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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 recites “light redirecting device” should be -light redirection device--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, 27, 32, 46, and 47 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, 46, and 47, lines 7-8, 2, 8-10, and 4-5, respectively, the claim state the limitation ‘about’ is indefinite. The limitation makes it unclear what the metes and bounds of claim in regards to what ‘about’ encompass.
Claims 5, 6, and 9 recites the limitation "the plurality of focal planes" in line 1, 1, and 1, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the secondary light propagating direction" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the side spatial filter" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-16, 32, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo et al (US Pub 2022/0011216 A1) in view of Masaeli et al (US Pub 2021/0405022 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lo discloses a system for sorting a particle in a sample comprising: a) a flow cell configured to allow the particle to move in a flow path in a flow direction (paragraph 0009); b) a sorting module fluidly connected to the flow cell (paragraph 0009); c) an illumination module (elements 210 and 220) comprising a light redirection device configured to diffract or scan a light beam in a scanning direction (element 229), wherein the scanning direction is about perpendicular to the flow direction, and wherein the light beam is propagated in a light propagating direction about orthogonal to a plane comprising the flow direction and the light beam diffraction or scan direction (paragraphs 0048-0050); d) a detection module (paragraphs 0054-0055) comprising at least one spatial filter, the at least one spatial filter comprising a forward spatial filter and the at least one spatial filter comprises: i. a front surface (see Fig. 2A; element 224); ii. a plurality of apertures (see Fig. 2B), the plurality of apertures arranged in a line comprising an angle with the flow direction, wherein the detection module is configured to generate a time-dependent signal (paragraph 0055) upon detection of the particle within the flow path, wherein the time-dependent signal correlates to a particle feature of the particle; and a data processing module (paragraph 0009), but Lo does not disclose e) a data processing module configured to generate a gating signal using the time- dependent signal, and wherein the sorting module is configured to receive the gating signal and sort the particle in response to the gating signal. Masaeli teaches e) a data processing module configured to generate a gating signal using the time- dependent signal (paragraph 0017; predicting a timing), and wherein the sorting module is configured to receive the gating signal and sort the particle in response to the gating signal (paragraph 0017; modifying a cell analysis actuation signal for the valves based on the timing) for the purpose of modifying the sorting timing at the sorting junction (paragraph 0017). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lo, as taught by Masaeli, for the purpose of modifying the sorting timing at the sorting junction.
Regarding claim 2, Lo discloses a plurality of focal planes corresponds to the plurality of apertures (see Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 3, Lo discloses at least a subset of the plurality of focal planes resides within the flow path (see Fig. 2A; element 224).
Regarding claim 4, Lo discloses the forward spatial filter is configured for transmission detection (paragraph 0071; configured for transmitting fluorescence).
Regarding claim 5, Lo discloses each of the plurality of focal planes is orthogonal to the light propagating direction (see Fig. 2A; element 224).
Regarding claim 6, Lo discloses each of the plurality of focal planes is offset to each other along the light propagating direction (see Fig. 2A; element 224 where the plurality of apertures are offset).
Regarding claim 8, Lo discloses the at least one spatial filter comprises a side detection spatial filter (element 224).
Regarding claim 11, Lo discloses the side spatial filter being at an angle (see Fig. 2A; element 229) does not explicitly disclose the angle of the side spatial filter is about 2 degrees to about 15 degrees. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to filter light because Applicant has not disclosed that the specific angle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Lo, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either spatial filter at an angle because both spatial filters would perform the same function of filtering light from the light source for the purpose of obtaining a desired input light to interact with particles to be sorted.
Regarding claim 12, Lo discloses a particle motion device comprising a flow cell, the particle motion device configured to move a sample fluid along the flow path in the flow direction, the flow path surrounded by a sheath flow (see Fig. 2C; element 213).
Regarding claim 13, Lo discloses the particle comprises a plurality of particles (paragraph 0044; different particles to be sorted).
Regarding claim 14, Lo discloses the particle feature comprises a plurality of particle features (paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 15, Lo discloses the particle feature comprises a region on or within the particle (element 430).
Regarding claim 16, Lo discloses the region on or within the particle comprises a plurality of regions on or within the particle (element 430 where the one or more features are regions of the particles).
Regarding claim 32, Lo discloses the light redirection device configured to scan or diffract a plurality of light sheet positions offset along the light propagating direction (paragraph 0050 and element 229).
Regarding claim 46, Lo discloses a method for particle sorting, the method comprising: a) providing a sorting system comprising: i) a flow cell configured to allow a particle to move in a flow path in a flow direction (paragraph 0009); ii) a sorting module fluidly connected to the flow cell (paragraph 0009); iii) an illumination module (elements 210 and 220) comprising a light redirection device configured to diffract or scan a light beam in a diffraction or scan direction, wherein the diffraction or scan direction is about perpendicular to the flow direction, and wherein the light beam is propagated in a light propagating direction about orthogonal to a plane comprising the flow direction and the diffraction or scan direction (element 229); iv) a detection module comprising a spatial filter (paragraphs 0054-0055), the spatial filter comprising: 1. a front surface (see Fig. 2A; element 224); 2. a plurality of apertures (paragraph 0055), the plurality of apertures arranged in a line comprising an angle with the flow direction, but Lo does not disclose wherein the detection module is configured to generate a time-dependent signal upon detection of the particle within the flow path, wherein the time-dependent signal correlates to a particle feature of the particle; and v) a data processing module configured to generate a gating signal using the time-dependent signal; and b) loading a sample comprising the plurality of particles into the system; and c) initiating the system, and wherein, the sorting module is configured to sort the particle in response the gating signal. Masaeli wherein the detection module is configured to generate a time-dependent signal upon detection of the particle within the flow path, wherein the time-dependent signal correlates to a particle feature of the particle; and v) a data processing module configured to generate a gating signal using the time-dependent signal (paragraph 0017; predicting a timing); and b) loading a sample comprising the plurality of particles into the system (paragraph 0066; feeding material to the flow cell); and c) initiating the system, and wherein, the sorting module is configured to sort the particle in response the gating signal (paragraph 0017; modifying a cell analysis actuation signal for the valves based on the timing for the purpose of modifying the sorting timing at the sorting junction (paragraph 0017). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lo, as taught by Masaeli, for the purpose of modifying the sorting timing at the sorting junction.
Regarding claim 47, Lo discloses a method for cell sorting, the method comprising: a) flowing a particle along a flow path through a flow cell in a flow direction (paragraph 0009); b) illuminating (elements 210 and 220) the particle via diffracting or scanning a light beam in a diffraction or scan direction, the diffraction or scan direction about perpendicular to the flow direction, the light beam propagating in a light propagating direction about orthogonal to a plane comprising the flow direction and the diffraction or scan direction (element 229); c) detecting the particle (paragraphs 0054-0055), wherein light having interacted with the particle transmits through an aperture of a plurality of apertures of a spatial filter (see Fig. 2A; element 224), the plurality of apertures arranged in a line comprising an angle with the flow direction (see Fig. 2B), but Lo does not disclose wherein the detection module is configured to generate a time-dependent signal upon detection of the particle, wherein the time-dependent signal correlates to a particle feature of the particle; d) generating a gating signal based on aspects of the particle feature; and e) sorting the particle based on the gating signal. Masaeli teaches wherein the detection module is configured to generate a time-dependent signal upon detection of the particle, wherein the time-dependent signal correlates to a particle feature of the particle (paragraph 0017; predicting a timing); d) generating a gating signal based on aspects of the particle feature (paragraph 0017); and e) sorting the particle based on the gating signal (paragraph 0017; modifying a cell analysis actuation signal for the valves based on the timing) for the purpose of modifying the sorting timing at the sorting junction (paragraph 0017). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lo, as taught by Masaeli, for the purpose of modifying the sorting timing at the sorting junction.
Claims 9, 10, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo/Masaeli in view of Appleyard et al (US Pub 2019/0187044 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Lo does not disclose the claim limitations. Appleyard teaches each of the plurality of focal planes are orthogonal to a secondary light propagating direction and offset to each other along the secondary light propagating direction (paragraph 0223; element 180) for the purpose of focusing a light source to minimize the potential impact of delivering the energy outside of the targeted objects (paragraph 0205). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lo, as taught by Appleyard, for the purpose of focusing a light source to minimize the potential impact of delivering the energy outside of the targeted objects.
Regarding claim 10, Lo does not disclose the claim limitation. Appleyard teaches the light propagating direction and the secondary light propagating direction (element 147 and 157), but Appleyard does not explicitly disclose the light propagating direction and the secondary light propagating direction are perpendicular to each other. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to apply more than one light source to the material because Applicant has not disclosed that the light directionality provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Lo in view of Appleyard, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either light directionality because both light directions would perform the same function of applying more than one light source to the material for the purpose of detecting and analyzing materials.
Regarding claim 27, Lo does not disclose the claim limitations. Appleyard teaches the light redirecting device comprises an acoustic optical deflector (paragraph 0336) for the purpose of interrupting or diffusing the energy beam. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Lo, as taught by Appleyard, for the purpose of interrupting or diffusing the energy beam.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached on 571-272-7805. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
