DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-10,12,13, 15, & 21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VRANE WO 2018094301.
With respect to claim 1, Vrane teaches a method comprising:
irradiating a sample comprising a particle (fig 10a, 1006) in a flow stream of a particle analyzer (fig 10B) with a
first laser (fig 10b, LASER #1) in a first interrogation region and a second laser (fig 10b, LASER #2) in a second interrogation region;
detecting light from the irradiated particle by a first photodetector channel (fig 10b, 632) in the first
interrogation region and by a second photodetector (fig 10b, 634) channel in the second interrogation region;
calculating (fig 10b, 610) a velocity of the particle “Equation 8 (e.g., particle velocity equals the distance L divided by the time difference between time stamps)” (0124, lines 3-4) in the flow stream based on the light detected by the first photodetector and the second photodetector;
determining a parameter “digital time stamp” (0121, line 4) of the particle in the flow stream; and
calculating a positional velocity “average particle velocity” of the particle in the flow stream based on the calculated velocity “particle velocity for each particle can be stored” (0125, lines 1-2) and the parameter of the particle.
With respect to claim 4 according to claim 1, Vrane teaches the method wherein the second interrogation region (fig 10b, LASER #2) is downstream from the first interrogation region (fig 10b, LASER #1).
With respect to claim 6 according to claim 1, Vrane teaches the method wherein: detecting light from the particle by the first photodetector “scatter channel 632 senses the pulse 1012” (0110, lines 1-2) comprises generating a first photodetector signal pulse (fig 10B, 1012) in response to the light emitted by the particle (fig 10a, 1006) in the first interrogation region; and
detecting light from the particle by the second photodetector “scatter channel 634 senses the second pulse” (0110, lines 4-5) comprises generating a second photodetector signal pulse (fig 10B, 1012B) in response to the light emitted by the particle (fig 10a, 1006) in the second interrogation region.
With respect to claim 7 according to claim 6, Vrane teaches the method according wherein the velocity “Equation 8 (e.g., particle velocity equals the distance L divided by the time difference between time stamps)” (0124, lines 3-4) of the particle is calculated by determining an amount of time (fig 10B, ΔT) between the first photodetector signal pulse and the second photodetector signal pulse.
With respect to claim 8 according to claim 7, Vrane teaches the method wherein determining the amount of time
between the first photodetector signal pulse and the second photodetector signal pulse comprises determining a time-to-peak “time stamps from the two peaks” (0111, lines 1-2) between the first photodetector signal pulse and the second photodetector signal pulse.
With respect to claim 9 according to claim 6, Vrane teaches the method wherein the first photodetector signal pulse and the second photodetector signal pulse “low noise gain amplifier 1063A to generate the pulse signal 1012” are a voltage pulse (fig 10C) (0111, lines 4-5).
With respect to claim 10 according to claim 1, Vrane teaches the method wherein the light detected from the particles “scattered light sensed by the first scatter channel” (0111, lines 1-3) comprises scattered light.
With respect to claim 12 according to claim 10, Vrane teaches the method wherein light detected by the second photodetector comprises scattered light “scattered light sensed...the second scatter channel” (0111, lines 1-3) from the particle irradiated by the second laser
With respect to claim 13 according to claim 7, Vrane teaches the method wherein the velocity of the particle in the flow stream is calculated based on: the amount of time between the first photodetector signal pulse and the second photodetector signal pulse “Equation 8 (e.g., particle velocity equals the distance L divided by the time difference between time stamps)” (0124, lines 3-4); and a distance (fig 10a, L) between the first interrogation region and the second interrogation region.
With respect to claim 15 according to claim 1, Vrane teaches the method wherein the first laser comprises a trigger laser (fig 10b, LASER #1), and wherein a trigger signal (fig 10C, 1061) is generated by the first photodetector (fig 10b, 632).
With respect to claim 21 according to claim 1, Vrane teaches the method wherein the first photodetector (fig 10b, 632) is positioned in a first photodetector channel “scatter channel 632” (0110, line 1) in the first interrogation region (fig 10a, 613), wherein the second photodetector (fig 10b, 634) is positioned in a second photodetector channel “scatter channel 634” (0110, line 8) in the second interrogation region (fig 10, 615).
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VRANE WO 2018094301 in view of Durack CN 103180858.
With respect to claim 14 according to claim 1, Vrane does not teach the particle analyzer comprises a flow cell having a flow cell nozzle for generating a droplet of the sample containing the particle.
Durack, in the same field of endeavor as Vrane of optically detection motion of particles in flow cytometers, teaches a flow cell comprising a flow cell nozzle configured to generate a droplet (fig 2, 228) containing a particle (0044). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Durack’s flow cell and flow cell nozzle with Vrane’s light sources and photodetectors as a functional equivalent for accurately transporting particles of interest to an analysis region.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VRANE WO 2018094301 in further view of HASHIMOTO WO 2019167510.
With respect to claim 17 according to claim 1, Vrane does not teach adjusting one or more parameters of the particle analyzer based on the positional velocity.
Hashimoto, in the same field of endeavor as Vrane of optically detection motion of particles in flow cytometer, teaches acquiring the average velocity i.e. positional velocity of the microparticles for a certain time, and causing the computer to control the suction force i.e. parameter of the pressure chamber. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to combine Hashimoto’s computer with the combination’s photodetectors to optimize sorting of fine particles in the combination’s cytometer.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VRANE WO 2018094301 in further view of Wu WO 2022119945.
With respect to claim 20 according to claim 1, Vrane does not teach the first laser, the second laser, or both comprises a continuous wave laser.
Wu, in the same field of endeavor as Vrane of determining the velocity of particles via modulated light (0321, pg. 65, lines 1-5), teaches pulsed illumination may be generated by modulating a continuous-wave (CW) laser (0230, lines 20-25). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a continuous-wave (CW) laser(s) and modulator with the combination’s photodetectors as a known method for generating pulsed light for particle detection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 5,16,18, & 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or to include the limitation(s) and any intervening claims into the base claim. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 2, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the positional velocity of the particle is calculated based on the distance of the particle from the center of the flow stream”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 2.
As to claim 3, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the parameter comprises a center of mass (COM) parameter of the particle in the flow stream”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 3.
As to claim 5, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the second interrogation region is 200 μm or less downstream from the first interrogation region”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 5.
As to claim 16, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “determining a laser delay of at least the second laser based on the calculated positional velocity of the particle”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 16.
As to claim 18, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “wherein the parameter comprises a timing of the second laser”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 18.
As to claim 19, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “temperature of the sample, and wherein the one or more parameters of the particle analyze are further adjusted based on the measured temperature”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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.
/MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights