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 .
Examiner’s Comments – Claim Interpretation
Regarding “during a flow cytometry evaluation” in the apparatus claims: Interpreted in light of the specification, "during a flow cytometry evaluation" in the claims is interpreted as during the operation of any component of the flow cytometry evaluation system (that is, the fluid delivery system, the investigation system, the gas delivery system, or the waste collection).
Regarding “during a flow cytometry investigation” in the apparatus claims: "during a flow cytometry investigation" is interpreted as during the operation of the flow cytometry investigation system (that is, during the flow of the fluid through the investigation zone, the operation of the light source, and/or the operation of the light detectors).
More specifically, in claim 1, the flow cytometry investigation system only positively recites “an investigation zone configured to receive… a flow of a fluid sample.” Therefore, in claim 1, “during a flow cytometry investigation" is interpreted as when a fluid sample is flowing through the investigation zone. This interpretation differs from the interpretation in the method claim, because for the apparatus claim, the functional language further limits the recited structure (but it does not introduce into claim 1 structures from the dependent claims such as a light source and light detector).
In claim 12, "during a flow cytometry investigation" is interpreted as when the detector is detecting light from the investigation zone and the focusing element is shining light into the flow cell (since claim 12 includes a light detector, focusing element, and flow cell).
Regarding “flowing a fluid sample through an investigation zone of a flow cytometry investigator system… performing a flow cytometry investigation of a flow of the fluid sample in the investigation zone … during the flowing the fluid sample through the investigation zone, applying pressurized gas to…,” in the method claims this is interpreted as requiring optical measurements of the sample which is implicit in performing a flow cytometry investigation. Further, it requires the step of “applying pressurized gas to…” to occur during this optical measurement, as evident by “the flowing the fluid sample” referencing the flowing and performing steps.
“Back pressure” in the claims is interpreted according to its ordinary meaning as “any resistance to the flow of a liquid or gas.” (“Back pressure.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/back%20pressure. Accessed 26 Feb. 2026. Oxford English Dictionary, “back-pressure (n.),” June 2025, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/3594870709)
112f -- 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: pressurized gas delivery system in claims 1-9 and 12-18; light focusing element and light detection system in claims 12-13 and 22-23; and heating unit in claim 18.
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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the third from the last step, “a flow of the fluid sample” is written, where it appears “the flow of the fluid sample” is intended. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Takenaka (US 20080153153 A1; cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Takenaka teaches a flow cytometry evaluation system, comprising:
a flow cytometry investigation system (paragraphs 78-79 and 152-153) comprising an investigation zone (18) configured to receive during a flow cytometry evaluation a flow of a fluid sample (paragraphs 59-61);
a sample effluent system (paragraphs 78-79), comprising:
an effluent collection vessel (163) with an effluent fluid inlet to receive an effluent of the fluid sample exiting the investigation zone (18) during a flow cytometry evaluation (paragraphs 78-79), and
an effluent fluid conduction path from the investigation zone (18) to the effluent fluid inlet (figures 5 and 9-10; path from 18 to 163); and
a pressurized gas delivery system (14) in fluid communication with the sample effluent system, wherein the pressurized gas delivery system is configured to apply pressurized gas to pressurize at least a portion of the sample effluent system to impede fluid flow through the effluent fluid conduction path toward the effluent fluid inlet during a flow cytometry investigation (paragraphs 72-76 explain the pressure is pressurized air which is pressurized gas; and paragraphs 64-65 explain 158 is an air flow path; regarding impede fluid flow, note that it impedes flow in both directions at different times as explained in paragraphs 78-79 and figures 9-10; this is while the flow is in and through the investigation zone and therefore during the investigation, as explained in the examiner’s comments above).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
564
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
402
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
352
386
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Takenaka teaches wherein the pressurized gas is a positive back pressure applied to the effluent collection vessel (positive pressure because gas is being applied to the effluent collection system that increases the pressure as explained in paragraph 78; it’s a back pressure because it creates a resistance to the flow of liquids in the direction from 18 to 163; and it’s applied to the vessel [the waste container 163] as described in paragraph 76).
Regarding claim 4, Takenaka teaches a fluid sample conduction path to the investigation zone to provide the fluid sample to the investigation zone for the flow cytometry investigation, wherein the fluid sample conduction path, the investigation zone, the effluent fluid conduction path and the effluent collection vessel are configured to comprise a pressurized fluidics system during the flow cytometry investigation (figures 5, 9, and 10 and paragraphs 64 and 75-79).
Regarding claim 12, Takenaka teaches cytometry investigation system includes an optical processing system supported on an optical component mounting member, the optical processing system comprising a flow cell with the investigation zone (paragraph 71; figure 13), a light focusing element (120) to focus input light prior (light focusing element is prior to the investigation zone in the direction of the illumination beam and therefore focusing occurs prior) to the investigation zone, and a light detection system (129, 128) to detect response radiation from the investigation zone.
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.
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 2, 5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Wilson (US 20170138835 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Takenaka teaches the pressurized gas is applied to the sample effluent system at an elevation in the sample effluent system (figure 9 and corresponding text). Additionally, Takenaka suggests but doesn’t explicitly teach the elevation in the sample effluent system is lower than the lowest elevation in the investigation zone (suggested by the figures of Takenaka which illustrate the pressurized air being applied at 163 in figure 9, which is lower than the investigation zone, 18). Like Takenaka (and like Applicant), Wilson is directed to a flow cytometry system and teaches the elevation in the sample effluent system (waste containers) is lower than a lowest elevation in the investigation zone (figure 1, where the investigation zone is in 102 and paragraphs 18-19 teach that the waste containers can be placed in the container rack next to the liquid containers 130). Additionally, Takenaka teaches this provides the benefit of significant flexibility in accommodating the use of various flow cytometry investigation systems (paragraphs 18-19).
PNG
media_image5.png
520
484
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 in the above combination the elevation in the sample effluent system is lower than the lowest elevation in the investigation zone in order to have significant flexibility in accommodating the use of various flow cytometry investigation systems.
Regarding claim 5, in the above combination, a highest elevation in the fluidics system is in the fluid sample conduction path at a higher elevation than the effluent fluid inlet (Wilson, figure 1 and paragraphs 18-19; also see the explanation with respect to claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 7, Takenaka doesn’t explicitly teach an autosampler configured to receive a plurality of the fluid samples contained in a plurality of sample containers and to deliver the plurality of the fluid samples to the fluid sample conduction path for flow cytometry evaluation.
Like Takenaka (and like Applicant), Wilson is directed to a flow cytometry system and teaches an autosampler configured to receive a plurality of the fluid samples contained in a plurality of sample containers and to deliver the plurality of the fluid samples to the fluid sample conduction path for flow cytometry evaluation (paragraphs 4 and 17). Additionally, Wilson teaches this provides the benefit of increasing the number of samples that can be processed (paragraph 4) while properly utilizing space (paragraphs 5-6).
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 it comprises an autosampler configured to receive a plurality of the fluid samples contained in a plurality of sample containers and to deliver the plurality of the fluid samples to the fluid sample conduction path for flow cytometry evaluation in order to increase the number of samples that can be processed while properly utilizing space.
Regarding claim 8, the above combination comprises a housing in which the flow cytometry investigation system and the autosampler are disposed in a stacked relationship, wherein the first stack location is in a first compartment within the housing with the autosampler disposed therein and the second stack location is in a second compartment within the housing with the flow cytometry investigation system disposed therein, and wherein the second compartment is disposed below the first compartment (Wilson, figure 1, where the flow cytometer investigation system is 102 and the autosampler is 104 as explained in paragraphs 16-17; housings and stacked relationship is visible in the figures).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka and Wilson, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sklar (US 20020170365 A1)
Regarding claim 9, in the above combination the autosampler comprises a sample receiving location configured to receive a plurality of sample containers containing a plurality of the fluid samples for flow cytometry evaluation, the autosampler comprises a sample delivery probe configured to withdraw the fluid samples from the sample containers for delivery to the investigation zone for flow cytometry evaluation (Wilson, figure 1 and paragraphs 18-19).
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach and the sample receiving location is disposed higher in elevation than a highest elevation in the investigation zone.
Like Takenaka (and like Applicant), Sklar is directed to flow cytometry and teaches the autosampler comprises a sample receiving location configured to receive a plurality of sample containers containing a plurality of the fluid samples for flow cytometry evaluation, the autosampler comprises a sample delivery probe configured to withdraw the fluid samples from the sample containers for delivery to the investigation zone for flow cytometry evaluation and the sample receiving location is disposed higher in elevation than a highest elevation in the investigation zone (figure 1A; paragraphs 43 and 47).
PNG
media_image6.png
468
508
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 autosampler comprises a sample delivery probe configured to withdraw the fluid samples from the sample containers for delivery to the investigation zone for flow cytometry evaluation and the sample receiving location is disposed higher in elevation than a highest elevation in the investigation zone – in order to have high throughput in a system that is adapted to the environmental restrictions of the user.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 13, Takenaka teaches the flow cytometry investigation system comprises a light source (134, 135) to provide the input light, the light source being optically connected to the light focusing element (120) by an inlet light conduction path (figure 13).
PNG
media_image7.png
390
412
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Takenaka doesn’t explicitly teach the inlet light conduction path comprising an optical fiber.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the field of optical measurement and testing for the light source to be optically connected to the rest of the system by an optical fiber.
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 inlet light conduction path comprises an optical fiber in order to provide greater versatility with respect to the positioning of the light source while having a high signal to noise ratio by limiting the effect of ambient light.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nova (US 6329139 B1)
Regarding claim 14, Takenaka doesn’t explicitly teach an interior space in which the flow cytometry investigation system is disposed during flow cytometry evaluation; and a translationally mounted member on which the flow cytometry investigation system is supported, the translationally mounted member being translatable between a first position with the flow cytometry investigation system disposed in the interior space and a second position with at least a portion of the flow cytometry investigation system disposed outside the interior space.
However, it is conventional to include translatable shelving that moves components in and out of a housing. For example, is also directed to optical particle detection systems and provides a general teaching of translatable shelving that moves components in and out of a housing (figure 114; column 101, lines 30-35).
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 system comprises an interior space in which the flow cytometry investigation system is disposed during flow cytometry evaluation; and a translationally mounted member on which the flow cytometry investigation system is supported, the translationally mounted member being translatable between a first position with the flow cytometry investigation system disposed in the interior space and a second position with at least a portion of the flow cytometry investigation system disposed outside the interior space – in order to be able to protect from dust and other contaminants while also allowing easy access.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Pfeifer (US 6768549 B1).
Regarding claims 15-17, Takenaka teaches a temperature control system to control a temperature within a housing in which the optical processing system is disposed (paragraphs 14 and 58; claim 15).
Takenaka doesn’t explicitly teach the temperature control system comprising: a controller unit configured to periodically collect a temperature determination data set comprising first and second digital outputs corresponding to a temperature sensor reading and a reference reading, respectively, wherein collection of a temperature determination data set comprises: first directing electrical current to acquire, after a first signal settling period following commencement of the first directing, a first said digital output corresponding to a said sensor reading, and after the acquiring the first said digital output, second directing electrical current to acquire, after a second signal settling period following commencement of the second directing, a second said digital output corresponding to a said reference reading (claim 15); the temperature control system comprises: a first timer to time a first time duration between commencement of a said first directing and commencement of a said second directing for the collecting of a said temperature determination data set, and a second timer to time a second time duration of the first signal settling period (claim 16); a current source, an analog-to-digital converter, the controller unit, the first timer and the second timer on a single microchip (claim 17).
However, Tanenaka also teaches that controlling the temperature is important (paragraphs 14, 58, 77, and 96). Like Takenaka (and like Applicant), Pfeifer is also concerned with temperature control (and is also directed to optical measurement systems) and teaches the temperature control system comprising: a controller unit configured to periodically collect a temperature determination data set comprising first and second digital outputs corresponding to a temperature sensor reading and a reference reading, respectively, wherein collection of a temperature determination data set comprises: first directing electrical current to acquire, after a first signal settling period following commencement of the first directing, a first said digital output corresponding to a said sensor reading, and after the acquiring the first said digital output, second directing electrical current to acquire, after a second signal settling period following commencement of the second directing, a second said digital output corresponding to a said reference reading (figures 7A-7B; column 6, lines 35-45; column 5, lines 30-65); the temperature control system comprises: a first timer to time a first time duration between commencement of a said first directing and commencement of a said second directing for the collecting of a said temperature determination data set, and a second timer to time a second time duration of the first signal settling period (where the 1st timer and the 2nd timer are the same; column 6, lines 35-45); a current source, an analog-to-digital converter, the controller unit, the first timer and the second timer on a single microchip (the microchip corresponds to 52; figure 1).
PNG
media_image8.png
762
972
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
500
818
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
520
790
media_image10.png
Greyscale
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 temperature control system comprising: a controller unit configured to periodically collect a temperature determination data set comprising first and second digital outputs corresponding to a temperature sensor reading and a reference reading, respectively, wherein collection of a temperature determination data set comprises: first directing electrical current to acquire, after a first signal settling period following commencement of the first directing, a first said digital output corresponding to a said sensor reading, and after the acquiring the first said digital output, second directing electrical current to acquire, after a second signal settling period following commencement of the second directing, a second said digital output corresponding to a said reference reading; the temperature control system comprises: a first timer to time a first time duration between commencement of a said first directing and commencement of a said second directing for the collecting of a said temperature determination data set, and a second timer to time a second time duration of the first signal settling period; a current source, an analog-to-digital converter, the controller unit, the first timer and the second timer on a single microchip – in order to obtain precise, active, and consistent control over the temperature to have the desired temperature.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka and Pfiefer as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Chuah (US 6257761 B1).
Regarding claim 18, the above combination comprises a heating unit (Pfierfer, 18) to heat an environment within the housing.
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach a pulse width modulation unit on the microchip in communication with the controller unit to receive temperature control instructions from the controller unit and direct drive instructions to drive operation of the heating unit.
Like Takenaka (and like Applicant), Chuah is also concerned with temperature control and teaches a pulse width modulation unit that receives temperature control instructions and direct drive instructions to drive operation of the heating unit (abstract and column 2, lines 20-30). Additionally, Chuah teaches this provides the benefit of a more stabilized temperature control (column 2, lines 20-30).
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 it comprises a pulse width modulation unit on the microchip in communication with the controller unit to receive temperature control instructions from the controller unit and direct drive instructions to drive operation of the heating unit – in order to achieve a more stabilized temperature control.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka in view of Trumbo (US 20190271615 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Takenaka teaches a method for flow cytometry evaluation, the method comprising:
flowing a fluid sample through an investigation zone (18) of a flow cytometry investigation system with a downstream end of the investigation zone being in fluid communication with a sample effluent system (paragraphs 78-79 and 152-153; figures 1, 5, 9-10; when the fluid is flowing from 18 towards 163) comprising:
an effluent collection vessel (163) with an effluent fluid inlet for receiving an effluent of the fluid sample exiting the investigation zone (18) during a flow cytometry evaluation (paragraphs 78-79), and
an effluent fluid conduction path from the investigation zone (18) to the effluent fluid inlet (figures 5 and 9-10; path from 18 to 163);
performing a flow cytometry investigation of a flow of the fluid sample in the investigation zone (paragraphs 78-79);
conducting an effluent of the fluid sample exiting the investigation zone through the effluent fluid conduction path to the effluent collection vessel (163) where the effluent of the fluid sample is collected (paragraphs 61); and
during the flowing the fluid sample through the investigation zone (when the fluid is flowing from 18 towards 163).
Regarding, “during the flowing the fluid sample through the investigation zone, applying pressurized gas to pressurize at least a portion of the sample effluent system to impede fluid flow through the effluent fluid conduction path toward the effluent fluid inlet of the effluent collection vessel,” Takenaka teaches flowing the fluid sample through the investigation zone (when the fluid is flowing from 18 towards 163) and applying pressurized gas to pressurize at least a portion of the sample effluent system (14; paragraphs 72-76; paragraphs 78-79; paragraphs 64-65) to impede fluid flow through the effluent fluid conduction path toward the effluent fluid inlet of the effluent collection vessel (since the increased pressure from the gas impedes the flow of fluid toward the vessel through the effluent fluid conduction path). Takenaka doesn’t explicitly teach pressurizing during the flowing.
However, Takenaka teaches that pressurizing controls the flow of fluids (paragraphs 72-79. And like Takenaka (and like Applicant), Trumbo is also concerned with the problem of controlling fluid flow through flow cells and to effluent collection vessels and teaches during the flowing the fluid sample through the investigation zone, slowing or stopping the flow provides the benefit of avoiding overflow of waste fluid, when the effluent collection vessel is almost full (paragraphs 86 and 101).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Takenaka such that there is pressurizing during the flowing (in other words, such that during the flowing the fluid sample through the investigation zone, applying pressurized gas to pressurize at least a portion of the sample effluent system to impede fluid flow through the effluent fluid conduction path toward the effluent fluid inlet of the effluent collection vessel) in order to stop or slow the fluid headed towards the effluent collection vessel, when it is almost full to avoid it overflowing.
Regarding claim 21, the above combination comprises providing the fluid sample to the investigation zone through a fluid sample conduction path, wherein the fluid sample conduction path, the investigation zone, the effluent fluid conduction path and the effluent collection vessel comprise a pressurized fluidics system with fluid flow through the fluidics system in a direction toward the effluent collection vessel (figures 5, 9, and 10 and paragraphs 64 and 75-79) impeded by a back pressure from the applied gas pressure (combination with Trumbo, above, the back pressure is the pressure that impedes the flow).
Claims 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka and Trumbo as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Wilson.
Regarding claim 22, Takenaka doesn’t explicitly teach flow cytometry evaluation of a plurality of the fluid samples, the flow cytometry evaluation comprising withdrawing the plurality of the fluid samples from a plurality of sample containers by an autosampler and delivering the plurality of the fluid samples to the investigation zone for performance of the flow cytometry investigation on each of the plurality of the fluid samples, and wherein: during the withdrawing, the plurality of the sample containers are at a higher elevation than a highest elevation in the investigation zone.
Like Takenaka (and like Applicant), Wilson is directed to a flow cytometry system and teaches flow cytometry evaluation of a plurality of the fluid samples, the flow cytometry evaluation comprising withdrawing the plurality of the fluid samples from a plurality of sample containers by an autosampler and delivering the plurality of the fluid samples to the investigation zone for performance of the flow cytometry investigation on each of the plurality of the fluid samples, and wherein: during the withdrawing, the plurality of the sample containers are at a higher elevation than a highest elevation in the investigation zone (paragraphs 4, 17-19; figure 1). Additionally, Wilson teaches this provides the benefit of increasing the number of samples that can be processed (paragraph 4) while properly utilizing space (paragraphs 5-6).
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 it comprises flow cytometry evaluation of a plurality of the fluid samples, the flow cytometry evaluation comprising withdrawing the plurality of the fluid samples from a plurality of sample containers by an autosampler and delivering the plurality of the fluid samples to the investigation zone for performance of the flow cytometry investigation on each of the plurality of the fluid samples, and wherein: during the withdrawing, the plurality of the sample containers are at a higher elevation than a highest elevation in the investigation zone -- in order to increase the number of samples that can be processed while properly utilizing space.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka and Trumbo as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Pfeifer.
Regarding claim 23¸Takenaka teaches the flow cytometry investigation system includes an optical processing system supported on an optical component mounting member (figures 5 and 9-10), the optical processing system comprising a flow cell with the investigation zone (paragraph 71; figure 13), an inlet light focusing element (120) of the input light conduction path to focus the input light prior to the investigation zone and a light detection system (129, 128) to detect response radiation from the investigation zone, and the method comprises controlling a temperature of the optical component mounting member with a temperature control system (paragraphs 14 and 58)
Takenaka doesn’t explicitly teach at the direction of a controller unit, wherein the controlling comprises periodically collecting by the controller unit a temperature determination data set comprising first and second said digital outputs corresponding to a temperature sensor reading and a reference reading, respectively, wherein the collecting the temperature determination data set comprises:first directing electrical current to acquire, after a first signal settling period following commencement of the first directing, a first said digital output corresponding to a said sensor reading, and after the acquiring the first said digital output, a second directing electrical current to acquire, after a second settling period following the second commencement of the second directing, a second said digital output corresponding to a said reference reading.
However, Tanenaka also teaches that controlling the temperature is important (paragraphs 14, 58, 77, and 96). Like Takenaka (and like Applicant), Pfeifer is also concerned with temperature control (and is also directed to optical measurement systems) and teaches the temperature control system comprising: a controller unit configured to periodically collect a temperature determination data set comprising first and second digital outputs corresponding to a temperature sensor reading and a reference reading, respectively, wherein collection of a temperature determination data set comprises: first directing electrical current to acquire, after a first signal settling period following commencement of the first directing, a first said digital output corresponding to a said sensor reading, and after the acquiring the first said digital output, second directing electrical current to acquire, after a second signal settling period following commencement of the second directing, a second said digital output corresponding to a said reference reading (figures 7A-7B; column 6, lines 35-45; column 5, lines 30-65); the temperature control system comprises: a first timer to time a first time duration between commencement of a said first directing and commencement of a said second directing for the collecting of a said temperature determination data set, and a second timer to time a second time duration of the first signal settling period (where the 1st timer and the 2nd timer are the same; column 6, lines 35-45); a current source, an analog-to-digital converter, the controller unit, the first timer and the second timer on a single microchip (the microchip corresponds to 52; figure 1).
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 method comprises controlling a temperature of the optical component mounting member with a temperature control system at the direction of a controller unit, wherein the controlling comprises periodically collecting by the controller unit a temperature determination data set comprising first and second said digital outputs corresponding to a temperature sensor reading and a reference reading, respectively, wherein the collecting the temperature determination data set comprises:first directing electrical current to acquire, after a first signal settling period following commencement of the first directing, a first said digital output corresponding to a said sensor reading, and after the acquiring the first said digital output, a second directing electrical current to acquire, after a second settling period following the second commencement of the second directing, a second said digital output corresponding to a said reference reading – in order to obtain precise, active, and consistent control over the temperature to have the desired temperature
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record (taken alone or in combination) fails to anticipate or render obvious, “a pressurized gas delivery system in fluid communication with the sample effluent system, wherein the pressurized gas delivery system is configured to apply pressurized gas to pressurize at least a portion of the fluid sample effluent system to impede fluid flow through the effluent fluid conduction path toward the effluent fluid inlet during a flow cytometry investigation… a highest elevation in the fluidics system is in the fluid sample conduction path at a higher elevation than the effluent fluid inlet …the applied gas pressure is applied to the effluent collection vessel at a gauge pressure at least as large as a head pressure of a water column of a vertical height equal to a difference in elevation between the highest elevation in the fluid sample conduction path and the elevation of the effluent fluid inlet,” in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
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