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
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s claim for domestic benefit.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 20 August 2025 and 27 October 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the preliminary amendment filed 14 May 2025. Claims 1-3, 10, 13-15, 22-24, 31, 34, 38, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, and 64-65 are pending in the application. Claims 4-9, 11-12, 16-21, 25-30, 32-33, 35-37, 39-47, 49-50, 52-53, 55-56, 58-59, 61-63, and 66-238 are cancelled.
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.
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 1-2, 23-24, and 64-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US Patent No. 8,405,048, of record), hereinafter Hayashi.
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches a flow cytometer (Fig. 1 flow cytometer 10) comprising:
a flow cell (Fig. 1 flow cell body 31) comprising a cuvette (see Fig. 1, 4A-B; flow cell body 31 is in the shape of a cuvette) configured to transport particles in a flow stream (see Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 10-23), the cuvette having a flow channel (Fig. 4A-B flow channel 31b) with a rectangular cross-section (see Fig. 4A-B, col. 2 lines 38-46);
a light source (Fig. 1 laser light source 22) configured to irradiate the particles in the flow stream at an interrogation point within the flow cell (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 4B point “P”, col. 6 lines 34-37); and
a detector (Fig. 1 light-receiving units 24 and 26) configured to collect light emitted by the irradiated particles (see Fig. 1, col. 5 lines 26-44).
Hayashi teaches the that flow channel having a rectangular cross-section has an aspect ratio ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 (col. 2 lines 38-46, col. 7 lines 54-64). Hayashi does not teach an aspect ratio ranging from 1.0 to 1.4.
However, Hayashi teaches that the aspect ratio is set such that the position of the sample in the direction of the optical axis of the laser beam can be regulated (col. 7 line 64-col. 8 line 2). Thus, the aspect ratio of the flow cell of Hayashi was known to be a result-effective variable, in that, if aspect ratio is too large, then the positions of certain sample particles will be too variable within the flow cell, potentially leading to certain sample particles bypassing a significant portion of the laser beam that is directed into the flow cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the flow cell of Hayashi to have the aspect ratio range from 1.0 to 1.4, since determining the optimum aspect ratio to ensure that the positions certain sample particles in the flow cell are more uniform such that the sample particles do not bypass a significant portion of the laser beam is based on a result-effective variable, and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 section II.
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach the aspect ratio ranges from 1.1 to 1.3.
However, as outlined above, the aspect ratio of the flow channel of Hayashi is known to be result-effective variable in that, if aspect ratio is too large, then the positions of certain sample particles will be too variable within the flow cell, potentially leading to certain sample particles bypassing a significant portion of the laser beam that is directed into the flow cell. Additionally, if the aspect ratio of the flow channel is too small, the rate at which sample particles flow through the flow channel could be reduced, reducing the operational efficiency of the flow cytometer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the flow cell of Hayashi to have the aspect ratio range from 1.1 to 1.3, since determining the optimum aspect ratio to ensure that the positions certain sample particles in the flow cell are more uniform such that the sample particles do not bypass a significant portion of the laser beam, and that the sample particles efficiently move through the flow channel, is based on a result-effective variable, and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 section II.
Regarding claim 23, Hayashi teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches a collection lens (Fig. 4A-B spherical lens 31a) in optical communication with the flow cell and the detector (col. 7 lines 33-37 “in order to improve fluorescence measurement resolution of the light-receiving unit 26, the spherical lens 31 may be provided on another side surface of the flow cell body 31 through which fluorescence passes into the light-receiving unit 26”).
Regarding claim 24, Hayashi teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 23, as outlined above, and further teaches the collection lens is coupled to the flow cell (see Fig. 4A-B, col. 7 lines 33-37).
Regarding claim 64, Hayashi teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the rectangular cross-section of the flow channel is symmetric within a width, length, or both, of the cuvette (see Fig. 4A-5).
Regarding claim 65, Hayashi teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the flow channel extends through a height of the cuvette (see Fig. 1, 4A-B).
Claims 3, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Ebi et al. (US 2013/0020498 A1), hereinafter Ebi.
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 2, as outlined above, but does not teach the aspect ratio is about 1.2.
Ebi, which relates to flow cytometers, teaches a flow channel with a rectangular cross-section having an aspect ratio that is about 1.2 (Ebi: Fig. 1 first flow pass 91, Fig. 14 measurements Lb2 and La5, paragraph 0124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to set the aspect ratio of Hayashi to be about 1.2, as taught by Ebi, for the benefit of maintaining a constant orientation of the sample particles as they pass from the tube of Hayashi to the cuvette comprising the flow channel (see Ebi paragraphs 0099, 0109).
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach the flow cytometer is configured as an imaging flow cytometer.
Ebi teaches a similar flow cytometer measurement setup as Hayashi (see Ebi Fig. 3) in which the flow cytometer is configured as an imaging flow cytometer (Ebi: see Fig. 3, paragraphs 0069-0070).
Therefore, since Hayashi also teaches the collection of fluorescent and forward scattered light (Hayashi: col. 5 lines 26-44), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the flow cytometer of Hayashi to having imaging capabilities, as taught by Ebi, for the benefit of providing visual data of sample particles to inspect in addition to optical signals (see Ebi paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi, as modified by Ebi, teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 10, as outlined above, but does not teach a sample fluid line configured to provide the particles to the flow cell.
However, Ebi teaches a sample fluid line configured to provide particles to the flow cell (see Ebi Fig. 4 measurement sample supplier 27, connecting member 60a, sample nozzle 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the flow cytometer of Hayashi (as modified by Ebi) to comprise a sample fluid line configured to provide particles to the flow cell, as taught by Ebi, for the benefit of directly conveying prepared measurement samples to the flow cell (see Ebi paragraph 0062).
Claims 14-15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Ebi as applied to claims 1, 10, and 13 above, and further in view of Kaduchak et al. (US 2018/0284009 A1), hereinafter Kaduchak.
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi, as modified by Ebi, teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 13, as outlined above, but does not teach the flow cytometer is configured to provide the particles in the flow stream at a velocity ranging from 0.1 m/s to 10 m/s.
Kaduchak, which relates to flow cytometry systems, teaches a flow cytometer configured to provide particles in a flow stream at a velocity ranging from 0.1 m/s to 10 m/s (Kaduchak: paragraph 0193). Kaduchak further teaches the flow channel of the flow cytometer has a rectangular cross-section (Kaduchak: paragraph0140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the flow cytometer of Hayashi (as modified by Ebi) to provide the particles in the flow stream at a velocity ranging from 0.1 m/s to 10 m/s, as taught by Kaduchak, for the benefit of providing particles at a suitable velocity for imaging that reduces motion blur (see Kaduchak paragraphs 0050, 0125).
Regarding claim 15, Hayashi, as modified by Ebi, teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 13, as outlined above, but does not teach the flow cytometer is configured to operate in: (a) an imaging mode wherein the flow cytometer is configured to provide the particles in the flow stream to the flow cell at a first velocity; and (b) a non-imaging mode wherein the flow cytometer is configured to provide the particles in the flow stream to the flow cell at a second velocity that is greater than the first velocity.
Kaduchak teaches a flow cytometer (Kaduchak: abstract, Fig. 1-3B and 7, paragraph 0007) configured to operate in: (a) an imaging mode (Kaduchak: Fig. 1 imaging mode corresponding to imaging by imaging detector 110) wherein the flow cytometer is configured to provide the particles in the flow stream to the flow cell at a first velocity (Kaduchak: Fig. 1 velocity V2, paragraphs 0049-0050); and (b) a non-imaging mode (Kaduchak: Fig. 1 non-imaging mode corresponding to detection by detector 104; see also paragraphs 0037, 0174) wherein the flow cytometer is configured to provide the particles in the flow stream to the flow cell at a second velocity (Kaduchak: Fig. 1 velocity V1, paragraphs 0049-0050) that is greater than the first velocity (see Kaduchak Fig. 1 where V1 > V2, paragraphs 0049-0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the flow cytometer of Hayashi (as modified by Ebi) to operate in (a) an imaging mode wherein the flow cytometer is configured to provide the particles in the flow stream to the flow cell at a first velocity, and (b) a non-imaging mode wherein the flow cytometer is configured to provide the particles in the flow stream to the flow cell at a second velocity that is greater than the first velocity, as taught by Kaduchak, for the benefit of enhancing sample analysis capabilities through the utilization of multiple measurement modes, and enabling the flow cytometer to make fluorescence measurements of particles with short interrogation times and low coincidence, and capture images of the same particles with reduced amounts of motion blur (see Kaduchak paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 22, Hayashi, as modified by Ebi and Kaduchak, teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 15, as outlined above, and further teaches a ratio between the first velocity and the second velocity ranges from 1:12 to about 1:2 (see Kaduchak paragraph 0125 describing a scenario in which the velocity of particles being imaged by imaging detector 110 (V2) is four times slower than the velocity of particles passing by detector 104 (V1), yielding a ratio of 1:4 which is within the claimed 1:12 to about 1:2 range).
Claims 31, 48, 51, 54, 57, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi as applied to claims 1 and 23 above, and further in view of Nava et al. (US 2026/0219164 A1), hereinafter Nava.
Regarding claim 31, Hayashi teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 23, as outlined above, but does not explicitly teach a surface of the cuvette is separated from the flow channel by a distance ranging from 1.9 mm to 2.1 mm.
Nava, which relates to flow cytometers including cuvettes, teaches a cuvette and a flow channel (Nava: Fig. 3-6 cuvette 124 and flow channel 206) in which a surface of the cuvette is separated from the flow channel by a distance ranging from 1.9 mm to 2.1 mm (Nava: paragraph 0058 recites the flow channel 206 passes through the center of body 202 of the cuvette 124, the flow channel having a rectangular cross-section (paragraph 0061); Table 1 (bridging paragraphs 0090-0091) recites the body of the cuvette has a width (length along X-axis in Fig. 3-6) of 4.10 mm and the flow channel has a width of 0.18 mm; thus, the edge surface of the flow channel is separated from the surface of the cuvette in the X-dimension by approximately 1.96 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the flow cell of Hayashi to have a surface of the cuvette be separated from the flow channel by a distance ranging from 1.9 mm to 2.1 mm, as taught by Nava, for the purposes of effectively focusing excitation light scattered or emitted from the interrogation point of the flow cell of Hayashi (see Nava paragraph 0076).
Regarding claim 48, Hayashi teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach a ratio of a width of the rectangular cross-section of the flow channel to a width of the cuvette ranges from 1:8.9 to 1:21.8.
Nava teaches as a width of the rectangular cross-section flow channel being 0.18 mm or 0.4 mm, and a width of the cuvette ranging from 3 mm to 5 mm (Nava: paragraphs 0005-0006, 0076). Nava recites that the dimensions of the cuvette can be chosen according to fluidics requirements of the flow cytometer and to achieve effective focusing of excitation light scattered or emitted from the interrogation point in the flow channel (Nava: paragraph 0076). Additionally, Nava recites that the width of the rectangular cross-section may be chosen to provide a desired flow velocity and core stream size within the flow channel (Nava: paragraph 0078). The effective focusing of light and the velocity of the particles moving through the flow channel directly impact the quality of fluorescent signals collected from light interactions with particles in the flow channel. Therefore, to provide a flow cytometer with improved sensitivity such that fluorescent signal quality is sufficient to analyze particles in a flow stream, the ratio of widths between the rectangular cross-section and the cuvette must be controlled to achieve desirable fluidic parameters and light focusing. Thus, the ratio of a width of the rectangular cross-section of the flow channel to a width of the cuvette was known to be a result-effective variable, in that, if the ratio of the widths of the rectangular cross-section and the cuvette is too small or too large, then desired light focusing and flow stream velocity within the flow channel may not be achieved, reducing the quality of fluorescence signals collected from the flow cytometer, and overall deteriorating the sensitivity of the flow cytometer (see Nava paragraphs 0057 and 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the flow cell of Hayashi to have the ratio of a width of the rectangular cross-section of the flow channel to a width of the cuvette range between 1:8.9 to 1:21.8, since determining the optimum ratio of a width of a rectangular cross-section of a flow channel to a width of a cuvette comprising the flow channel to ensure that the flow cytometer has improved sensitivity and produces high quality fluorescence signals of particles in a flow stream by achieving desired light focusing and flow velocity through the flow channel is based on a result-effective variable, and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 section II.
Regarding claim 51, Hayashi teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach a ratio of a width of the rectangular cross-section of the flow channel to a height perpendicular to the rectangular cross-section ranges from 1:22.2 to 1:32.7.
Nava teaches a flow channel with a rectangular cross section (Nava: paragraph 0061) in which a ratio of a width of the rectangular cross-section of the flow channel to a height perpendicular to the rectangular cross-section ranges from 1:22.2 to 1:32.7 (Nava: see Table 4 giving the rectangular cross-channel of the flow channel a width of 0.4 mm and a height perpendicular to the rectangular cross-section of 10 mm (ratio 1:25)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the flow channel of Hayashi to have a ratio of a width of the rectangular cross-section of the flow channel to a height perpendicular to the rectangular cross-section ranges from 1:22.2 to 1:32.7, as taught by Nava, for the benefit of providing a desired flow velocity and more stable core stream size of the flow channel in the flow cytometer (Nava: paragraphs 0078, 0097).
Regarding claim 54, Hayashi teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach a ratio of a length of the rectangular cross-section of the flow channel to a length of the cuvette ranges from 1:29.1 to 1:40.
Nava teaches a flow channel with a rectangular cross section comprising a selected length (Nava: Fig. 3-6, paragraph 0078) and a cuvette comprising a selected length (Nava: Fig. 3-6, paragraphs 0075-0076). Nava teaches the length of the rectangular cross-section may be selected to provide a desired flow velocity and core stream size within the flow channel to provide a single file line of particles down the center of the flow channel (Nava: paragraph 0076). Further, Nava teaches the length of the cuvette can be selected according to fluidics requirements and to provide effective focusing of excitation light (Nava: paragraph 0078). The effective focusing of light and the velocity of the particles moving through the flow channel directly impact the quality of fluorescent signals collected from light interactions with particles in the flow channel. Therefore, to provide a flow cytometer with improved sensitivity such that fluorescent signal quality is sufficient to analyze particles in a flow stream, the ratio of lengths between the rectangular cross-section and the cuvette must be controlled to achieve desirable fluidic parameters and light focusing. Thus, the ratio of a length of the rectangular cross-section of the flow channel to a length of the cuvette was known to be a result-effective variable, in that, if the ratio of the lengths between the rectangular cross-section and the cuvette is either too small or too large, then desired light focusing and flow stream velocity within the flow channel may not be achieved, reducing the quality of fluorescence signals collected from the flow cytometer, and overall deteriorating the sensitivity of the flow cytometer (see Nava paragraphs 0057 and 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the flow cell of Hayashi to the ratio of a length of the rectangular cross-section of the flow channel to a length of the cuvette range between 1:29.1 to 1:40, determining the optimum ratio of a length of a rectangular cross-section of a flow channel to a length of a cuvette comprising the flow channel to ensure that the flow cytometer has improved sensitivity and produces high quality fluorescence signals of particles in a flow stream by achieving desired light focusing and flow velocity through the flow channel is based on a result-effective variable, and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 section II.
Regarding claim 57, Hayashi teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach a ratio of a length of the rectangular cross-section of the flow channel to a height perpendicular to the rectangular cross-section ranges from 1:18.2 to 1:27.7.
Nava teaches a flow channel with a rectangular cross section (Nava: paragraph 0061) that comprises a length of 0.6 mm or 1.3 mm (Nava: paragraphs 0005-0006), and a height perpendicular to the rectangular cross-section ranging from 8 mm to 12 mm (see Nava paragraphs 0076 and 0078 describing that the flow channel height is the same as the height of the cuvette body, which lies in a range between 8 mm and 12 mm). Nava teaches the dimensions of the flow channel are chosen to provide a desired velocity and core stream size within the flow channel (Nava: paragraph 0078). Additionally, Nava teaches the height of the flow channel is chosen to be consistent with the cuvette height in order to enhance the stability of the core stream for different flow velocities (Nava: paragraphs 0078, 0091). The dimensions of the flow channel directly impact the sensitivity and measurement quality of the flow cytometer. If the flow velocity produced as a result of the set length of the rectangular cross-section is large, then the height of the flow channel needs to be appropriately set to provide stability for the core stream and to ensure particles will remain in the flow channel long enough to produce a fluorescence signal. In the alternate, if the flow velocity produced as a result of the set length of the rectangular cross-section is small, then the height of the flow channel needs to be appropriately set to provide stability for the core stream and to maximize the particle throughput of the flow cytometer.
Therefore, to achieve desirable fluidics through the flow channel to enhance the sensitivity and measurement quality of the flow cytometer, the ratio of a length of the rectangular cross-section of the flow channel to a height perpendicular to the rectangular cross-section must be controlled. Thus, the ratio of a length of the rectangular cross-section of the flow channel to a height perpendicular to the rectangular cross-section was known to be a result effective variable, in that, if the ratio between the length of the rectangular cross-section and the height perpendicular to the rectangular cross-section is either too small or too large, then effective fluidics in the flow channel cannot be achieved due to the generation of an undesirable flow velocity and an unstable core stream size, reducing the sensitivity and measurement quality of the flow cytometer (see Nava paragraphs 0070-0071, 0073-0074, 0078-0079, 0091, 0097).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the flow channel of Hayashi to have the ratio of a length of the rectangular cross-section of the flow channel to a height perpendicular to the rectangular cross-section range from 1:18.2 to 1:27.7, since determining the optimum ratio of a length of the rectangular cross-section of the flow channel to a height perpendicular to the rectangular cross-section that ensures the flow cytometer has enhanced sensitivity and measurement quality through the achievement of a desired flow velocity and stable core stream is based on a result-effective variable, and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 section II.
Regarding claim 60, Hayashi teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach the cuvette is comprised of fused silica.
Nava teaches a flow cytometer comprising a cuvette as the flow cell (Nava: Fig. 1-2) in which the cuvette is comprised of fused silica (Nava: paragraph 0059 “Body 202 comprises a generally rectangular shape in the example cuvette 124… body 202 is manufactured using UV-fused silica due to its low absorption”).
The quartz cuvette of Hayashi and the fused-silica cuvette of Nava perform the same function of being an optically transparent holder for a fluidic sample. A skilled artisan would have recognized, before the effective filing date of the instant application, that the quartz cuvette of Hayashi could be substituted for the fused-silica cuvette of Nava because both devices serve the purpose of being an optically transparent holder for a fluidic sample. Furthermore, a skilled artisan would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, since fused-silica cuvette of Nava absorbs less light, the substitution achieves the predictable result of less incident beam loss and stronger detection signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a simple substitution of the quartz cuvette of Hayashi with the fused-silica cuvette of Nava. This substitution would yield the predictable result of less incident beam loss and stronger detection signals due to fused-silica cuvette of Nava being less absorbent of light.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi as applied to claims 1 and 23 above, and further in view of Okada et al. (US Patent No. 10,732,095 B2, of record), hereinafter Okada.
Regarding claim 34, Hayashi teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 23, as outlined above, but does not teach an objective lens in optical communication with the light source and the flow cell.
Okada, which relates to flow cytometers, teaches an objective lens in optical communication with a light source and a flow cell (Okada: Fig. 1 light source 20, objective lens 33, flow cell 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the flow cytometer of Hayashi to comprise an objective lens in optical communication with the light source and the flow cell, as taught by Okada, for the benefit of converging light onto the flow channel of Hayashi in a parallel spread (see Okada col. 4 lines 50-61).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Nava as applied to claims 1, 23, and 31 above, and further in view of Chen (US Patent No. 10,209,174 B2, of record).
Regarding claim 38, Hayashi, as modified by Nava, teaches the flow cytometer according to Claim 31, as outlined above, but does not teach the surface of the cuvette comprises an anti-reflective coating.
Chen, which relates to flow cytometers, teaches a flow cell comprising a cuvette having a surface that comprises an anti-reflective coating (Chen: Fig. 11 cuvette 603’’ having flow channel 604’’, col. 35 lines 43-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the cuvette of Hayashi (as modified by Nava) to have the surface of the cuvette comprise an anti-reflective coating, as taught by Chen, for the benefit of improving light transmission efficiency through the cuvette and flow channel (see Chen col. 35 lines 43-46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tabata et al. (US 2020/0032196 A1) relates to a cell detection system in which optical signals of particles are collected as particles pass through a flow channel at a first velocity, and then the same particles are imaged in the flow channel at a slower second velocity.
Duckett, Jr. et al. (US 2017/0248515 A1) relates to flow cell cuvettes having a flow channel with a rectangular cross-section having an aspect ratio of around 2.5.
Graham et al. (US Patent No. 10,466,165 B2) relates to compound flow cells having a flow channel with a rectangular cross-section having a minimum aspect ratio of 1.
Zhu et al. (CN 211652467 U) relates to a flow cytometer having a flow cell with a rectangular cross-section with an aspect ratio of 2-3, and a collection lens coupled to the side surface of the flow cell.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
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.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights