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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the continuation filed on 09/27/2024. Applicant has submitted Claims 86-105 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 86-105 are rejected; 2) Claim 102 is objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority to USPRO 63/231403, filed 08/10/2021, and that the present application is a continuation of US Application 17/867394, filed 07/18/2022.
Claim Interpretation
Generally: 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 102 is objected to because of the following informalities: Clerical Error. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 102, Claim 102 lists two items with “(i)”. Examiner believes this to be a clerical error and interprets the second “(i)” to be “(ii)”.
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 86, 91-92, 96-97, 101-102, and 104-105 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Durack (US20190040356A1).
Regarding Claim 86, Durack discloses:
A flow cytometer (Durack, FIGS. 2-3, [0795], flow cytometry system 1) comprising:
a flow cell (Durack, FIG. 2-5, [0796], nozzle system 101) comprising a flow channel (Durack, FIGS. 4-5, [0799], annular space 167) comprising an inlet and an outlet (Durack, FIG. 2, [0801], “As in conventional flow cytometry systems, sheath fluid 19 is introduced into the annular space 167 surrounding the conduit 157. The velocity of the sheath fluid 19 as it flows past the tip of the conduit 157 is much higher that the velocity of the carrier fluid 17 exiting the conduit 157, so that the carrier fluid 17 and cells (e.g., sperm cells) contained therein are accelerated by the sheath fluid 19 toward the orifice 103 of the nozzle 137”); and
an outlet fitting comprising a waste channel (Durack, [1184], “In the event a needle 157′ becomes clogged, the appropriate valve V1 is moved to establish communication with the waste receptacle 1223. Sheath fluid 19′ entering the flow body 133′ will then flow under the force of the vacuum 1225 back through the needle 157′ to waste, thus flushing and clearing the needle. If there is a need to shut off the flow to a particular nozzle, the valves V1 and V2 are simply switched to their waste positions”) having:
a tapered proximal opening fluidically coupled to the outlet of the flow channel (Durack, FIGS. 8-9, [0806], “the interior 231 of the nozzle body 139 downstream from the counterbore 145 has an interior surface 233 comprising first, second and third axially tapered regions 235, 237, 239 for progressively accelerating the speed of the fluid stream 21 in a downstream direction toward the nozzle orifice 103”);
an O-ring groove surrounding the proximal opening (Durack, FIG. 13, [0816], “The stepped downstream end 2067 of the holder 2005 is circular in shape and abuts against the elliptically shaped interior surface 233 of the nozzle 137. Thus, the contact between the interior surface 233 of the nozzle 137 and the baffle holder 2005 is generally limited to two points 2069, as shown in FIG. 13. A pair of O-rings 2071 are positioned around the baffle holder 2005 between the nozzle 137 and the threaded projection 149 of the flow body 133 (FIGS. 11-13) and seal the nozzle system 101 against leakage”); and
an O-ring within the O-ring groove (Durack, FIG. 14, [0816], “The stepped downstream end 2067 of the holder 2005 is circular in shape and abuts against the elliptically shaped interior surface 233 of the nozzle 137. Thus, the contact between the interior surface 233 of the nozzle 137 and the baffle holder 2005 is generally limited to two points 2069, as shown in FIG. 13. A pair of O-rings 2071 are positioned around the baffle holder 2005 between the nozzle 137 and the threaded projection 149 of the flow body 133 (FIGS. 11-13) and seal the nozzle system 101 against leakage”).
Regarding Claim 91, Durack discloses Claim 86, and Durack further discloses:
… wherein the outlet fitting further comprises an annular lip surrounding the tapered proximal opening for establishing a gapless interface between the outlet fitting and the distal end of the flow cell (Durack, FIG. 14, [0816], “The stepped downstream end 2067 of the holder 2005 is circular in shape and abuts against the elliptically shaped interior surface 233 of the nozzle 137. Thus, the contact between the interior surface 233 of the nozzle 137 and the baffle holder 2005 is generally limited to two points 2069, as shown in FIG. 13. A pair of O-rings 2071 are positioned around the baffle holder 2005 between the nozzle 137 and the threaded projection 149 of the flow body 133 (FIGS. 11-13) and seal the nozzle system 101 against leakage”).
Regarding Claim 92, Durack discloses Claim 91, and Durack further discloses:
… wherein the annular lip is engaged in a face seal with the flow cell (Durack, FIG. 14, [0816], “The stepped downstream end 2067 of the holder 2005 is circular in shape and abuts against the elliptically shaped interior surface 233 of the nozzle 137. Thus, the contact between the interior surface 233 of the nozzle 137 and the baffle holder 2005 is generally limited to two points 2069, as shown in FIG. 13. A pair of O-rings 2071 are positioned around the baffle holder 2005 between the nozzle 137 and the threaded projection 149 of the flow body 133 (FIGS. 11-13) and seal the nozzle system 101 against leakage”).
Regarding Claim 96, Durack discloses Claim 86, and Durack further discloses:
… further comprising a waste line operably coupled to the outlet fitting (Durack, [1184], “In the event a needle 157′ becomes clogged, the appropriate valve V1 is moved to establish communication with the waste receptacle 1223. Sheath fluid 19′ entering the flow body 133′ will then flow under the force of the vacuum 1225 back through the needle 157′ to waste, thus flushing and clearing the needle. If there is a need to shut off the flow to a particular nozzle, the valves V1 and V2 are simply switched to their waste positions”).
Regarding Claim 97, Durack discloses Claim 86, and Durack further discloses:
… further comprising a vacuum source operably coupled to the waste line (Durack, [1184], “In the event a needle 157′ becomes clogged, the appropriate valve V1 is moved to establish communication with the waste receptacle 1223. Sheath fluid 19′ entering the flow body 133′ will then flow under the force of the vacuum 1225 back through the needle 157′ to waste, thus flushing and clearing the needle. If there is a need to shut off the flow to a particular nozzle, the valves V1 and V2 are simply switched to their waste positions”).
Regarding Claim 101, Durack discloses 86, and Durack further discloses:
… wherein the flow cytometer comprises a plurality of detectors (Durack, FIG. 25, [0829], photoarray 395).
Regarding Claim 102, Durack discloses:
A method of analyzing a sample, the method comprising:
(a) introducing a sample into a flow cytometer (Durack, FIGS. 2-3, [0795], flow cytometry system 1) comprising:
(i) a flow cell (Durack, FIG. 2-5, [0796], nozzle system 101) comprising a flow channel (Durack, FIGS. 4-5, [0799], annular space 167) comprising an inlet and an outlet (Durack, FIG. 2, [0801], “As in conventional flow cytometry systems, sheath fluid 19 is introduced into the annular space 167 surrounding the conduit 157. The velocity of the sheath fluid 19 as it flows past the tip of the conduit 157 is much higher that the velocity of the carrier fluid 17 exiting the conduit 157, so that the carrier fluid 17 and cells (e.g., sperm cells) contained therein are accelerated by the sheath fluid 19 toward the orifice 103 of the nozzle 137”); and
(i) an outlet fitting comprising a waste channel (Durack, [1184], “In the event a needle 157′ becomes clogged, the appropriate valve V1 is moved to establish communication with the waste receptacle 1223. Sheath fluid 19′ entering the flow body 133′ will then flow under the force of the vacuum 1225 back through the needle 157′ to waste, thus flushing and clearing the needle. If there is a need to shut off the flow to a particular nozzle, the valves V1 and V2 are simply switched to their waste positions”) having:
a tapered proximal opening fluidically coupled to the outlet of the flow channel (Durack, FIGS. 8-9, [0806], “the interior 231 of the nozzle body 139 downstream from the counterbore 145 has an interior surface 233 comprising first, second and third axially tapered regions 235, 237, 239 for progressively accelerating the speed of the fluid stream 21 in a downstream direction toward the nozzle orifice 103”);
an O-ring groove surrounding the proximal opening (Durack, FIG. 14, [0816], “The stepped downstream end 2067 of the holder 2005 is circular in shape and abuts against the elliptically shaped interior surface 233 of the nozzle 137. Thus, the contact between the interior surface 233 of the nozzle 137 and the baffle holder 2005 is generally limited to two points 2069, as shown in FIG. 13. A pair of O-rings 2071 are positioned around the baffle holder 2005 between the nozzle 137 and the threaded projection 149 of the flow body 133 (FIGS. 11-13) and seal the nozzle system 101 against leakage”); and
an O-ring within the O-ring groove (Durack, FIG. 14, [0816], “The stepped downstream end 2067 of the holder 2005 is circular in shape and abuts against the elliptically shaped interior surface 233 of the nozzle 137. Thus, the contact between the interior surface 233 of the nozzle 137 and the baffle holder 2005 is generally limited to two points 2069, as shown in FIG. 13. A pair of O-rings 2071 are positioned around the baffle holder 2005 between the nozzle 137 and the threaded projection 149 of the flow body 133 (FIGS. 11-13) and seal the nozzle system 101 against leakage”); and
flow cytometrically analyzing the sample (Durack, FIG. 1, [0761], “At step 47A the staining protocol that will be used for processing is selected by using various staining protocols to stain aliquots of the sample and then analyzing the sortability of each aliquot to identify a desired staining protocol for that particular sample”).
Regarding Claim 104, Durack discloses Claim 102,
… wherein the flow cell further comprises a waste line operably coupled to the outlet fitting (Durack, [1184], “In the event a needle 157′ becomes clogged, the appropriate valve V1 is moved to establish communication with the waste receptacle 1223. Sheath fluid 19′ entering the flow body 133′ will then flow under the force of the vacuum 1225 back through the needle 157′ to waste, thus flushing and clearing the needle. If there is a need to shut off the flow to a particular nozzle, the valves V1 and V2 are simply switched to their waste positions”).
Regarding Claim 105, Durack discloses Claim 102,
… wherein the flow cell further comprises a vacuum source operably coupled to the waste line (Durack, [1184], “In the event a needle 157′ becomes clogged, the appropriate valve V1 is moved to establish communication with the waste receptacle 1223. Sheath fluid 19′ entering the flow body 133′ will then flow under the force of the vacuum 1225 back through the needle 157′ to waste, thus flushing and clearing the needle. If there is a need to shut off the flow to a particular nozzle, the valves V1 and V2 are simply switched to their waste positions”).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 87-90, 93-94, 100, and 103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durack (US20190040356A1).
Regarding Claim 87, Durack discloses Claim 86, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the tapered proximal opening has a taper angle ranging from 1° to 60°.
However, the as-filed specification notes that:
P12, L9: The opening may have any convenient taper angle.
P12, L12: Any suitable taper angle may be employed, such as where the taper angle ranges from 1° to 60°, including 1° to 20°. (Examiner notes that a taper angle may only range from 1° to 90°)
Examiner cannot find any discussion as to the importance of these measurements. Applicant does not elaborate on why these measurements are critical to, assist, or cause the claimed invention to operate. The stated goal of the claimed invention is to reduce bubbles at the interface with a flow cell, but no discussion is made as to why an angle range of 1° to 60° is preferable for the stated goal. The as-filed application plainly states that “[a]ny suitable taper angle may be employed,” and names a range. The only discussion is that it can be that range, nothing more.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing in light of the combination of Durack and through routine optimization to try various taper angles of outlet fittings with depending the flow cytometer, flow cell, and sample being used. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding Claim 88, Durack discloses Claim 87, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the tapered proximal opening has a taper angle ranging from 1° to 20°.
However, the as-filed specification notes that:
P12, L9: The opening may have any convenient taper angle.
P12, L12: Any suitable taper angle may be employed, such as where the taper angle ranges from 1° to 60°, including 1° to 20°. (Examiner notes that a taper angle may only range from 1° to 90°)
Examiner cannot find any discussion as to the importance of these measurements. Applicant does not elaborate on why these measurements are critical to, assist, or cause the claimed invention to operate. The stated goal of the claimed invention is to reduce bubbles at the interface with a flow cell, but no discussion is made as to why an angle range of 1° to 20° is preferable for the stated goal. The as-filed application plainly states that “[a]ny suitable taper angle may be employed,” and names a range. The only discussion is that it can be that range, nothing more.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing in light of the combination of Durack and through routine optimization to try various taper angles of outlet fittings with depending the flow cytometer, flow cell, and sample being used. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding Claim 89, Durack discloses Claim 86, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the tapered proximal opening has a diameter ranging from 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm.
However, the as-filed specification notes that:
P4, L16-17: The opening may have any suitable diameter. Diameters of interest range from 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm, such as 0.5 mm to 0.7 mm.
P9, L17-19: The opening, may have any suitable diameter, such as where the diameter ranges from 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm, such as 0.5 mm to 2 mm, and including 0.5 mm to 0.7 mm. In some cases, the opening has a diameter of 0.61 mm.
Examiner cannot find any discussion as to the importance of these measurements. Applicant does not elaborate on why these measurements are critical to, assist, or cause the claimed invention to operate. The stated goal of the claimed invention is to reduce bubbles at the interface with a flow cell, but no discussion is made as to why an opening with a diameter ranging from 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm is preferable for the stated goal. The as-filed application plainly states that “[t]he opening may have any suitable diameter,” and names a range. The only discussion is that it can be that range, nothing more.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing in light of the combination of Durack and through routine optimization to try various opening sizes of outlet fittings with depending the flow cytometer, flow cell, and sample being used. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding Claim 90, Durack discloses 89, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the tapered proximal opening has a diameter ranging from 0.5 mm to 0.7 mm.
However, the as-filed specification notes that:
P4, L16-17: The opening may have any suitable diameter. Diameters of interest range from 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm, such as 0.5 mm to 0.7 mm.
P9, L17-19: The opening, may have any suitable diameter, such as where the diameter ranges from 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm, such as 0.5 mm to 2 mm, and including 0.5 mm to 0.7 mm. In some cases, the opening has a diameter of 0.61 mm.
Examiner cannot find any discussion as to the importance of these measurements. Applicant does not elaborate on why these measurements are critical to, assist, or cause the claimed invention to operate. The stated goal of the claimed invention is to reduce bubbles at the interface with a flow cell, but no discussion is made as to why an opening with a diameter ranging from 0.5 mm to 0.7 mm is preferable for the stated goal. The as-filed application plainly states that “[t]he opening may have any suitable diameter,” and names a range. The only discussion is that it can be that range, nothing more.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing in light of the combination of Durack and through routine optimization to try various opening sizes of outlet fittings with depending the flow cytometer, flow cell, and sample being used. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding Claim 93, Durack discloses Claim 91, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the annular lip has a diameter ranging from 1.5 mm to 2.5 mm.
However, the as-filed specification notes that:
P4, L11-13: Embodiments of the annular lip are configured to engage in a face seal with the flow cell, and have a diameter ranging from 1.5 mm to 2.5 mm, such as 1.6 mm to 2 mm.
P10, L28-30: The outer diameter of the annular lip, on the other hand, may range in embodiments from 1 mm to 3 mm, such as 1.5 mm to 2.5 mm, and including 1.6 to 2 mm.
Examiner cannot find any discussion as to the importance of these measurements. Applicant does not elaborate on why these measurements are critical to, assist, or cause the claimed invention to operate. The stated goal of the claimed invention is to reduce bubbles at the interface with a flow cell, but no discussion is made as to why a range of 1.5 mm to 2.5 mm is preferable for the stated goal. The only discussion is that it can be that size, nothing more
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing in light of the combination of Durack and through routine optimization to try various sizes of outlet fittings with annular lips depending the flow cytometer, flow cell, and sample being used. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding Claim 94, Durack discloses Claim 93, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the annular lip has a diameter ranging from 1.6 mm to 2 mm.
However, the as-filed specification notes that:
P4, L11-13: Embodiments of the annular lip are configured to engage in a face seal with the flow cell, and have a diameter ranging from 1.5 mm to 2.5 mm, such as 1.6 mm to 2 mm.
P10, L28-30: The outer diameter of the annular lip, on the other hand, may range in embodiments from 1 mm to 3 mm, such as 1.5 mm to 2.5 mm, and including 1.6 to 2 mm.
Examiner cannot find any discussion as to the importance of these measurements. Applicant does not elaborate on why these measurements are critical to, assist, or cause the claimed invention to operate. The stated goal of the claimed invention is to reduce bubbles at the interface with a flow cell, but no discussion is made as to why a range of 1.6 mm to 2 mm is preferable for the stated goal. The only discussion is that it can be that size, nothing more
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing in light of the combination of Durack and through routine optimization to try various sizes of outlet fittings with annular lips depending the flow cytometer, flow cell, and sample being used. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding Claim 100, Durack discloses Claim 86, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the flow cytometer comprises a plurality of light sources.
However, pursuant to MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B): Duplication of Parts:
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Examiner understands these additional light sources as being a mere duplication of parts. Thus, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durack with additional light sources for analysis. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of light sources as disclosed by Durack and how to add additional light sources to modify Durack. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as Duplication of Parts.
Regarding Claim 103, Durack discloses Claim 102, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the tapered proximal opening has a taper angle ranging from 1° to 60°.
However, the as-filed specification notes that:
P12, L9: The opening may have any convenient taper angle.
P12, L12: Any suitable taper angle may be employed, such as where the taper angle ranges from 1° to 60°, including 1° to 20°. (Examiner notes that a taper angle may only range from 1° to 90°)
Examiner cannot find any discussion as to the importance of these measurements. Applicant does not elaborate on why these measurements are critical to, assist, or cause the claimed invention to operate. The stated goal of the claimed invention is to reduce bubbles at the interface with a flow cell, but no discussion is made as to why an angle range of 1° to 60° is preferable for the stated goal. The as-filed application plainly states that “[a]ny suitable taper angle may be employed,” and names a range. The only discussion is that it can be that range, nothing more.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing in light of the combination of Durack and through routine optimization to try various taper angles of outlet fittings with depending the flow cytometer, flow cell, and sample being used. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; and In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 95 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durack (US20190040356A1) in view of Norton (US20040062685A1).
Regarding Claim 95, Durack discloses Claim 86, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the flow cell comprises a cuvette.
However, Norton, in a similar field of endeavor (Fixed mounted sorting cuvette with user replaceable nozzle), discloses:
… wherein the flow cell comprises a cuvette (Norton, FIG. 7, [0071], cuvette 210,, [0054], “The channel may extend through a cuvette. The cuvette may have sidewalls that extend below the area of the nozzle, allowing a wider angle to collect emitted light”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durack with the cuvette of Norton. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of cuvettes as disclosed by Norton and how to use them to modify DURACK. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a cuvette for standard interfacing and measurements, depending on the flow cytometer used.
Claims 98-99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durack (US20190040356A1) in view of Fedorov (US20210199543A1).
Regarding Claim 98, Durack discloses Claim 86, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the outlet fitting is comprised of a polymeric material.
However, Fedorov, in a similar field of endeavor (Analysis system and methods of use thereof), discloses:
… an outlet fitting comprised of a polymeric material (Fedorov, [0082], “interfaced with an inlet capillary made from PEEK.” Examiner notes that PEEK, or polyether ether ketone, is a polymeric material).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durack with the known materials of Fedorov. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of such materials as disclosed by Fedorov and how to use them to modify Durack. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of known materials to create an out an outlet fitting as needed by the user.
Regarding Claim 99, Durack discloses Claim 86, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the outlet fitting is comprised of polyether ether ketone (PEEK).
However, Fedorov, in a similar field of endeavor (Analysis system and methods of use thereof), discloses:
… wherein the outlet fitting is comprised of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) (Fedorov, [0082], “interfaced with an inlet capillary made from PEEK”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Durack with the known materials of Fedorov. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of such materials as disclosed by Fedorov and how to use them to modify Durack. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B)), specifically the use of known materials to create an out an outlet fitting as needed by the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights