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
Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/09/2026 has been entered into 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 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauter et al. (2006/0152823 A1, previously cited reference) in view of Fujita (2013/0222920 A1, previously cited reference).
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 8, Sauter teaches of an objective lens is microscope objectives included in lens system (figs. 1-3) intended use (i.e. used in a sample analyzer (claim 7) cytometer that detects light in a plurality of wavelength bands such as in the fluorescence or other electromagnetic radiation [pars. 0001-8] from particles such as particles of interest flowing through a flow channel (claim 8)/flow cell, wherein the objective lens the microscope objective that is included in the lens system (figs. 1-3; 100/200/300), as can be seen in depicted drawing (figs. 1-3) is provided in proximity to the flow channel/flow cell 104 [pars. 0001-8], and the objective lens the microscope objective that is included in the lens system (figs. 1-3; 100/200/300) obviously has some sort of a ratio of a converted optical path length L to a focal length f of the objective lens in a dry system that satisfying some sort of Mathematical Expression, wherein the converted optical path length L denotes a distance from a lens surface on a side of the flow channel/flow cell to a center of the flow channel converted into a distance in the dry system, as can be seen in depicted drawing (figs. 1-3) to ensure proper collection and delivery of signal to a photo-detection/detection system;
an objective lens microscope objectives included in lens system (figs. 1-3) that is intended use to condenses light generated by irradiating particles flowing through a flow channel with light;
a detection unit a photo-detection block (comprising a plurality of sensing devices) that collect signal from microscope objectives to a photo-detection block [pars. 0003, 0008] detects light from the objective lens (claim 7).
Sauter fail to explicitly specify the dry system satisfying Mathematical Expression such as Expression (1) below, where the converted optical path length L denotes a distance from a lens surface on a side of the flow channel to a center of the flow channel converted into a distance in the dry system: 0.15< L/f >0.45 …. (1)
Fujita from the same field of field of endeavor teaches of microscope objective lens has a ratio of a converted optical path length L to a focal length f of the objective lens in a dry system that satisfying Mathematical Expression such as Expression (1) 0.15< L/f >0.45 is (1/1.59108 + 1.735) / 8.97 = 0.26) (Fujita, [pars. 0045-47]), it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sauter as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant’s claim(s), in view of the teaching of Fujita in order to enhanced and realized accurate detection of the different samples/species and/or identifying the unknown samples, and/or in order to realized excellent correction for variations in the spherical aberrations caused by variations in the thickness of cover glass CG, as per teachings of Fujita (Fujita, [pars. 0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to Sauter as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant’s claim(s), in view of the teaching of Fujita in order to enhanced and realized accurate detection of the different samples/species and/or identifying the unknown samples, and/or in order to realized excellent correction for variations in the spherical aberrations caused by variations in the thickness of cover glass CG, as per teachings of Fujita (Fujita, [pars. 0031]), since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
For the purpose of clarity, the structure recited in claim 7 and 8 is/are symmetrical to the structure recited in claim 1, as such, the device/system claim 1 structure provide the means for the device claims 7 and 8 as rejected above as being unpatentable over Sauter in view of Fujita.
As to claims 2-4, Sauter when the modified by Fujita, Fujita also teaches of microscope objective lens system structure that is use in a method/system that is implementing limitations such as, wherein the objective lens microscope objective lens includes a positive lens located closest to the flow channel, and a refractive index nd and an Abbe number Vd of the positive lens satisfy Mathematical Expressions and below: 1.67 <nd< 1.81 and 38< vd , is render obvious as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig.1; L 1) [pars. 0047-48]), where nd in Mathematical Expression (2) denotes a refractive index at a d-line and Vd in Mathematical Expression (3) denotes an Abbe number at the d-line (claim 2); wherein the objective lens microscope objective lens includes positive lenses, and a refractive index nd, an Abbe number Vd, and a partial dispersion ratio PgF of three or more of the positive lenses satisfy Mathematical Expressions below: nd<1.52 , 79 <vd , PgF < 0.54 is render obvious as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig.1; L3,L5,L6, the only lens materials satisfying the disclosed nd and vd also satisfy the claimed PgF, e.g. HOYA FCD100, PgF=0.533)) [pars. 0047-48]), where nd in Mathematical Expression denotes the refractive index at the d-line and Vd in Mathematical Expression denotes the Abbe number at the d-line (claim 3); and wherein the objective lens includes negative lenses, and a refractive index nd and an Abbe number Vd of three or more of the negative lenses satisfy Mathematical Expressions below: n1a< 1.78; 29<vd is render obvious as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig.1; L4, L8, L9) [pars. 0047-48]), where nd in Mathematical Expression denotes the refractive index at the d-line and Vd in Mathematical Expression denotes the Abbe number at the d-line (claim 4).
As to claim 5, Sauter when the modified by Fujita, Fujita also teaches of microscope objective lens system structure that is use in a method/system that is implementing limitations such as, wherein the objective lens microscope objective that is included in the lens system (figs. 1-3; 100/200/300), as can be seen in depicted drawing (figs. 1-3) includes an aspheric lens having an aspheric shape obviously in teams of the lens system ability to correct for spherical aberration [pars. 0031-34].
Sauter when the modified by Fujita fail to specify the constructional change Expression for aspheric lens having an aspheric shape represented by some sort of Expression below:
PNG
media_image1.png
98
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in Expression, Z denotes a coordinate of an aspheric surface in a direction of an optical axis, h denotes a coordinate of the aspheric surface in a direction orthogonal to the optical axis, k denotes a conic constant, r denotes a paraxial curvature radius of the aspheric surface, and A, B, and C in Expression denote fourth- order, sixth-order, and eighth-order aspheric coefficients, respectively.
However, even though, Sauter when the modified by Fujita fail to teach the constructional changes in the objective lens of claim 1, as that claimed by Applicant’s claims 5, the constructional change(s) is/are considered obvious conventional measure use to help reducing aberrations. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sauter when the modified by Fujita as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claim 5, since this is a conventional measure use to help reducing aberrations and it is known in the art that aspheric lenses have lower on-axis aberrations and could be used
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sauter when the modified by Fujita as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claim 5, since this is a conventional measure use to help reducing aberrations and it is known in the art that aspheric lenses have lower on-axis aberrations and could be used, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
As to claim 6, Sauter when the modified by Fujita, Sauter and Fujita also teaches of microscope objective lens system structure that is use in a method/system that is implementing limitations such as, wherein the objective lens is an infinite conjugate lens is implicitly in and/or render obvious as can be seen in depicted drawing (figs.1-3) and (fig. 1)),
As to claim 9, Sauter when the modified by Fujita, Sauter also teaches of microscope objective lens system structure that is use in a device/system that is implementing limitations such as, wherein the particles are labeled with a fluorescent dye [pars. 0001-3].
As to claim 10, Sauter when the modified by Fujita, Sauter also teaches of microscope objective lens system structure that is use in a device/system that is implementing limitations such as, wherein the detection unit detects light having a wavelength of 360 nm to 920 nm [par. 0018].
As to claims 11-12, Sauter when the modified by Fujita, Sauter also teaches of microscope objective lens system structure that is use in a device/system that is implementing limitations such as, wherein the detection unit includes a plurality of detectors/sensing devices that detect light in different wavelength bands [pars. 0001, 0003-4 and 0008] (claim 11); wherein the detection optical system includes an imaging lens [pars. 0003-4, 0006 and 0011] (claim 12).
As to claims 13-17, Sauter when the modified by Fujita, Sauter teaches of detection optical system is cytometry lens system 200 comprises several optical elements included in the lens system (figs. 1-3) [pars. 0008, 0020, 0025], wherein the detection optical system includes an imaging lens [pars. 0003-4, 0006 and 0011], as applied to claim 7.
Sauter when the modified by Fujita fail to teach the constructional changes in the device of claim 7, as that claimed by Applicants claims 13-17, such as, wherein the detection optical system includes a notch filter (claim 13); wherein the detection optical system includes a dichroic mirror, a prism, or a diffraction grating (claim 14); wherein the detection optical system includes a relay lens (claim 15); further comprising a sorting unit that sorts the particles based on a detection result of the detection unit (claim 16); and further comprising an information processing unit that processes detection data from the detection unit (claim 17).
However, even though, Sauter when the modified by Fujita fail to teach the slight constructional changes in the device of claim 7, as that claimed by Applicants claims 13-17, the constructional changes are considered obvious design normal and standard implementation features in sample analyzers, in order to accurately characterize and analyze sample particles and/or in order to enhance accurate, sensitive, and specific analysis of microscopic elements. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sauter when the modified by Fujita as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 13-17, since this is a normal and standard implementation features in sample analyzers, use in order to accurately characterize and analyze sample particles and/or in order to enhance accurate, sensitive, and specific analysis of microscopic elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sauter when the modified by Fujita as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 13-15, since this is a normal and standard implementation features in sample analyzers, use in order to accurately characterize and analyze sample particles and/or in order to enhance accurate, sensitive, and specific analysis of microscopic elements, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
For the purposes of clarity, Sauter system is based on flow cytometer(s), cytometry/cytometer is a system that perform quantitative measurement and analysis of cell characteristics, like size, count, morphology, and internal/surface proteins, often using light scattering and fluorescence to analyze individual cells in a fluid stream, with flow cytometry being a common, rapid technique for diagnostics (e.g., blood tests, cancer) and research (e.g., cell cycle, immunology). It is obvious that the system would implement an information processing unit that processes detection data from the detection unit in order to sort and perform analysis of cell characteristics.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed in the attached form PTO-892 teach of other prior art objective lens used in a sample analyzer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks, see pages 7-10, filed on 04/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
a) Applicant argues in particular that “……, the asserted combination fails to describe at least the above emphasized language of independent claim 1 reciting "the objective lens has a ratio of a converted optical path length L to a focal length f of the objective lens in a dry system satisfying Mathematical Expression (1) below, where the converted optical path length L denotes a distance from a lens surface on a side of the flow channel to a center of the flow channel converted into a distance in the dry system: 0.15 ≤ L/f ≤ 0.45."
Applicant argues ………., it is not clear how the Office is interpreting Fujita as describing a value for L that is equal to (1/1.59108 + 1.735). The value appears to come from the values of nd (refractive index for d line) and d (a distance between planes).
Applicant argues ………., it is not clear how this expression of (1/nd + d) is equivalent to L, which, as recited in claim 1, denotes a distance from a lens surface on a side of the flow channel to a center of the flow channel converted into a distance in the dry system. In fact, Fujita does not even describe a flow channel, so it follows that Fujita cannot describe a distance from a lens surface on a side of the flow channel to a center of the flow channel. For at least these reasons, Fujita also does not describe the above-emphasized language of independent claim 1.
Therefore, independent claim 1 patentably distinguishes over the asserted combination of references. Withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claim 7, and each claim that depends therefrom, is respectfully requested.
Examiner's response:
With respect to argument (a), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because it has been held that during examination See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow."); and further, Applicant is reminded that, during examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this case, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that by applicant's own account the rejection was made as 103 not 102 and the examiner did recognize that the limitation such as "the objective lens has a ratio of a converted optical path length L to a focal length f of the objective lens in a dry system satisfying Mathematical Expression (1)…”, as claimed in claim 1 is/was not taught by Sauter but used obviousness and Fujita to find this limitation as being known in the art.
Applicant is reminded that the teachings or suggestions of the prior art that have been used as evidence within a rejection of the claimed invention in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, as set forth by the Court, are to be evaluated and determined not just from one or more specifically identified quotes to individual sections of the text of the prior art document but are in fact to be evaluated and determined from all that the prior art document teaches or suggests, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 17 (CCPA, 1977), with some reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 16 (CCPA, 1977). In this case, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because Sauter teachings of microscope objective that based on reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure would/will require some sort of conditional expression or calculation relationship that would/will allow and/or make it possible to observe a sample such as cultured cells at a high resolution or that represents the normalized distance light travel changes as it passes through the lens system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Sauter as desired appropriate to provide some sort of conditional expression or calculation relationship that would allow, and make it possible to observe a sample such as cultured cells at a high resolution and/or for the purpose of providing a more accurate measurement/detection using the objective lens position from the flow channel.
Additionally, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because Fujita from the same field of endeavor teaches of the relationship or conditional expression between ratio of the optical path length (\(OPL\)) to the focal length (\(f\)) of an objective lens—often expressed as \(OPL/f\) or (f1/F) is known in the art and the values or calculation results varies. Fujita teaches [pars. 0045-51] (see table 1-2) objective lenses of a microscope that satisfy the conditional expressions specified in the claim(s) because obviously the objective lenses of the claim(s) is/are no different from the prior art (for example based on F= 8.97 mm, L= (1/1.59108 + 1.735)). The claim only required that the conditional expressions satisfy the conditional expressions in the claim(s).
In conclusion, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because the requirement to satisfy the conditional expressions as claimed in the claim(s) is well known in the art. Applicant’s attention is respectfully requested to Kasahara (2015/0109682 A1) ([pars. 0089-93; 0106-110] (Kasahara claim 5)), (see Saito et al. (2009/0027769 A1) (see US 2009/0324207) which further solidifies examiner’s position. Therefore, it would have been at least obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to calculate using conditional expressions such as satisfied ratio of a converted optical path length L to a focal length f of the objective lens in a dry system satisfying Mathematical Expression as claimed in the claim(s) in order to allow and/or make it possible to observe a sample such as cultured cells at a high resolution or in order to represents the normalized distance light travel changes as it passes through the objective lens system.
Finally, Applicant has argued the patentability of claims, based solely upon the patentability of independent claim(s), and has presented no additional arguments exclusively pertaining to the claims, since the applicant has not argued the examiner’s position about the rejection(s) regarding the dependent claims, in the previous Official action. The applicant has acquiesced.
Conclusion
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 Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights