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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 11-18 in the reply filed on 10/22/24 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that any prior art searched for Invention II would be applicable to Invention I and III. This is not found persuasive because each grouping requires a specific and unique text search and consideration that is not fully applicable to other group. For example, in considering Group II and III, none of the inventive concept (laser alignment within certain tolerance) of Group III has been mentioned in any of the claims of Group II. In consideration of Group I and II, though claims share some overlapping inventive concepts (diverter mechanism, first liquid level sensor, and a second position sensor), the method in Group II does not require the specific cell cytometer in Group I for its practice. As such a search and consideration burden exists for considering all groupings in the current application.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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(s) 16 is/are 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 16, the claim recites “the second sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as “a second sensor” is first recited in claim 15 instead of claim 13 as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Norton (US 20040025602 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Norton discloses a method of collecting a sorted sample (It is an object of the present invention to provide a flow cytometer sort block that provides a means for detecting system error and collecting the entire flow stream, para. [0015]), the method comprising:
flowing the sorted sample in a modular flow cytometry system (particle sort block, Fig. 2; The particles flow through the sort block in a stream. Para. [0023]);
diverting the flow of the sorted sample (The particles are collected into a container and may be subsequently resorted. By extending the actuator and moving the collection baskets into the stream of the deflected particles, the particles already collected into collection containers remain uncontaminated. Para. [0025]; containers 32, Fig. 2A) to a path of sample collection (direction to collection container, para. [0025]) or to a path of waste collection (direction to collection basket, para. [0025]; baskets 150 and 152 Fig. 4); and
dispensing the sorted sample into a sample collection vessel when the flow of the sorted sample is diverted to the path of sample collection (…an open chamber bottom through which droplets leave the chamber and flow into collection containers; claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Norton discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 11. Norton discloses the flow of sorted sample is diverted by a diverter mechanism (arm 142, Fig. 4; When an error is detected the actuator is activated and extends an arm attached to the particle collector such that both the fin and the baskets are positioned in the sort stream. Para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 18, Norton discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 11. Norton discloses the method further comprises determining or detecting if the sorted sample comprises undesirable qualities or elements (if the droplet flow pattern suddenly charges. Para. [0039]), wherein if the sorted sample has undesirable qualities or elements, then the flow of the sorted sample is diverted into the path of waste collection (If a system sensor indicates an error (e.g. error detection by camera 128, electronics monitoring, pressure monitoring, computer system error, manual determination etc.) the collection basket is extended to collect all droplets and liquid in the sort block and prevent this liquid from passing through opening 70 into collection containers. Para. [0051]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton in view of Otani (JPH07113739A).
Regarding claim 12, Norton discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 11. Norton discloses diverting the flow of sorted sample from the path of sample collection to the path of waste collection (the collection basket is extended to collect all droplets and liquid in the sort block and prevent this liquid from passing through opening 70 into collection containers, para. [0051]) when a sensor (system sensor, para. [0051]) detects an error. Norton does not disclose the sensor is configured to detect a fluid level of the sorted sample in the sample collection vessel and makes the diversion when the detected fluid level in the sample collection vessel reaches a desired fluid level.
incorporating an overflow prevention/diversion mechanism in the event a container reaches a desired fluid threshold is a common knowledge in the art. In an analogous art, Otani discloses fluid level sensing mechanism (sensor means 71 in a particle counter, Fig. 1) configured to detect a fluid level of sample in the sample collection vessel (para. [0009]) and stop flow and count when a threshold is reached (The counting of particles contained in the test solution was stopped when the reference position was reached. Para. [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have either reconfigured the sensor of Norton or incorporate another sensor as taught by Otani configured to measure and detect fluid level in collection container of the device to derive the claimed invention. Doing so prevents overflowing liquid or particles in a container beyond the set threshold (The counting of particles contained in the test solution was stopped when the reference position was reached. Para. [0009]).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Norton discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 12. Norton discloses two sample collection vessels (collection containers 32, Fig. 2A; para. [0041]). For similar reasoning as discussed above in claim 12, incorporating an overflow prevention/diversion mechanism in the event a container reaches a desired fluid thresholdis a common knowledge in the art. Otani discloses fluid level sensing mechanism (sensor means 71 in a particle counter, Fig. 1) configured to detect a fluid level of sample in the sample collection vessel (para. [0009]) and stop flow and count when a threshold is reached (The counting of particles contained in the test solution was stopped when the reference position was reached. Para. [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have either reconfigured the sensor of Norton or incorporate another sensor as taught by Otani configured to measure and detect fluid level in one collection container of the device and configure the system to move the dispensing to another collection container when the threshold in the first container is reached. Doing so prevents overflowing liquid or particles in collection container beyond the set threshold (The counting of particles contained in the test solution was stopped when the reference position was reached. Para. [0009]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton in view of Otani as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wynne (US 20200001525 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Norton discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 12. Neither Norton nor Otani explicitly disclose the first sensor is infrared or capacitive sensor. Otani discloses the sensor can be optical or ultrasonic sensor for detecting liquid level (para. [0041]). In an analogous art, Wynne discloses a capacitive sensor, optical, and ultrasonic sensor are typically used for measuring either the fluid/liquid level in a container (Some non-limiting examples of sensors (or sensor systems) capable of measuring either the fluid/liquid level of the resin are optical sensors (e.g., using LEDs, lasers or imaging systems), ultrasonic sensors, float-type sensors, and capacitive sensors. Para. [0093]).
As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized capacitive sensor of Wynne as an alternative to the optical and ultrasonic sensor of Otani for detecting fluid/liquid level with a reasonable expectation of success as both Wynne and Otani discloses fluid level can be measured with optical and ultrasonic, with Wynne discloses the capacitive sensor has its distinctive advantage of sensing by measuring increase or decrease in dielectric strength of liquid in container (Wynne, para. [0211]).
Claim(s) 15is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton in view of Otani as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nova (US 6136274 A).
Regarding claims 15-16, Modified Norton discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 12. Norton discloses the collection containers are positioned in a slot (container retention well 34, Fig. 2A; para. [0041]) for retaining the containers (Fig. 2A). Furthermore, Norton discloses a sensor for detecting error (para. [0024] and [0051]) and diverting the flow of sample to the path of waste collection (If a system sensor indicates an error (e.g. error detection by camera 128, electronics monitoring, pressure monitoring, computer system error, manual determination etc.) the collection basket is extended to collect all droplets and liquid in the sort block… para. [0051]). However, neither Norton nor Otani discloses the error is absence of the sample collection vessel (a.k.a. detecting a presence of the sample collection vessel), wherein the sensor is a hall effect sensor.
In an analogous art, Nova discloses an automated drug discovery unit comprising a system determining the presence of a microvessels (supply tube 7016, Fig. 46) in slot (7050, Fig. 46) using optical sensors via detector holes (7056 and 7057, Fig. 46), wherein if sensor does not detect any microvessel in the slot, the sensor will not send signal for proceeding (If there are no devices in the supply tube 7016, the sensors located near the higher portion of the hub would sense the absence of a microvessel in the slot 7050, and the hub would not receive a rotate signal. Col. 64, lines 53-64). Furthermore, Nova discloses that an alternative for the optical sensor used in this application could be hall-effect sensor (7144, Fig. 47) for detecting the presence of a device or container (In addition to the optical sensors, a number of other types of sensors could be used. For example, a Hall-effect sensor 7144 can be used to detect the presence of a device or container. Col. 67, lines 52-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated a hall-effect sensor such as the one taught by Nova near slot/container retention well of Norton’s device to derive the claimed invention. Doing so prevents the device from proceeding when the prerequisite container is absent (Nova, col. 64, lines 53-64).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton in view of Otani and Wynne as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Nova.
Regarding claim 13, Modified Norton discloses the claimed invention as discussed above in claim 13. Norton discloses the collection containers are positioned in a slot (container retention well 34, Fig. 2A; para. [0041]) for retaining the containers (Fig. 2A). Furthermore, Norton discloses a sensor for detecting error (para. [0024] and [0051]) and diverting the flow of sample to the path of waste collection (If a system sensor indicates an error (e.g. error detection by camera 128, electronics monitoring, pressure monitoring, computer system error, manual determination etc.) the collection basket is extended to collect all droplets and liquid in the sort block… para. [0051]). However, neither Norton, Wynne, nor Otani discloses the error is absence of the sample collection vessel (a.k.a. detecting a presence of the sample collection vessel), wherein the sensor is a hall effect sensor.
In an analogous art, Nova discloses an automated drug discovery unit comprising a system determining the presence of a microvessels (supply tube 7016, Fig. 46) in slot (7050, Fig. 46) using optical sensors via detector holes (7056 and 7057, Fig. 46), wherein if sensor does not detect any microvessel in the slot, the sensor will not send signal for proceeding (If there are no devices in the supply tube 7016, the sensors located near the higher portion of the hub would sense the absence of a microvessel in the slot 7050, and the hub would not receive a rotate signal. Col. 64, lines 53-64). Furthermore, Nova discloses that an alternative for the optical sensor used in this application could be hall-effect sensor (7144, Fig. 47) for detecting the presence of a device or container (In addition to the optical sensors, a number of other types of sensors could be used. For example, a Hall-effect sensor 7144 can be used to detect the presence of a device or container. Col. 67, lines 52-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated a hall-effect sensor such as the one taught by Nova near slot/container retention well of Norton’s device to derive the claimed invention. Doing so prevents the device from proceeding when the prerequisite container is absent (Nova, col. 64, lines 53-64).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICKEY HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30 PM ET.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 5712707698. 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.
/M.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights