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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous claim objection to claim 62. Therefore, the previous claim objection has been withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s approved terminal disclaimer, the double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous 112 rejections. Therefore, the previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 51 overcome the previous prior art rejection of claim 51 under 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler in view of Some. However, upon further search and consideration, a new rejection is made based on Chandler in view of Casstevens and Some.
Applicant’s arguments concerning Rowlen are moot as Rowlen is not relied upon for this rejection. However, for the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner notes that there are multiple motivations for having an unfiltered detector as seen by Some and newly found reference Deliwala (US 20200363312 A1). To further expedite prosecution, the examiner has additionally rejected claim 51 under 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Deliwala.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous 193 rejection of claim 64. Therefore, the previous 103 rejection of claim 64 has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new rejection is made based in part on newly found prior art (see below for details).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: optical adjustment component in claims 55-57 (note that claims 58-62 contain sufficient structure – beam splitter and wedged beam splitter).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ferrante (US 6320656 B1).
Regarding claim 51, Ferrante teaches a light detection system comprising an unfiltered light scatter detector configured to detect scattered light from a sample in a flow stream irradiated by a laser (claim 1 and figures 2-3). Furthermore, the detector is configured to detect forward scattered light when irradiated by two or more lasers because it detects light scattered from the direction of the sample, and this detection the same regardless of the whether one or two lasers are used to irradiate the sample. Regarding, “forward,” this is a function of where the lasers are positioned with respect to the sample (note that the lasers are not positively recited as a component of the light detection system, which is only directed to the light detector), and the detector of Ferrante is configured to detect forward scattered light, because Ferrante teaches that the detector is a silicone PIN photodiode (column 4, lines 5-11), and Ferrante also teaches that silicone PIN photodiodes can detect forward scattered light (column 4, lines 5-11).
Note: The claim is additionally rejected under 103 (below) using a reference that explicitly uses a system with two or more lasers that interact with the flow stream to forward scatter light.
PNG
media_image1.png
316
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
354
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 20070043510 A1) in view of Deliwala (US 20200363312 A1).
Regarding claim 51, Yang teaches a light detection system comprising a light scatter detector configured to detect forward scattered light from a sample in a flow stream irradiated by two or more lasers (figure 2 and paragraphs 35-36; the embodiment with the forward scattered detector described in paragraph 36 and the light sources 20A-C are lasers as described in paragraph 35)
PNG
media_image3.png
482
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yang suggests but doesn’t explicitly teach the detector is unfiltered (suggested by the fact that no filter is illustrated in figure 2 and the text [paragraph 35] says that it “can also employ” a filter, which suggests that it is not a part of the embodiment being relied upon by the examiner].
Like Yang (and like the instant application), Deliwala is directed to optical scattering measurements and teaches the detector can be unfiltered (paragraph 123) and that having an unfiltered detector in a system that uses time-multiplexing and having optical filters are substitutes/equivalents for the purpose of measuring scattered light from multiple light sources with a detector (paragraph 123).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the forward scattered light detector of Yang be unfiltered in order to provide the benefit of detecting the light scattering caused by the multiple light sources while distinguishing them from each other (using time multiplexing) without having to add extra components to the light detection system and also because using time-multiplexing without a filter and having optical filters are art-recognized substitutes/equivalents for the purpose of measuring scattered light from multiple light sources with a detector.
Claims 51, 53-58, and 62-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler (US 20190204207 A1; cited by Applicant) in view of Casstevens (US 20060273260 A1) and Some (US 20130308121 A1).
Regarding claim 51, Chandler teaches a light detection system comprising a light scatter detector (150 ; paragraphs 36 and 54) configured to detect scattered light from a sample in a flow stream (paragraph 42) irradiated by two or more lasers (110, 130).
PNG
media_image4.png
390
764
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Chandler doesn’t explicitly teach the scattered light is forward scattered light; the light scatter detector is unfiltered.
Like Chandler (and like the instant application), Casstevens is directed to a light detection system in optical particle detector and to flow cytometry and teaches that detecting both side scattered light and forward scattered light is common in the art and that detecting forward scattered light provides information that is different from the information gathered from side scattered light (paragraph 20).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chandler such that it comprises detecting forward scattered light since this is conventional in the art and in order to provide the benefit of obtaining additional information through measuring both forward and side scattered light, where the additional information is different and complementary to the information gained only from measuring side scattered light.
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the light scatter detector is unfiltered.
Like Chandler (and like Applicant), Some is directed to optical scattering detection systems and teaches that the keeping the filters in the light path of some of the detectors, while removing the filter in the light path of other detectors allows one to measure fluorescence, scattering, and absorbance simultaneously (paragraph 33).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination by having one of the light scatter detectors be unfiltered in order to allow one to measure fluorescence, scattering, and absorbance simultaneously while having as simplified detection arm, by having one fewer filter.
Regarding claim 53, Chandler doesn’t explicitly teach the unfiltered light scatter detector is configured to detect forward scattered light from the sample (claim 52); the unfiltered light scatter detector is configured to detect forward scattered light from a sample in a flow stream irradiated by four or more lasers (claim 53).
Like Chandler (and like Applicant), Rowlen is directed to optical particle measurements and flow cytometers and teaches having four or more lasers and measuring forward scattering (in addition to side scattering and fluorescence) provides the benefit of revealing a large amount of information and providing research capabilities (paragraph 3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the unfiltered light scatter detector is configured to detect forward scattered light from the sample; the unfiltered light scatter detector is configured to detect forward scattered light from a sample in a flow stream irradiated by four or more lasers – in order to reveal a large amount of information about the sample and provide research capabilities.
Regarding claim 54, Chandler teaches a filtered light scatter detector configured to detect light scattered by the sample from one of the two or more lasers (paragraphs 52-53).
Regarding claim 55, Chandler teaches the filtered light scatter detector comprises: a light scatter detector (152); and an optical adjustment component (140 and filters in paragraph 53) that is configured to convey light scattered by the sample from the one laser to the light scatter detector (see figures).
Regarding claim 57, Chandler teaches the light detection system comprises an optical adjustment component (140) configured to convey scattered light from the sample to the unfiltered light scatter detector and to the filtered light scatter detector (figure 3).
Regarding claim 58, Chandler teaches the optical adjustment component comprises a beam splitter (140; as explained in paragraph 39, the reflective surface 140 is an optical component configured to split light to propagate along two different optical paths thus meeting the definition of beam splitter as well as the definition provided in Applicant’s specification, page 14, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 62, in the above combination the beam splitter (140) is configured to convey a first predetermined amount of the scattered light from the sample to the unfiltered light scatter detector and a second predetermined amount of the scattered light from the sample to the filtered light scatter detector (paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 63, in the above combination the unfiltered light scatter detector is configured to generate one or more data signals (the electrical signal the corresponds to the detected intensity of light) in response to scattered light from each of the two or more lasers.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler, Casstevens, and Some as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Rowlen (US 20120070818 A1).
Regarding claim 53, in the above combination the unfiltered light scatter detector is configured to detect forward scattered light from a sample in a flow stream irradiated by four or more lasers (see the citations to claim 51 above).
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the flow stream irradiated by four or more lasers.
Like Chandler (and like Applicant), Rowlen is directed to optical particle measurements and flow cytometers and teaches having four or more lasers provides the benefit of revealing a large amount of information and providing research capabilities (paragraph 3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the unfiltered light scatter detector is configured to detect forward scattered light from a sample in a flow stream irradiated by four or more lasers – in order to reveal a large amount of information about the sample and provide research capabilities.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler, Casstevens, and Some as applied to claim 55 above, and further in view of Ortyn (US 20090190822 A1; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 56, Chandler teaches the optical adjustment component comprises a filter (paragraph 53).
Chandler doesn’t explicitly describe the filter as a bandpass filter.
However, Chandler does teach that filters can be used to ensure that fluorescent emissions at desired wavelengths are received by the detector (paragraphs 52-53). Additionally, like Chandler (and like Applicant), Ortyn is directed to optical particle measurement system and to a flow cytometer and teaches the filters being bandpass filters (paragraph 90). Additionally, Ortyn teaches this provides the benefit of being able to choose the optical characteristics of the bandpass filter to optimize the desired passbands and spectral resolution (paragraph 90).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filter be a bandpass filter in order to ensure that only wavelengths in the desired band (such as around the fluorescent emission wavelength that one wants that detector to measure) reach the corresponding detector and thus achieve a high signal-to-noise ratio and in order to optimize the desired passbands and spectral resolution.
Claims 59-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler, Casstevens, and Some as applied to claim 58 above, and further in view of Gontin (US 5844685 A).
Regarding claims 59-61, Chandler doesn’t explicitly teach the optical adjustment component comprises a wedged beam splitter (claim 59); the wedged beam splitter comprises a wedge angle of from 5 arc minute to 120 arc minute (claim 60); the wedged beam splitter comprises a wedge angle of from 10 arc minute to 60 arc minute (claim 61).
Like Chandler (and like Applicant), Gontin is directed to an optical measurement system and is concerned with the problem of splitting a beam and teaches the optical adjustment component comprises a wedged beam splitter ; the wedged beam splitter comprises a wedge angle of from 5 arc minute to 120 arc minute; the wedged beam splitter comprises a wedge angle of from 10 arc minute to 60 arc minute (column 30, lines 40-45; 0.5 degrees corresponds to 30 arc minutes). Additionally, Gontin teaches this provides the benefits of reducing unwanted reflections and interference (column 30, lines 40-45).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the optical adjustment component comprises a wedged beam splitter with a wedge angle of from 10 arc minute to 60 arc minute in order to reduce unwanted interference reflections and interference.
Claims 64-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler in view of Ortyn and Doi (US 20110168917 A1).
Regarding claim 64, Chandler teaches a system comprising:
first and second light scatter detectors (150 and 152; paragraphs 53-54);
a filter (the filter associated with detector 152 in paragraphs 53-54);
a beamsplitter (140); and
a mount configured for affixing the first and second light scatter detectors, the bandpass filter, and the beamsplitter thereon (figure 5; paragraphs 65, 71, and 74) such that:
both of the first and second light scatter detectors (150 and 152) are in optical communication with the beamsplitter (140);
and the second (152) but not the first light scatter detector (150) is in optical communication with the filter (since the filter is the one associated with 152; also see the combination with Doi, below).
Chandler doesn’t explicitly describe the filter as a bandpass filter.
However, Chandler does teach that filters can be used to ensure that fluorescent emissions at desired wavelengths are received by the detector (paragraphs 52-53). Additionally, like Chandler (and like the instant application), Ortyn is directed to optical particle measurement system and to a flow cytometer and teaches the filters being bandpass filters (paragraph 90). Additionally, Ortyn teaches this provides the benefit of being able to choose the optical characteristics of the bandpass filter to optimize the desired passbands and spectral resolution (paragraph 90).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the filter be a bandpass filter in order to ensure that only wavelengths in the desired band (such as around the fluorescent emission wavelength that one wants that detector to measure) reach the corresponding detector and thus achieve a high signal-to-noise ratio and in order to optimize the desired passbands and spectral resolution.
Regarding the positioning of the bandpass filter: like Chandler (and like the instant application), Doi is directed to optical particle measurement system and to a flow cytometer and teaches each detector’s bandpass filter 26c1-26c4 is positioned in front of the corresponding detector so that only that detector is in optical communication with it (figure 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
498
758
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bandpass filter for detector 152 of the above combination be infront of the detector 152 so that only detector 152 and not detector 150 is in optical communication with it in order to ensure that it doesn’t filter the wavelengths one is trying to detect with the other detector.
Regarding claim 65, Chandler teaches a light source comprising two or more lasers (110 and 330).
Claim 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler, Ortyn, and Doi as applied to claim 64 above, and further in view of Rowlen.
Regarding claim 66, Chandler doesn’t explicitly teach the light source comprises four or more lasers.
Like Chandler (and like Applicant), Rowlen is directed to optical particle measurements and flow cytometers and teaches the light source comprises four or more lasers provides the benefit of revealing a large amount of information and providing research capabilities (paragraph 3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the light source comprises four or more lasers in order to reveal a large amount of information about the sample and provide research capabilities.
Claims 67-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler, Ortyn, and Doi as applied to claim 64 above, and further in view of Gontin (US 5844685 A).
Regarding claims 67-69, Chandler doesn’t explicitly teach the optical adjustment component comprises a wedged beam splitter (claim 67); the wedged beam splitter comprises a wedge angle of from 5 arc minute to 120 arc minute (claim 68); the wedged beam splitter comprises a wedge angle of from 10 arc minute to 60 arc minute (claim 69).
Like Chandler (and like Applicant), Gontin is directed to an optical measurement system and is concerned with the problem of splitting a beam and teaches the optical adjustment component comprises a wedged beam splitter ; the wedged beam splitter comprises a wedge angle of from 5 arc minute to 120 arc minute; the wedged beam splitter comprises a wedge angle of from 10 arc minute to 60 arc minute (column 30, lines 40-45; 0.5 degrees corresponds to 30 arc minutes). Additionally, Gontin teaches this provides the benefits of reducing unwanted reflections and interference (column 30, lines 40-45).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the optical adjustment component comprises a wedged beam splitter with a wedge angle of from 10 arc minute to 60 arc minute in order to reduce unwanted interference reflections and interference.
Additional Prior Art
US 20170059469 A1 reads, “The detector may be, for example, a spectrometer or a photodetector with or without an optical filter. Where used, a filter can be put at the light source and/or at the detector. (paragraph 79) and “. As illustrated in the variant waveguide array sensor system 840 of FIG. 8d, one or both of the optical source(s) one and optical detector(s) 5 may be replaced by a plurality of sources/detectors rather than multiplexed.” (paragraph 74) laser (paragraph 72) “absorption or scattering “ in abstract and claims
PNG
media_image6.png
614
462
media_image6.png
Greyscale
US 20030223063 A1 reads, “0060] In another embodiment of this technique, the two (different wavelength) pulsed lasers can be triggered to fire at slightly different times, and two synchronized multielement detectors 190 (only one shown in FIG. 1) may be used for detection, one gated to be open during the period of the first laser firing, and the other to be gated to be open during the period of the second laser firing. In this way, one multielement detector 190 senses the angular scattering pattern at one wavelength and the second multielement detector senses the angular pattern at the other wavelength, without the need for interference filters”
PNG
media_image7.png
446
518
media_image7.png
Greyscale
WO 2010124347 A1 reads, “An alternative (or complimentary) embodiment of this aspect of the invention will now be described. In this embodiment the system is adapted to enable the receiver to avoid saturation without the use of a filter, although filters could be used with this embodiment if necessary.”
US 20070258086 A1 reads, “[0040] Accordingly, FIG. 3 shows an inspection device 1 comprising an adaptive filter 5 provided in the optical channel 13 of the optical system 11 for transmitting a filtered radiation beam 10. The optical system 11 comprises the further optical channel 12 that comprises a further detector 7'. The further detector 7' detects the scattered radiation beam 10 in an unfiltered condition. T
PNG
media_image8.png
412
434
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Sakamoto (CN 104422646 B) discloses forward scattering detector (209) and reads, “forward scattered light and side scattered light is generated from the flow chamber 205 without passing through the polarization filter directly receiving member 209 by FSC and SSC accepted by receiving component 213.”
PNG
media_image9.png
560
750
media_image9.png
Greyscale
US 20210255089 A1 discloses
PNG
media_image10.png
298
660
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights