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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/30/24 & 10/16/25 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3; the recitation that an element “can be” performs a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. The Examiner assumes that the words “can be … and/or” is deleted and is not part of the above limitation.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hargis et al (US 2022/0163786 hereinafter “Hargis”).
Regarding claim 1; Hargis discloses an optical system (2500 @ figure 25) for a sample processing instrument, wherein the sample processing instrument (paragraph [0189]: e.g., laser-induced fluorescence spectroscopy, a fluorescent dye designed to bond with an analyte can be introduced into the fluid sample.) comprises a flow cell (2230 @ figure 20) having a detection channel for passage and detection of a sample,
the optical system (2500 @ figure 25) comprising:
a laser source (2501C @ figure 25);
a collimating device (2503C @ figure 25) configured to collimate light beam emitted from the laser source (2501C @ figure 25);
a focusing lens (2507 @ figure 25) configured to focus the light beam coming from the laser source (2501C @ figure 25) on a point within the detection channel of the flow cell (2230 @ figure 20); and
a reshaping device (2505C @ figure 25) disposed between the collimating device (2503C @ figure 25) and the focusing lens (2507 @ figure 25) and configured to reshape a light spot of the collimated light beam (paragraph [0122]: e.g., the multi-laser system 100 further includes optional beam focusing optics 117 to provide size reduction and/or shaping to the output laser beams 118, 119, 120. For example, the focusing optics 117 may focus a laser beam down to a smaller spot, generally referred to herein as a focus point),
wherein the reshaping device (2505C @ figure 25) comprises a first prism pair comprising two prisms (figure 25 and paragraph [0009]: e.g., the illumination system further includes a set of beam conditioning optics for each laser, each set of beam conditioning optics positioned and configured to receive light from one of the lasers and provide an output beam to the one or more beam combiners. The beam conditioning optics can include anamorphic prisms that shape the laser beam to be more of an elliptical shape e.g., when viewed in a plane orthogonal to the beam direction), and the two prisms are adjustable relative to each other, so that the light beam of the laser source (2501C @ figure 25) has a predetermined size in a first direction (paragraph 0008]: e.g., The moving beam can be moved to have a motion vector in a first direction (e.g., along an x-axis) and/or a second direction (e.g., along a y-axis), the first and second direction being orthogonal.). See figures2, 16-16, 25, 29, and 33
Regarding claim 2; Hargis discloses the reshaping device (2505A, 2505B, 2505C @ figure 25) further comprises a second prism pair (2505A @ figure 25) comprising two prisms, and the two prisms are adjustable relative to each other (figure 25), so that the light beam of the laser source (2501A @ figure 25) has a predetermined size in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 3; Hargis discloses the two prisms (figure 7) of the prism pair (705A-705N @ figure 7) or each prism pair can be rotated and/or translated relative to each other (paragraph [0159]: e.g., the Risley prisms, there is just a translation of the output beam with respect to the input beam. If the arrangement of the Risley prisms with respect to each other is changes, the output beam may experience an elevation deviation. The ability to control azimuth may be provided by rotating the prism pair together).
It is noted that the term “and/or” is alternative.
Regarding claim 4; Hargis discloses the two prisms of the prism pair (705A-705N @ figure 7) or each prism pair are made of the same material (paragraph [0123]: e.g., The prism is a transparent optical element comprising a substantially transparent optical material … the triangular prism generally has a triangular base and rectangular sides. Prisms may be made out of glass, or any material that is transparent to the wavelengths for which they are designed. In some embodiments, the material may include one of polymer, polycarbonate, polyethylene terephthalate, glycol-modified polyethylene terephthalate, amorphous thermoplastic, and/or other substrates).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 5-8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hargis et al (US 2022/0163786 hereinafter “Hargis”) in view of Yang et al (CN 113238388A hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 5; Hargis discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the material has a refractive index ranging from 1.4 to 1.8. However, Yang teaches that it is known in the art to provide the prism material (31 @ figure 2) has a refractive index ranging from 1.4 to 1.8 (Referring to FIG. 2 and FIG. 4: e.g., the optical glass material is limited, so the refractive index is discontinuous (common optical glass refractive index range is 1.55-1.8), can firstly select the optical glass material). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical system of Hargis with limitation above as taught by Yang for the purpose of meet the detection requirement of various kinds of fluorescent molecules and reducing the probability of two cells entering the detection area at the same time.
Regarding claim 6; Hargis discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for each of the two prisms of the prism pair or each prism pair has an incident surface where the light beam enters the prism and an exit surface where the light beam exits the prism, and the two prisms of the prism pair or each prism pair are arranged to have the same incident angle at the incident surfaces and the same exit angle at the exit surfaces with respect to the same light beam. However, Yang teaches that it is known in the art to provide each of the two prisms (311, 312 @ figure 4) of the prism pair (31 @ figures 2 and 4) or each prism pair (31, 32, 33 @ figures 2) has an incident surface (figures 2 and 4) where the light beam enters the prism (first and second prisms 311, 312 @figure 4) and an exit surface (figures 2 and 4) where the light beam exits the prism (first and second prisms 311, 312 @figure 4), and the two prisms (311, 312 @ figure 4) of the prism pair (31 @ figures 2 and 4) or each prism pair (31, 32, 33 @ figures 2) are arranged to have the same incident angle at the incident surfaces (figures 2 and 4) and the same exit angle at the exit surfaces (figures 2 and 4) with respect to the same light beam (figures 2 and 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical system of Hargis with limitation above as taught by Yang for the purpose of meet the detection requirement of various kinds of fluorescent molecules and reducing the probability of two cells entering the detection area at the same time.
Regarding claim 7; Hargis discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the two prisms of the prism pair or each prism pair have the same structure. However, Yang teaches that it is known in the art to provide the two prisms (311, 312 @ figure 4) of the prism pair (31 @ figure 4) or each prism pair have the same structure (figure 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical system of Hargis with limitation above as taught by Yang for the purpose of meet the detection requirement of various kinds of fluorescent molecules and reducing the probability of two cells entering the detection area at the same time.
Regarding claim 8; Hargis discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for an angle between the incident surface and the exit surface of each prism is in the range of 20° to 45°. However, Yang teaches that it is known in the art to provide an angle (α @ figure 2) between the incident surface and the exit surface of each prism (311 or 312 @ figure 4) is in the range of 20° to 45° (angle α is acute angle in figure 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical system of Hargis with limitation above as taught by Yang for the purpose of meet the detection requirement of various kinds of fluorescent molecules and reducing the probability of two cells entering the detection area at the same time.
Regarding claim 11; Hargis discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the prism pair or each prism pair is configured such that the size ratio of the light beam after exiting the prism pair to the light beam before entering the prism pair is between 0.5 and 2.75. However, Yang teaches that it is known in the art to provide the prism pair (311, 312 @ figure 4) or each prism pair (31 @ figures 2 and 4) is configured such that the size ratio of the light beam after exiting the prism pair to the light beam before entering the prism pair is between in the range of 2: 1-4: 1 (figures 2-4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical system of Hargis with limitation above as taught by Yang for the purpose of meet the detection requirement of various kinds of fluorescent molecules and reducing the probability of two cells entering the detection area at the same time.
Hargis in view of Yang combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the size ratio of the light beam after exiting the prism pair to the light beam before entering the prism pair is between in the range of 0.5 and 2.75. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical system of Hargis with limitation above for the purpose of meet the detection requirement of various kinds of fluorescent molecules and reducing the probability of two cells entering the detection area at the same time, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12; Hargis discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a focus adjustment device is provided between the laser source and the focusing lens, and the focus adjustment device is configured to adjust focus of the light beam emitted from the laser source to a predetermined position within the detection channel. However, Yang teaches that it is known in the art to provide a focus adjustment device (41, 42, 43 @ figure 2) is provided between the laser source (11, 12, 13 @ figure 2) and the focusing lens (16 @ figure 2), and the focus adjustment device (41, 42, 43 @ figure 2) is configured to adjust focus of the light beam emitted from the laser source (11, 12, 13 @ figure 2) to a predetermined position within the detection channel (7 @ figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical system of Hargis with limitation above as taught by Yang for the purpose of meet the detection requirement of various kinds of fluorescent molecules and reducing the probability of two cells entering the detection area at the same time.
Regarding claim 13; Hargis discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the focus adjustment device is composed of two optical parts, the distance between the two optical parts is adjustable, and each of the two optical parts is selected from one of a convex lens, a concave lens, a cylindrical lens, a doublet lens, or a lens group. However, Yang teaches that it is known in the art to provide the focus adjustment device (41, 42, 43 @ figure 2) is composed of two optical parts (411, 412 @ figure 5), the distance between the two optical parts (411, 412 @ figure 5) is adjustable, and each of the two optical parts (411, 412 @ figure 5) is selected from one of a convex lens (plano-convex lens in figure 5), a concave lens, a cylindrical lens, a doublet lens, or a lens group. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical system of Hargis with limitation above as taught by Yang for the purpose of meet the detection requirement of various kinds of fluorescent molecules and reducing the probability of two cells entering the detection area at the same time.
It is noted that the term “selected from one of:” is alternative.
Regarding claim 14; Hargis discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the optical system comprises a plurality of laser sources emitting light beams having mutually different wavelengths, and a beam-combination mirror is provided between each laser source and the focusing lens. However, Yang teaches that it is known in the art to provide the optical system (figure 2) comprises a plurality of laser sources (11, 12, 13 @ figure 2) emitting light beams having mutually different wavelengths (Table 1: e.g., different light sources, the prism configuration is slightly different according to different wavelengths), and a beam-combination mirror (5 @ figure 2) is provided between each laser source (11, 12, 13 @ figure 2) and the focusing lens (6 @ figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical system of Hargis with limitation above as taught by Yang for the purpose of meet the detection requirement of various kinds of fluorescent molecules and reducing the probability of two cells entering the detection area at the same time.
Regarding claim 15; Hargis discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the reshaping devices and the focus adjustment devices are disposed between each laser light source and the corresponding beam combiner. However, Yang teaches that it is known in the art to provide the reshaping devices (31, 32, 33 @ figure 2) and the focus adjustment devices (41, 42, 43 @ figure 2) are disposed between each laser light source (11, 12, 13 @ figure 2) and the corresponding beam combiner (5 @ figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical system of Hargis with limitation above as taught by Yang for the purpose of meet the detection requirement of various kinds of fluorescent molecules and reducing the probability of two cells entering the detection area at the same time.
Claims 9-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hargis et al (US 2022/0163786 hereinafter “Hargis”) in view of Yang et al (CN 113238388A hereinafter “Yang”) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Liang et al (CN 103091211 A hereinafter “Liang”).
Regarding claim 9; Hargis in view of Yang combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for an anti-reflection film is coated on the incident surface and/or the exit surface. However, Liang teaches that it is known in the art to provide an anti-reflection film is coated on the incident surface and/or the exit surface (paragraph [0071]: e.g., the outer surface of the first entrance surface and/or the second outgoing surface plated with broadband anti-reflection film can reach the average transmittance of more than 95%). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical system of Hargis with limitation above as taught by Liang for the purpose of increase the transmittance and the energy loss is small.
Regarding claim 10; Hargis in view of Yang combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the anti-reflection film on one of the incident surface and the exit surface is designed or selected for an incident angle or an exit angle of 0° to 10°, and the anti-reflection film on the other of the incident surface and the exit surface is designed or selected for an incident angle or an exit angle of 40° to 60°. However, Liang teaches that it is known in the art to provide the anti-reflection film (paragraph [0071]) on one (second prism 322 @ figures 3-4) of the incident surface (322a @ figures 3-4) and the exit surface (322b @ figures 3-4) is designed or selected for an incident angle or an exit angle of 0° to 10° (paragraphs [0030]-[0031]: e.g., acute angle), and the anti-reflection film (paragraph [0071]) on the other (first prism 312 @ figures 3-4) of the incident surface (321a @ figures 3-4) and the exit surface (321b @ figures 3-4) is designed or selected for an incident angle or an exit angle of 40° to 60° (paragraphs [0030]-[0031]: e.g., acute angle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical system of Hargis with limitation above as taught by Liang for the purpose of increase the transmittance and the energy loss is small.
Regarding claim 16; Hargis in view of Yang combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a sample processing instrument comprising the optical system and a flow cell, wherein the flow cell has the detection channel through which a liquid sample flows, and the optical system is configured to detect particles in the liquid sample. However, Liang teaches that it is known in the art to provide a sample processing instrument (paragraph [0001[0002]: e.g., a particle analyzer for collecting fluorescence in optical system) comprising the optical system (figures 3-4) and a flow cell (21 @figures 3-4), wherein the flow cell (21 @figures 3-4) has the detection channel through which a liquid sample flows (figures 3-4), and the optical system is configured to detect particles (paragraph [0002]: e.g., the medical and biological fields, generally by flow cell analyzer for counting and analyzing cells, DNA, proteins, and various enzymes such as small particles, flow cytometry analysis and flow cytometry, which is one of the means for detecting the quantitative analysis and sorting of single cells or other biological particles on the functional level…flow cytometer particle to be detected using fluorescent reagent to dye, the particles carried in the sheath liquid forming a sample flow through the detection zone, irradiating laser through the particles to be detected, the detection area to be the detection of particles of different types emit fluorescence of different wavelengths, the optical detection system for collecting the fluorescence, using fluorescence as recognition to count and analyze different kinds of particles) in the liquid sample. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine optical system of Hargis with limitation above as taught by Liang for the purpose of increase the transmittance and the energy loss is small.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Muenz (US 2014/0118843) discloses the light beam is directed onto the at least one optically operative surface with a ring-segment-shaped cross section transversely with respect to the light propagation direction.
2) Elgcrona et al (EP 3904942A1) discloses a temperature of one of first and second prisms is controlled, thus controlling the position at which laser beam impinges on flow cell.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/SN/
December 22, 2025
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877