Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/29/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 10/29/2025 has been entered and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oostman, JR. et al. (2003/0048539 A1, Applicant cited reference) in view of Sorin et al. (WO2013032474, using Published asUS2014/0219606 A1) and/or He et al. (7,212,343 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Oostman discloses a flow cytometer included in analytical instruments for light analysis (figs. 1-15) comprising:
a flow cell flow cell 41/flow stream 78/103/flow channel 109 configured to permit liquid to flow through the flow cell;
one or more lasers laser 11/ lasers 52 and 54, each of the laser(s) configured to project light into the flow cell, as can be seen in depicted drawing (i.e. figs. 1, 3 and 4); and
a plurality of wavelength division multiplexers (WDMs) is/are plurality of dichroic mirror and/or combination of dichroic mirrors 25-44, wherein each of the WDMs is configured to receive a portion of light (28) from the flow cell and comprises:
each of the combination of dichroic mirrors 25-44 make-up a plurality of filters (dichroic mirror(s) is also an optical filter that reflects some wavelengths (colors) of light and transmits others), inherently wherein each of the filters is configured to receive light such that: a portion of light passes through the filter; and another portion of light is reflected by the filter [pars. 0029-33] (Oostman, claims 1-2 and 8);
Oostman discloses a plurality of photodetector(s) a respective detector cluster 124, 126, 128 and 130 which houses an array of detectors) is configured to receive light that passed through a filter of the plurality of filters that make-up dichroic mirror(s) integrated as a single unit [pars. 0029-33] (Oostman, claims 1-2 and 8).
Oostman fail to explicitly specify the type of the photodetector as being avalanche photodiodes (APDs), wherein each of the APDs is configured to receive light that passed through a filter of the plurality of filters.
However, even though Oostman fail to disclose the type of photodetector used in the system as being avalanche photodiodes (APDs), since he does not limit the photodetector to be used, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose any suitable photodetector for the intended application, since avalanche photodiodes (APDs) is photodetector, and the propose modification of the prior art would not change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the recited type of photodetector in view of the feature is merely a variation in design and the results would have been predictable. Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose any suitable photodetector for the intended application, such as, in the manner set forth in applicant's claim(s), since avalanche photodiodes (APDs) is a photodetector, and it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
Furthermore, Oostman fail to explicitly specify the bending mirror(s) constructional/structural change(s) is/are included in the multiplexer(s) (WDMs), such as, one or more mirrors, wherein: each of the one or more mirrors comprises at least one reflective surface; at least one of the reflective surface(s) of the one or more mirrors is concave; and the reflective surface(s) of the one or more mirrors are configured to: receive light reflected by a filter of the plurality of filters; and reflect light to another filter of the plurality of filters.
Sorin and/or He from the same field of endeavor teaches of constructional/structural changes such as claimed by Applicant’s claim(s) 1 is known in the art in order to recollimated the beam as travels through the splitter(s)/filter(s) and/or in order to compensate the filter tilting errors and in order to minimize errors and corrected immediately tilting errors. Sorin teaches of a WDM demultiplexer, and/or partially reflective, comprises/comprising collimating mirrors 448 are curved reflecting mirrors (i.e. concave) to re-collimate the beam as travels through the splitter 430. The collimating mirrors 448 may compensate for beam divergence, e.g., caused by diffraction Sorin (Sorin, [par. 0043] (fig. 4)) and/or He teaches of compact multiplexer WDM comprises/comprising a/one concave mirror 316 that reflects the beam to the next filter for further demultiplexing till all remaining wavelengths are respectively coupled out, the concave mirror 316 is to compensate the tilting error propagation commonly seen in the prior art modules, for example, in FIG. 3 and 7 (fig. 7: 702) He, (He, col. 5, lines 2-24; and lines 62-col. 6, lines 7) in order to compensate the filter tilting errors and in order to minimize errors and corrected immediately tilting errors, in other words, positional and angular errors generated by any prior filter tilting are completely compensated for all following channels through the oblate spheroid concave mirror array, as per teachings of He.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Oostman with the constructional/structural change(s) above, in the manner set forth in applicant's claim 1, in view of the teaching(s) of Sorin and/or He in order to re-collimate the beam as travels through the splitter/filter as the concave mirror(s) compensate for beam divergence, e.g., caused by diffraction, as per teachings of Sorin and/or in order to compensate the filter tilting errors and in order to minimize errors and corrected immediately the tilting errors, in other words, positional and angular errors generated by any prior filter tilting are completely compensated for all following channels through the oblate spheroid concave mirror array, as per teachings of He.
As to claims 2-5, Oostman when modified by Sorin and/or He, the combination also discloses a structure that is use in a flow cytometer/system comprising plurality dichroic mirrors 25-44 [pars. 0029-33] (Oostman, claims 1-2 and 8), dichroic mirror(s) that part of inherent function is beam splitting and is an optical filter that reflects some wavelengths (colors) of light and transmits others, the system is/are implementing limitations such as; wherein the one or more mirrors comprise a plurality of reflective surfaces (claim 2); wherein more than one of the plurality of reflective surfaces is concave curved reflecting mirrors (Sorin, (fig. 4:448) [par. 0043]) and/or (He, fig. 3 and 7: 316 and 702))(claim 3); wherein each of the WDMs is configured such that a portion of a light path between the plurality of reflective surfaces of the one or more mirrors and the plurality of filters forms a zig-zag pattern, as can be seen in depicted drawing (figs. 5-6) [pars. 0031-33] (claim 4); and
plurality dichroic mirrors 25-44 [pars. 0029-33] (Oostman, claims 1-2 and 8), dichroic mirror(s) that part of inherent function is beam splitting and is an optical filter that reflects some wavelengths (colors) of light and transmits others a splitter, wherein: the plurality of WDMs the plurality dichroic mirrors include a first WDM and a second WDM; and the splitter is configured to: perform inherent function of receive light from the flow cell; direct a first portion of the light received from the flow cell to the first WDM within the plurality dichroic mirrors 25-44; and direct a second portion of the light received from the flow cell to the second WDM within the plurality dichroic mirrors 25-44 (claim 5).
As to claims 6-14, Oostman when modified by Sorin and/or He, the combination also discloses a structure that is use in a flow cytometer/system comprising plurality dichroic mirrors 25-44 [pars. 0029-33] (Oostman, claims 1-2 and 8), dichroic mirror(s) that part of inherent function is beam splitting and is an optical filter that reflects some wavelengths (colors) of light and transmits others, configured to operate in a wavelength range at least from 400 mm to 700 mm (the entire visible light range) [par. 0042] and further comprise a plurality of focusing lenses, wherein each of the focusing lenses is configured to focus light that passed through a filter of the plurality of filters to a spot [pars. 0040, 0043, (claim 16)], as applied to claim 1.
Oostman fail to explicitly specify the constructional/structural changes of; the one or more mirrors comprise at least five reflective surfaces; and the plurality of filters comprises at least six filters (claim 6); wherein the plurality of WDMs comprise at least 24 APDs (claim 7); wherein the plurality of WDMs comprise at least 48 APDs (claim 8); wherein the plurality of WDMs comprise at least 64 APDs (claim 9); wherein at least one WDM of the plurality of WDMs is configured to detect a substantially full spectrum of visible light (claim 10); wherein the plurality of WDMs are collectively configured to detect a substantially full spectrum of visible light (claim 11); wherein at least one WDM of the plurality of WDMs is configured to detect substantially every wavelength of light between 380 nm and 780 nm (claim 12); wherein the first WDM and the second WDM: each further comprise: an additional filter configured to receive light reflected by a filter of the plurality of filters such that a portion of light passes through the additional filter; and an additional APD configured to receive light that passed through the additional filter; and each are configured such that substantially all the light that the WDM is configured to receive is received by the plurality of APDs and the additional APD (claim 13); and wherein the first WDM and the second WDM each further comprise a plurality of focusing lenses, wherein each of the focusing lenses is configured to focus light that passed through a filter of the plurality of filters to a spot on an APD of the plurality of APDs, wherein the spot has a diameter that is less than 1 mm (claim 14).
However, even though, Oostman fail to teach the constructional changes in the system of the claim 1, as that claimed by Applicant’s claims 6-14, the constructional changes are considered obvious design variation, alternatives and/or duplication of parts that is within the ordinary skill of one in the art to choose any suitable combination(s) for the intended application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the recited constructional changes as desired appropriate, such as, in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 6-14, in view of the feature is merely a variation, alternatives and/or duplication of part(s) in design, and the results would have been predictable, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954), and it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
As to claims 15, Oostman when modified by Sorin and/or He, the combination also discloses a structure that is use in a flow cytometer/system comprising a light source laser 11/ lasers 52 and 54 arranged to illuminate a stream of particles 43/flow cell 78 in a viewing zone as can be seen in depicted drawing (i.e. figs. 1, 3 and 4), lasers configured to emit multiple wavelength [pars. 0002, 0009]
Oostman fail to explicitly specify the constructional/structural changes of the laser(s) being configured in certain way; such as, wherein at least one of the laser(s) is configured to emit ultraviolet light or violet light (claim 15); wherein the one or more lasers comprise a plurality of lasers, each of the lasers configured to emit a wavelength of light that is different than the wavelength of light that each other of the lasers is configured to emit (claim 16); wherein each of the lasers is configured to project light into the flow cell at a respective one of a plurality of spatially separated locations in the flow cell (claim 17); and comprising a set of one or more optical elements that are each configured to reflect light emitted by a respective one of the lasers toward the flow cell (claim 18).
However, even though Oostman fails to teach the exact configuration used in the system such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 15-18, the constructional/structural changes are considered obvious design variation, alternatives that is within the ordinary skill of one in the art to choose any suitable combination(s) for the intended application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the recited constructional changes as desired appropriate, such as, in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 15-18, in view of the feature is merely a variation, and alternatives in design, and the results would have been predictable, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954), and it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
As to claims 19-22, Oostman when modified by Sorin and/or He, the combination also discloses a structure that is use in a flow cytometer/system comprising fluorescent light stimulated by the different sources is imaged into a plurality of optical fibers [pars. 0009-11 and 0028-29], each lens 265 is movable for adjusting the focal spot [pars. 0033, 0037 and 0041], the system is/are implementing limitations such as;
a plurality of multimode optical fibers optical fibers 123, 125, 127 and 129 [par. 0028], wherein each of the multimode optical fibers is configured to: receive light from a respective one of the spatially separated locations in the flow cell; and direct the light received from a respective one of the spatially separated locations in the flow cell to one of the plurality of WDMs (claim 19);
wherein each of the WDMs plurality of dichroic mirror and/or combination of dichroic mirrors 25-44 further comprises a plurality of focusing lenses, wherein each of the focusing lenses is configured to focus light that passed through a filter of the plurality of the filters to a spot on photodetectors (i.e. an APD) of the plurality of APDs, the spot having a diameter that is less than 1 mm (claim 20); using a plurality of lasers of different colors (see abstract) [par. 0009] includes one of the lasers is configured to emit ultraviolet light; one of the lasers is configured to emit violet light; one of the lasers is configured to emit blue light; and/or one of the lasers is configured to emit yellow-green light (claim 21); and wherein: using a plurality of lasers of different colors (see abstract) [par. 0009] includes one of the lasers is configured to emit red light; one of the lasers is configured to emit blue light; and one of the lasers is configured to emit violet light (claim 22).
As to claims 23-30, Oostman when modified by Sorin and/or He, the combination also discloses a structure that is use in a flow cytometer/system comprising plurality dichroic mirrors 25-44 [pars. 0029-33] (Oostman, claims 1-2 and 8), dichroic mirror(s) that part of inherent function is beam splitting and is an optical filter that reflects some wavelengths (colors) of light and transmits others, configured to operate in a wavelength range at least from 400 mm to 700 mm (the entire visible light range) [par. 0042] and further comprise a plurality of focusing lenses, wherein each of the focusing lenses is configured to focus light that passed through a filter of the plurality of filters to a spot [pars. 0040, 0043, (claim 16)], fluorescent light stimulated by the different sources is imaged into a plurality of optical fibers [pars. 0009-11 and 0028-29], each lens 265 is movable for adjusting the focal spot [pars. 0033, 0037 and 0041], using a plurality of lasers of different colors (see abstract) [par. 0009], as applied to claim 1.
Oostman fail to explicitly specify the constructional/structural changes of; wherein the plurality of WDMs comprise at least 24 APDs (claim 23); wherein at least one of the lasers is configured to emit yellow-green light (claim 24); wherein the plurality of WDMs comprise at least 48 APDs (claim 25); wherein at least one of the lasers is configured to emit ultraviolet light (claim 26); wherein the plurality of WDMs comprise at least 64 APDs (claim 27); wherein at least one WDM of the plurality of WDMs is configured to detect a substantially full spectrum of visible light (claim 28); wherein: each of the WDMs further comprises: an additional filter configured to receive light reflected by a filter of the plurality of filters such that a portion of light passes through the additional filter; and an additional APD configured to receive light that passed through the additional filter; and each of the WDMs is configured such that substantially all the light that the WDM is configured to receive is received by the plurality of APDs and the additional APD (claim 29); and wherein for each of the first WDM and the second WDM: the WDM comprises a block comprising a first surface and each of the filters of the WDM is coupled to the first surface of the block; the one or more mirrors comprise at least five reflective surfaces; and the plurality of filters comprise at least six filters (claim 30).
However, even though, Oostman fail to teach the constructional changes in the system of the claim 1, as that claimed by Applicant’s claims 23-30, the constructional changes are considered obvious design variation, alternatives and/or duplication of parts that is within the ordinary skill of one in the art to choose any suitable combination(s) for the intended application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the recited constructional changes as desired appropriate, such as, in the manner set forth in applicant's claims 23-30, in view of the feature is merely a variation, alternatives and/or duplication of part(s) in design, and the results would have been predictable, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954), and it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed in the attached form PTO-892 teach of other prior art flow cytometer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877