comprises a fluid pump, adapted for driving the fluid for the particles to pass through the flow channel or optical imaging system, wherein the fluid pump cooperates with the flow channel so that a flow rate of the fluid ranges from 0.3 ml/min to 3 ml/min in order to provide the advantage of expected results and increased accuracy, as obviously a pump allows precise flow control as noted by Chen, further the flow rate as disclosed in one obvious choice to measure the samples under test, where obviously one having ordinary skill in the art recognizes that varying rates are used simply to ensure accurate imaging (i.e. if enough light has interacted with the particles under test or not), as such the flow rate as claimed is one obvious choice to result in accurate measurement of a particular particle size under test.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 7-14 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 related to the amended limitations.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument that Seifert uses focused light and therefore cannot teach the limitation “wherein the parallel beam passes through the flow channel before transmitted to the telecentric lens”. Applicant’s analysis is correct in one manner, when focusing optics 17 are used, the light is focused light and not parallel light when interacting with the sample. However, ([0043]) of Seifert explicitly states “In a modification, it is also possible to provide the second source of radiation 12, instead of with integrated focus optics 17, with (preferably integrated) collimation optics (not shown), which reduce the divergence of the radiation emitted by the diode 16 such that the entire area to be illuminated in the zone of measurement is definitely illuminated.”. The rejection is therefore maintained as Seifert explicitly notes that focusing optics can be replaced with collimation optics which a personal having ordinary skill in the art knows results in parallel light not focused light reaching the sample under test.
Prior art made of record
Moitzi et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2017/0074768 A1) appears to disclose and show in figure 7 and in ([0105]) the use of a parallel light illumination system that has multiple times the inner diameter input light to that of the flow channel diameter.
Tabata (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0386973 A1) discloses and shows in figure 5 and in ([0081]) where multiple collimated light beams (12a-c) are larger than the diameter of the flow channel 21.
Berezhnyy (U.S. PGPub No. 2022/0364978) discloses and explicitly shows in figure 4A and in ([0092]) the basic concept of having the detection monitoring area (407) bigger than the flow cell inner diameter.
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 at 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