US 10458896

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number, including any litigation activity.

Let me verify the claim set and check for any litigation or post-grant proceedings involving this patent number.

Let me retrieve the full independent claim language and check for any post-grant or court proceedings.

Summary: US Patent 10,458,896 B2 — "Image forming cytometer"

Bibliographic data (verified against Google Patents, Justia, RPX Insight)

Family members noted: WO 2014/191003 A1; EP 3004838 B1; KR 102162213 B1; AU 2014273560 B2; and a continuation, US 10,921,234 B2 (from app. 16/502,136, filed 2019-07-03). EP 4027132 A1 (a divisional-type publication under the same priority) also appears in the family. The EP search report cited WO 2011/088014 A2 (Nexcelom Bioscience) and US 2012/0274760 A1 (King) as the closest "I" references.

Abstract (as published)

"The present invention relates to methods and systems for image cytometry analysis, typically at low optical magnification, where analysis is based on detection of biological particles using UV bright field, dark field or one or more sources of excitation light. The system comprises illumination means (11, 112), a sample holder (100), a sample compartment (101), imaging means (120), collection means (121), light modulation means (122, 123), and detection means (130) with active detection elements (131)."

Technology in plain language

The patent describes a low-magnification image cytometer (a microscope-camera instrument that images cells in a thin sample chamber rather than flowing them past a laser). Its core insight is that illuminating the sample with short-wavelength light below 400 nm (UV) and collecting the collimated (parallel) light that passes straight through the sample produces unusually high contrast images of biological particles that are otherwise nearly invisible because they are mostly water. A single first light source plus switchable light-modulation elements (apertures, obstructions, phase-contrast elements) at the focal plane between the objective and the detector lets the instrument toggle between bright-field (aperture blocks scattered light), dark-field (obstruction blocks the direct beam, passing only scattered light), and phase-contrast modes. A second, separate excitation light source (angled relative to the optical axis) provides fluorescence imaging without physically moving the fluorescence source. Angled excitation plus optional beam obstructions reduce stray excitation light reaching the detector, improving signal-to-background. The specification also describes short exposure times to avoid UV damage to live cells, deep depth of field so particles at different depths stay in focus, and combining the bright/dark-field images with the fluorescence image to locate and classify cells.

Independent claims (plain-language overview)

Claim 1 — Image cytometer (apparatus). An image cytometer comprising:

• a first light source emitting light with a wavelength less than 400 nm into a sample region;
• a collimator that collimates the first light source's light and directs it along the cytometer's optical axis into the sample region;
• a second light source that includes a first excitation light source emitting excitation light into the sample region;
• image forming means that forms at least one image of at least part of the sample region onto an array of detection elements;
• the sample region located between the collimator and the detector array, and adjacent to the collimator so that light passing the sample region is collimated;
• wherein the cytometer is operable in a bright-field mode, provided by the sub-400 nm light with the collimator adjacent the sample region so that the light passing through the sample is collimated, thereby forming a bright-field image.

In short: a UV (<400 nm) collimated-illumination cytometer with a separate fluorescence excitation source, expressly configured for UV bright-field imaging.

Claim 19 — Method of assessing a biological sample. A method for assessing at least one quantity and/or quality parameter of a biological sample, comprising: applying a volume of the sample to a sample compartment with parallel wall parts defining an exposing area (the walls transmit light from the image cytometer); the cytometer having a first light source emitting sub-400 nm light into the compartment, a collimator forming and directing collimated light along the axis into the compartment, and a second light source with a first excitation light source emitting excitation light into the compartment; recording images (light passed through the compartment onto a 2-D detector array) — including a fluorescence image from the excitation light — processing the images so particle signals are distinguished from background, and correlating the results to the sample parameter(s).

Claim 5 is a further independent-looking apparatus claim of narrower scope combining bright-field, dark-field and fluorescence images with express interchangeability between the three modes (though it recites "according to claim 1," so it is properly a dependent claim).

Note / uncertainty: A strict reading of the claim listing I retrieved shows apparatus claims 1–18 and a method claim 19; I did not independently confirm whether the granted claim set contains a further independent claim (e.g., an "illumination system" claim) or a claim 20+. The published application (US 2016/0103058 A1) and the PCT/EP family recitations include three independent aspects — (1) image cytometer, (2) illumination system for an image cytometer, and (3) the method — but the granted claim 1 is materially narrower than the as-filed claim 1 (the granted version hard-requires <400 nm and the collimator-adjacent bright-field configuration). Claim text above is transcribed from secondary sources (Justia/RPX) and contains OCR artifacts (e.g., "at east," "fainting," "optical axis"); treat punctuation as approximate.

Litigation / CAFC check

I found no authoritative evidence that US 10,458,896 has been the subject of any district-court action, ITC complaint, PTGR/IPR, or Federal Circuit appeal, including in 2026. ChemoMetec (the assignee) was party to earlier, unrelated litigation involving different patents (e.g., Cytyc/TriPath material surfaced only as general background and does not involve this patent number). The 2026 Federal Circuit docket search returned no results tied to this number. I cannot confirm any 2026 CAFC docket entry for this patent, and I found no litigation records — this should be treated as "no known proceedings found," not as a verified negative. Confirming litigation history authoritatively would require the USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB APIs and the Federal Circuit PACER/opinion databases directly, which I could not fully query here.

Related patent worth flagging

The same family/assignee includes US 10,921,234 B2 (continuation, issued 2021-02-16) and US 10,697,884 ("Image cytometer implementation"), both from ChemoMetec, plus WO 2017/036483 A1 ("Continuous image cytometer," 2015-08-28) — these may be relevant if you are mapping ChemoMetec's image-cytometry portfolio rather than this single patent.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10458896.

Let me search more targeted litigation and patent databases.

Let me search specific litigation databases directly.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent 10,458,896

Summary finding: I was unable to identify any litigation — filed or pending — involving U.S. Patent No. 10,458,896. No plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome can be reported, because no case record was located in the sources searched.

What I confirmed about the patent itself

• Patent: US 10,458,896 B2 — "Image forming cytometer"
• Assignee: ChemoMetec A/S (Denmark; original assignee ChemoMetec AS)
• Application: US 14/893,780 (U.S. national phase of PCT/DK2014/050151)
• Priority date: 2013-05-28; granted: 2019-10-29
• Inventors: Martin Glensbjerg, Johan Holm, Søren Kjærulff, Frans Ejner Ravn Hansen
• Status: Active, with adjusted expiration listed as 2034-09-08
• This is the patent behind ChemoMetec's image cytometry platform (e.g., the Xcyto line).

What the searches returned (and did not return)

Searches for the patent number, the assignee, and the specific combination turned up no case docket, no complaint, no CAFC appeal, and no PACER/Unified Patents litigation entry for this patent. The results that returned were:

• Generic patent-litigation news unrelated to this patent (e.g., Dolby v. Unified Patents, DivX v. Unified Patents, PTAB real-party-in-interest disputes). These involve different patents and parties and are not about US 10,458,896.
• ChemoMetec corporate/annual-report disclosures, which discuss intellectual-property risk generically. Notably, ChemoMetec's annual reports state that, at the relevant reporting dates, the company was "not aware of any opposition/invalidation cases against its patents" and describe IP litigation risk only hypothetically — consistent with no active assertion involving this patent.

Important limitations (please weigh these)

• I was not able to run a fully exhaustive, confirmatory query against PACER, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket, Unified Patents' litigation portal, or Docket Alarm for the exact number "10458896." The searches I did run reached the tool-call limit before a definitive negative could be confirmed on those specific databases.
• A negative result is not proof of absence. A patent can be asserted in a district court case where the number appears only in an exhibit or a joint claim-construction statement, which free-text web searches may not surface. It can also be the subject of an IPR/PGR at the PTAB, which is an administrative proceeding (not "litigation" in the district-court sense) and was likewise not found.
• Per the strict instruction, I have not auto-corrected any number: I searched literally for 10,458,896 / 10458896 and did not substitute similar-looking numbers. If you intended a different patent, the result could differ.

Recommendation to obtain a definitive answer

To conclusively verify, check these directly:

1. PACER (District Court, nationwide "Case Number/Party" and document search) for "10,458,896."
2. Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) — search by patent number.
3. USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for any IPR/PGR/CBM involving this patent.
4. CAFC docket and, if applicable, CourtListener/RECAP for any appeal.
5. USPTO Patent Assignment / litigation-history tools for the '896 patent record.

Bottom line: Based on the sources I could reach, no litigation involving US 10,458,896 is known. I cannot provide case-specific details because none were found, and I am flagging that this conclusion is limited by the searches I was able to complete rather than a comprehensive docket-level check.

I'll start by verifying the structured data against live sources before writing anything.

Those searches returned unrelated noise. Let me try more targeted queries.

Let me check for related litigation and any PTAB activity across the family.

PTAB Proceedings — US Patent 10,458,896 ("Image forming cytometer," ChemoMetec A/S)

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block in my instructions returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 10,458,896, and independent web searching surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against this patent — so there is no breakdown by active / invalidated / sustained / settled / institution-denied to report, and the bottom-line defensive posture is: the patent has never been tested at the PTAB. That cuts both ways. No claims have been canceled (so a defendant cannot knock out the asserted claims on somebody else's work product), but there is also no § 315(e)(2) estoppel and no adverse institution decision available for a defendant to leverage — you would be the first challenger, paying full freight on both grounds and claim construction.

No proceedings to detail

Because the source-of-truth list is empty and corroborating searches returned nothing, there is no proceeding section to populate. I am explicitly not inventing trial numbers, petitioners, panels, or dispositions to fill the template. Per the operating rules, the correct output is a null list, not a plausible-looking one.

Verification performed (2026-09-29):

• USPTO ODP structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block for US 10,458,896 — no AIA trial proceedings indexed.
• Open web search for PTAB/IPR petitions naming ChemoMetec A/S or US 10,458,896, and for "image forming cytometer" IPR/litigation — no PTAB hit. Results were prosecution-history documents from unrelated patents, the EPO Boards of Appeal, family-member publications, and ChemoMetec investor reports.

Confidence and its limits: I have moderately high confidence there is no PTAB proceeding against the '896 patent as of 2026-09-29, but I could not directly query PTAB E2E or a litigation docket service (Docket Navigator, Lex Machina) in this session. If you need a litigation-grade negative, run the patent number through PTAB E2E and confirm the absence yourself before relying on it in a filing or an opinion letter.

---

What is actually adjacent to this patent (context, not PTAB activity)

These are not AIA trial proceedings and must not be characterized as such, but they are what a defendant should know:

• Continuation in the same family. A continuation application (US 16/502,136, filed 2019-07-03, published as US 20190323944A1) issued as US 10,921,234 B2 on 2021-02-16. See the assignment record at plainsite.org/patents/assignment.html?id=9885696 and the family listing on Google Patents. A challenger who only IPRs the '896 patent can be met with the '234 continuation — the family, not the single patent, is the real target.
• EPO opposition/appeal activity, not PTAB. ChemoMetec's own annual reporting (FY2016/17, FY2017/18) references an opposition before the European Patent Office and a pending appeal, and states ChemoMetec did not consider the outcome commercially material because the patent did not cover a market area. The EPO Boards of Appeal decision surfaced in search (T 1307/37-era file, addressing a low-magnification image-cytometry method with a linear enlargement below 10:1) is not US 10,458,896 and I am not attributing it to this patent. It is a signal only that ChemoMetec's platform patents have drawn third-party challenge in Europe, not at the PTAB.
• No defensive aggregator in the chain. Nothing in the record suggests Unified Patents or a similar entity has petitioned against this family.

---

Claim-level status of US 10,458,896

• Canceled: none. No claim has ever been canceled, disclaimed, or held unpatentable in an AIA trial.
• Sustained/adjudicated: none. No claim has been affirmed patentable by the PTAB either.
• Untested: all claims. The patent issued 2019-10-29 from the U.S. national phase of PCT/DK2014/050151 (priority PA 2013 70291, 2013-05-28), is Active with an adjusted expiration of 2034-09-08, and as of today has been litigated at the PTAB zero times.

Because no FWD exists, I cannot and do not quote claim-level dispositions. Any statement to the effect that "claim 1 was canceled" or "the panel upheld claim 7" would be fabricated.

---

Strategic summary

Estoppel landscape: wide open. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is petitioner-specific. With no prior petitioner, no ground is estopped against you — every § 102 and § 103 combination you can find is available, and you are not limited to art that was "raised or reasonably could have been raised" by someone else. The flip side is that you get no benefit from a prior petitioner's expert discovery, no adopted claim construction, and no institution-stage signal about which claims the Board considers weak. If your invalidity case depends on the UV-below-400-nm limitation, the collimated-illumination limitation, the inclined excitation source, or the interchangeable bright-field/dark-field modulation element (all prominent in the specification), you will be building that record from scratch — including whether those features are actually recited in the challenged independent claims versus sitting only in dependent claims and the specification.

The real defensive posture is narrower than it looks. Zero PTAB activity on a 2019-issued patent is not evidence of a "hardened" patent; it is more nearly evidence of low assertion pressure. The specification reads as a platform patent for ChemoMetec's Xcyto product line (launched commercially around 2017–2019), and the family has been enforced/defended in Europe rather than the United States. My practical read: this looks like a company protecting its own instrument platform rather than a serial enforcer, which is consistent with no U.S. defendant having found it worth an IPR. If you have received a demand letter citing this patent, the more likely than not explanation is a specific commercial conflict (e.g., a competing benchtop image-based cell counter), and the more valuable first task is not the invalidity search but a claim-chart analysis against the continuation, US 10,921,234, in case the assertion is retooled.

Pattern signals. Same petitioner filing multiple IPRs: not applicable — no petitioner at all. Patent owner aggressively pursuing PTAB appeals: no — ChemoMetec has no PTAB appeal history for this patent, though it has contested EPO proceedings in the family. Defensive aggregator: none identified.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the negative before relying on it. Run US 10,458,896 and US 10,921,234 through USPTO PTAB E2E and a litigation docket service. A null result today is a snapshot; a petition could have been filed in the last few weeks that ODP has not ingested.
2. Do not rely on any claim-cancellation argument. There is no FWD, no certificate canceling claims, and no CourtListener or Federal Circuit disposition to cite. Any brief that asserts otherwise is built on a nonexistent record.
3. Treat the family as the unit of attack. Budget for US 10,921,234 B2 alongside the '896 patent; the two share a priority date (2013-05-28) and a specification, so one invalidity theory may serve both, but you will need two petitions (separate patents, separate § 315(b) clocks tied to service of any complaint).
4. Calendar the '896 date with care. Adjusted expiration 2034-09-08; priority 2013-05-28. AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) applies, which opens pre-2013 printed publications and patents as § 102(a)(2) art that might not have been available under pre-AIA § 102(e) practice.
5. If a lawsuit is on file, the § 315(b) one-year clock is the gating item. Nothing in this record tells me that clock has started; verify service date first — that deadline, not the merits search, is what usually decides these cases.
6. If no assertion exists, say so plainly. The absence of PTAB activity here is itself the signal: this patent has not been tested because nobody has yet had a commercial reason to test it.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,458,896, starting with the patent's ownership history and the original assignee.

Let me look at the Justia page and search for ChemoMetec assignment history and corporate changes.

I found a key assignment record. Let me verify the assignment details for US 10,458,896 specifically and check for any additional records.

I've gathered the available records. Here is the ownership reconstruction for US 10,458,896.

⚠️ Scope-of-evidence note before the findings: I was able to reach the USPTO-indexed assignment data indirectly (via PlainSite's mirror of the USPTO Assignment database and Google Patents legal-events for the family), but I could not complete a direct live query of the Assignment Center UI for app. 14/893,780 before hitting my tool-call limit. Treat the reel/frame below as high-confidence but verify directly. Where an item is inferred rather than confirmed from a record, I say so explicitly.

---

Inventors

Pattern analysis: No unusual departures. All four inventors executed assignment paperwork to ChemoMetec in the same three-day window (2016-03-03 → 2016-03-07), which is the signature of a standard employee invention-assignment campaign tied to U.S. national-phase entry of PCT/DK2014/050151 (published as US 2016/0103058 A1 on 2016-04-14). There is no evidence that any inventor left ChemoMetec within 12 months of filing, and no evidence of a discontinuous inventor roster (the same four names recur across the family members US 10,458,896, US 10,921,234, EP 3004838, DK 3004838, AU 2014273560). This is not a pre-fire-sale departure pattern.

---

Original assignee

Entity named on the issued patent: ChemoMetec AS / ChemoMetec A/S — Herlev Hovedgade 15, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark. (Google Patents lists "Chemometec AS" as both original and current assignee; the assignment record uses "Chemometec A/s.")

• Primary business: Life-science instrumentation — automated image cytometry and cell counting/analysis (NucleoCounter, Xcyto, and the newer XcytoMatic platform). This is the company's core commercial line.
• Does it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — ChemoMetec's image-cytometer instruments (Xcyto/XcytoMatic family) are the commercial embodiment of the image-cytometry subject matter claimed here. ChemoMetec's own investor materials describe instrument revenue growth driven by XcytoMatic (FY disclosures cited in press/analyst coverage), confirming an active operating company, not a licensing shell.
• Current status: Operating, publicly listed (Nasdaq Copenhagen ticker CHEMM). No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition found. A 2007 GlobeNewswire release shows ChemoMetec has historically licensed and even outright transferred a patent (a milk-cell-counting patent, to a milking-equipment maker) — but that was a different patent, and it demonstrates the opposite of a shell pattern: a real company monetizing a non-core asset while retaining its core cytometry portfolio.

---

Assignment timeline

Recorded transfers located for the "Image Forming Cytometer" family:

• 2016-03-03 / 2016-03-04 / 2016-03-07 (executed by the respective inventors) / recorded 2019-07-03 — Reel 049660/0606 (Assignment Center / USPTO)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest (inventor → employer)
  • Assignor: Glensbjerg, Martin; Holm, Johan; Kjærulff, Søren; Ravn Hansen, Frans Ejner
  • Assignee: ChemoMetec A/S, Herlev Hovedgade 15, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark
  • Correspondent: Douglas L. Wathen, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, 900 Wilshire Drive, Suite 300, Troy, MI 48084. This is a single appearance within this chain — no recurrence, so per the rules it is not an NPE tell. Dinsmore & Shohl is a large general-practice firm; a lone prosecution/recording attorney appearance is ordinary operating-company behavior.
  • Context: Routine inventor-to-employer assignment — an internal ownership confirmation, not an acquisition, fire-sale, or transfer-to-asserter. Executed at national-phase entry; recorded later, coinciding with filing of the continuation (app. 16/502,136 → US 10,921,234) on 2019-07-03.

Important caveats on this record:

1. The record I could directly view is indexed against the continuation, US 10,921,234 (app. 16/502,136), as well as the shared family title "Image Forming Cytometer." Reel 049660/0606 appears in Google Patents legal events for the family. Because the same four inventors and same assignee cover both the '896 patent and the '234 continuation, the same reel/frame most likely spans both application numbers — but I could not confirm firsthand that 049660/0606 is separately docketed against app. 14/893,780 specifically. Verify this in the Assignment Center.
2. There is no recorded post-issuance assignment (no transfer to any LLC, aggregator, or asserter) that I could find for this patent. No security agreement, no merger, no change-of-name, no release.
3. No PTAB / litigation link surfaced that would imply a chain built for assertion — consistent with the earlier litigation section of this analysis (no suit found).

If the Assignment Center returns only this single inventor→employer record (or none at all beyond it), that is itself the finding: the original assignee, ChemoMetec A/S, still owns the patent.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10458896
    2013 : Priority application filed by ChemoMetec
    2014 : PCT DK2014 050151 filed
    2016 : Inventors assign rights to ChemoMetec A/S
    2019 : US 10458896 granted
         : Assignment recorded at USPTO
         : Continuation filed same day

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — the chain contains only the original inventor→employer assignment (reel 049660/0606, executed 2016-03-03→07, recorded 2019-07-03), and no post-issuance transfer. Under the instructions ("no records, or only the original assignment") this is the correct call. Substantively, the evidence points to a non-asserting operating-company ownership: ChemoMetec A/S — a real, product-shipping cytometry-instrument maker — remains the assignee, and no shell LLC, known asserter, cascading transfer, or repeat NPE correspondent appears anywhere in the record.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent no. 10458896 and app. no. 14/893,780) and the legacy index https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

Two flagged limitations: (a) I could not complete a direct Assignment Center query myself — the reel/frame above is sourced from a USPTO-data mirror and the family's Google Patents legal events; (b) I could not confirm the 049660/0606 entry is separately docketed against app. 14/893,780 versus only the continuation US 10,921,234. Neither changes the qualitative conclusion, but both should be buttoned up with a direct search before this is relied on.

I'll research the prior-art citations of record for US 10,458,896.

Let me pull the full citation list and details for the key references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,458,896 B2 ("Image forming cytometer")

0. Method, sources, and an important limitation up front

What I did: I searched for the citation records of US 10,458,896 B2 as reproduced on the public faces of the patent (Google Patents family page for WO2014/191003 A1 / US 10,458,896 B2, and the Justia "Referenced Cited" table for the US grant). The USPTO PatentCenter / IFW "Patent References Cited" list (PTOL-892) and the examiner's PTO-1449/IDS forms could not be queried, so the inventory below is derived from the secondary reproductions, not the USPTO image file wrapper.

Two caveats you should weigh heavily:

1. Two different citation lists surfaced, and they do not fully agree. The Google Patents "Patent Citations" table I could retrieve returned exactly 7 documents, all asterisked (the asterisk is Google's flag for examiner-cited art). Justia's "Referenced Cited" table returned a much longer list (~28 U.S. patent documents plus ~10 foreign documents) matching the printed front page of the grant. The longer list includes the 7 asterisked documents as a subset. I did not auto-correct, merge, or "fix" either list; where they differ I say so.
2. I could not retrieve the filing dates for most references, nor the full text of most references. Dates below marked pub. are publication dates only. That is enough to establish that a document is a pre-AIA-§102(b)-style / post-AIA-§102(a)(1) printed publication if it published before 28 May 2013, but it is not enough to establish §102(a)(2) ("effectively filed") status for the later-published documents. I flag every such case rather than guessing.

Statutory framework (applies to the whole analysis): Because the '896 patent's earliest effective filing/priority date is 28 May 2013 — i.e., after 16 March 2013 — the AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. So:

• §102(a)(1): art publicly available (patented, described in a printed publication, in public use, on sale) before 28 May 2013;
• §102(a)(2): U.S. patents, U.S. patent-application publications and PCT publications designating the U.S. that were "effectively filed" before 28 May 2013, even if published later.
• Anticipation under §102 requires a single reference disclosing every element of the claim as arranged. Several of the references below are, on their face, §103 (obviousness) material rather than §102 material; I say so explicitly rather than forcing an anticipation label.

---

1. Citation inventory

1A. The examiner-cited set (Google Patents, "Patent Citations (7)", all asterisked)

1B. The fuller front-page "Referenced Cited" list (Justia, US grants)

Discrepancy flagged: the Justia front page shows US 4,786,165 and US 2010/0189338, which do not appear in the 7-item Google list. Conversely the Google 7-item list is a strict subset of the Justia list. I have not reconciled this; it may reflect that Justia reproduces the U.S. front page while the Google snippet I retrieved was the family/WO citation table. Treat F1–F35 as "cited of record on the front page," E1–E7 as "asterisked/considered material."

---

2. Reference-by-reference analysis

For each: full citation, date, description, and the claims it could potentially anticipate. Claim numbers are keyed to the grant as reconstructed in the earlier summary (independent claim 1 = apparatus; dependent claim 5 = bright/dark/fluorescence mode interchangeability; independent claim 19 = method). I do not have the full granted dependent-claim set verbatim, so where I say "claims to [feature]" I mean "the claim(s) reciting that feature," which I cannot number with confidence. Anything I cannot ground, I mark [unverified].

2.1 The two — and only two — references that are seriously anticipatory on their face

E6 — WO 2011/088014 A2 (Nexcelom Bioscience LLC), pub. 2011-07-21 — the single most relevant prior-art reference

• Full citation: WO 2011/088014 A2, "Systems and methods for counting cells and biomolecules," Nexcelom Bioscience LLC; PCT/US2011/020766 filed 2011-01-11; priority US 61/294,236 filed 2010-01-12. EP family member EP 2 524 221 A2 (pub. 2012-11-21); US family member US 9,329,130 B2.
• Date status: published 21 July 2011, well before 28 May 2013 → squarely §102(a)(1) prior art.
• What it discloses (from the family text I retrieved): a static-chamber (fixed-height, covered counting chamber) image cytometer for counting cells/biomolecules — i.e., the same non-flow imaging-cytometry architecture as the '896 patent. It expressly discloses (a) oblique-incidence fluorescence excitation ("unconventional design for fluorescent excitation such that the system allows two or multiple oblique incident excitation beams … multiple light sources to be placed with various incident angles"), (b) incident angles "about 10° to about 80° (e.g., … about 35° to about 55° … about 45°)" relative to the chamber window, (c) a bright-field light source plus a fluorescence light source, each with a beam-narrowing device that can be a collimator, (d) a microscope objective and a CCD camera detection device, and (e) a filter assembly passing only emission light to the detector.
• Potential §102 impact: this is the reference that most plausibly anticipates the broadest claims of the application as filed (cytometer with a bright-field source, a separate fluorescence excitation source, imaging optics and a detector array) and, more importantly, it anticipates or renders obvious the "excitation light at an incidence angle relative to the optical axis so as to provide the fluorescence mode" limitation. The incidence-angle ranges recited in the '896 specification for the excitation light (10–80°, 20–60°, 30–50°) sit inside WO'014's disclosed 10–80° / 35–55° / 45° ranges almost exactly — so any '896 claim reciting an oblique excitation angle is strongly exposed under §102(a)(1) (if the reference's range reads on the claim) or at minimum §103. Conversely, WO'014 does not, on the text I retrieved, disclose a sub-400 nm (<400 nm) bright-field illumination requirement, so it does not on its face anticipate granted claim 1 as reconstructed (which hard-requires <400 nm). It also does not appear to disclose the collimator-adjacent-to-the-sample-region limitation in the specific form claim 1 recites.
• Claim relevance: potentially anticipates broad apparatus claims and the oblique-excitation claims; §103 as to granted claim 1 (UV limitation); anticipates/§103 as to claim 19 to the extent the method steps (chamber → illuminate → image → process → correlate) are common to both.
• Note: the EPO listed this as an "I" (particularly relevant) citation on the family's divisional search report (EP 4 027 132 A1). That is independent confirmation that a searching authority regarded it as the closest art to this family.

F24 — US 2010/0189338 A1 (Lin et al.; Nexcelom Bioscience), pub. 2010-07-29

• Full citation: US 2010/0189338 A1, "Systems and methods for counting cells and biomolecules," appl. published 2010-07-29 (Nexcelom Bioscience).
• Date status: published 29 July 2010 → §102(a)(1) art.
• What it discloses (text retrieved): a cell-counting system with a covered chamber of known/fixed height; at least one fluorescent light source connected to a fluorescent-light-beam narrowing device; a bright-field light source connected to a bright-field beam narrowing device (the narrowing devices "can be a collimator"; sources "can be a light emitting diode"); a microscope objective; a detection device (CCD camera, optionally cooled); a movable light shutter to block bright-field light during fluorescent detection; and a fluorescent filter assembly to pass only emission light to the detector.
• Potential §102 impact: this is the closest single reference on the "one collimated bright-field path + one collimated fluorescence path + objective + array detector + fixed-height sample chamber" architecture. It is essentially a point-by-point map of the as-filed apparatus concept. It does not disclose a <400 nm UV bright-field source, so again it is anticipatory only for claims lacking the UV limitation, and §103 as to granted claim 1.
• Claim relevance: broad apparatus claims; claims to collimators/beam-narrowing devices; claims to fixed sample-compartment height; claims to a movable shutter/attenuation element; §103 against granted claim 1.

2.2 Mode-switching / modulation-element art (targets the bright-field ⇄ dark-field ⇄ phase-contrast claim family)

These four references all cluster on the switchable bright-field/dark-field feature that is the heart of claim 5 and of the specification's "modulation means" passages (apertures, obstructions, phase-contrast elements, filter wheels / interchanging means).

E1 / F2 — US 4,881,802 A (Stankewitz; Ernst Leitz Wetzlar GmbH), pub. 1989-11-21

• Date: 1989-11-21 → §102(a)(1) art (pre-2013 by 24 years).
• Description: "Combined bright field-dark field incident light illumination apparatus" — an illumination apparatus that provides both bright-field and dark-field illumination in a combined/switched arrangement.
• Potential §102 impact: relevant to any claim reciting interchangeability between a bright-field mode and a dark-field mode (claim 5-type subject matter) and to claims reciting a mode-selecting illumination/stop element. However, it is an incident-light (reflected-light) illumination apparatus — the '896 patent operates in transmitted collimated light through a sample chamber with modulation means between the sample and the detector array. On that structural difference it is, on its face, not an anticipatory reference for claim 1 or 5; it is §103 material (evidence that switching a microscope between BF and DF modes was known).

E4 / F29 — DE 102 39 955 B3 (Carl Zeiss SMT AG), pub. 2004-05-13

• Date: 2004-05-13 → §102(a)(1) art (with the caveat that a German-language document is art as of its publication).
• Description (title as published): "Optical microscope with bright and dark field illumination using annular cross-section illumination beam and light stop of variable width."
• Potential §102 impact: directly relevant to '896 claims reciting a modulation means comprising an aperture (bright-field) and/or an obstruction (dark-field), and in particular an adjustable/variable-size stop interposed in the pupil. The variable-width light stop reads on the '896 specification's "opaque disk with a hole in its centre" (BF aperture) and "opaque disk … substantially less than the diameter of the parallel beam" (DF obstruction) pair, and on the Table 3-1 obstruction-diameter experiments. Potentially anticipates narrow claims directed to a variable aperture/obstruction for selecting bright-field vs dark-field operation; §103 as to claim 1 and claim 5 (it is a microscope-illumination reference, not an imaging cytometer with a UV collimated source and a separate excitation source).
• Assignee note: Carl Zeiss SMT — this is the same corporate family as E2.

E3 / F19 — US 2005/0259245 A1 (Cemic et al.; Leica Microsystems Semiconductor GmbH), pub. 2005-11-24

• Date: 2005-11-24 → §102(a)(1) art.
• Description: "Device and method for inspecting an object" — a wafer/object inspection instrument (Leica Microsystems Semiconductor) with bright-field- and dark-field-type illumination channels and imaging optics.
• Potential §102 impact: relevant as §103 support for the proposition that switching between BF-type and DF-type illumination/collection to change the image modality of the same object was a routine design choice in inspection optics. On its face it does not disclose a collimated sub-400 nm trans-illumination cytometer with an oblique fluorescence excitation source; not anticipatory for claim 1 or 5.

E5 / F21 — US 2007/0190661 A1 (Gudermann, Frank T.), pub. 2007-08-16

• Date: 2007-08-16 → §102(a)(1) art.
• Description: "Method and device for recording microscopic images" — recording multiple microscopic images (modality/focus variation) of a sample.
• Potential §102 impact: relevant to '896 claims reciting recording two or more images with two or more substantially different modulation means and combining them (the specification's BF+DF fusion to locate particles, and the "record two or more images … where two or more substantially different modulation means are applied" passage). §103 at most for the granted independent claims; it is the type of reference an examiner would pair with E1/E4 to attack the multi-image and modulation claims.

2.3 Fluorescence-detection / optics references (targets the excitation-source and detector claims)

E2 / F6 — US 6,809,324 B1 (Schmidt; Carl Zeiss Jena GmbH), pub. 2004-10-26

• Date: 2004-10-26 → §102(a)(1) art.
• Description: "Scanning device, especially for detecting fluorescent light."
• Potential §102 impact: relevant to claims reciting a fluorescence detection channel and a scanning/array detector with fluorescence collection optics, and to the '896 discussion of blocking excitation light with emission filters. §103 as to the independent claims; not anticipatory on its face for a collimated-UV trans-illumination cytometer.

E7 — WO 2012/096153 A1 (Nikon Corporation), pub. 2012-07-19

• Date: 2012-07-19 → §102(a)(1) art (just inside the critical date by ~10 months).
• Description: "Microscope system" (Nikon).
• Potential §102 impact: a general microscope-system reference; relevant background for §103 on illumination-mode selection and motorised optical components. I could not retrieve its disclosure, so I cannot state whether it touches the '896 limitations. Assessed as background/§103 only — [unverified].

F9 — US 7,106,442 (Silcott), pub. 2006-09-12

• Date: 2006-09-12 → §102(a)(1) art. Description not retrieved [unverified].
• Potential §102 impact: cannot be assessed; listed as cited-of-record. Likely cited for a detector/optics or sample-handling feature.

F22 — US 2009/0208072 A1 (Seibel et al.), pub. 2009-08-20

• Date: 2009-08-20 → §102(a)(1) art. Likely a scanning-fiber endoscope / multi-modal imaging reference. Description not retrieved [unverified].
• Potential §102 impact: §103 background for multi-modality imaging. (The EPO's family search report also lists this document as an "A" — mere background — category.)

F3, F23 — US 6,707,555 (Kusuzawa et al.), pub. 2004-03-16; US 2010/0079762 A1 (Kusuzawa), pub. 2010-04-01

• Dates: both before 28 May 2013 → §102(a)(1) art. Disclosures not retrieved [unverified].
• Potential §102 impact: cannot be assessed. Given the familial identity of inventor name, these are likely flow- or image-cytometry art and would be §103 material.

F20 — US 2007/0121106 A1 (Shibata et al.), pub. 2007-05-31

• Date: 2007-05-31 → §102(a)(1) art. Disclosure not retrieved [unverified]. Likely a microscope/fluorescence reference → §103.

F25 — US 2010/0189388 A1 (Draser), pub. 2010-07-29; F26 — US 2011/0285991 A1 (Dal Negro), pub. 2011-11-24; F27 — US 2012/0195024 A1 (Kawaguchi et al.), pub. 2012-08-02

• Dates: all before 28 May 2013 → §102(a)(1) art. Disclosures not retrieved [unverified].
• Potential §102 impact: not assessable from what I could retrieve; treated as §103 candidates pending full-text review.

2.4 Applicant's own earlier imaging-cytometry family (the "NucleoCounter lineage") — highest conceptual overlap with the method claim

F4, F5, F7, F8, F11, F12, F14, F15 — the Hansen et al. ChemoMetec series

• Full citations / dates (all before the 2013-05-28 critical date → §102(a)(1) art):
  • US 6,710,879 (2004-03-23) — Hansen et al.
  • US 6,731,100 (2004-05-04) — Hansen et al.
  • US 6,919,960 (2005-07-19) — Hansen et al.
  • US 7,068,365 (2006-06-27) — Hansen et al.
  • US 8,081,312 (2011-12-20) — Hansen et al.
  • US 8,125,643 (2012-02-28) — Hansen et al.
  • US 8,363,221 (2013-01-29) — Hansen et al.
  • US 8,432,550 (2013-04-30) — Hansen et al.
• Description: These are the assignee's own earlier patents in the liquid-sample particle-determination / image-cytometry family (the technology behind ChemoMetec's NucleoCounter instruments): immobilising a suspension of particles in a fixed-height sample compartment and imaging them optically (typically with a short-wavelength/UV excitation for nucleic-acid dyes), plus fluorescence quantification. I am not asserting specific titles or column citations for each, because I could not retrieve them in this session — [unverified as to individual titles and disclosures].
• Potential §102 impact — the point that matters: because these are §102(a)(1) art and because they are commonly owned with the applicant, they are the most likely reason the granted claim 1 was narrowed to require (i) <400 nm illumination and (ii) the collimator adjacent the sample region so light passing the sample region is collimated and (iii) the bright-field mode. A commonly-owned earlier disclosure of "sub-400 nm illumination + fixed chamber + imaging onto an array + fluorescence" would anticipate any claim that did not carry the collimation-geometry and mode limitations. Any '896 claim reciting only "UV illumination of a sample in a chamber, imaged onto a detector array, plus fluorescence" is exposed under §102(a)(1) to this family; the granted claim 1 escapes only via the collimator-adjacency/bright-field limitation.
• Claim relevance: claim 19 (method) is the most exposed — the method's steps (apply sample to a chamber with parallel light-transmitting walls → illuminate → image onto a 2-D detector array → process → correlate to a quality/quantity parameter) are generic to this entire family; add the fluorescence-image step and the exposure is to §102 if a single member discloses both, otherwise §103.

F10, F13 — US 8,010,299 (2011-08-30) and US 8,259,300 (2012-09-04), Arnvidarson (ChemoMetec)

• Dates: both before 28 May 2013 → §102(a)(1) art. Disclosures not retrieved [unverified].
• Potential §102 impact: same reasoning as the Hansen series — same assignee, same instrument platform; likely §102/§103 material for claims to sample-compartment/volume determination and image-based particle assessment.

2.5 Post-priority-date references — §102(a)(2) only, and only if "effectively filed" before 28 May 2013

These are cited of record but published after the '896 priority date. None can be §102(a)(1) art. Each can only be §102(a)(2) art if its effective filing date precedes 28 May 2013 — a fact I could not verify in this session. Do not treat these as anticipatory without confirming their filing dates.

Assessment: F16, F17 and F28 (all ChemoMetec, all naming '896 inventors) are almost certainly on the list as commonly-owned, co-pending or counterpart applications rather than as substantive §102 art; a co-pending commonly-owned U.S. application/patent naming overlapping inventors may also be disqualified as prior art under §102(b)(2)(C) (common ownership) and/or §102(b)(2)(A) (the disclosure was obtained from the inventor). Any of them cited as anticipatory art would need that analysis done. I flag the common-ownership/§102(b)(2) issue rather than resolving it.

2.6 Foreign-language references (F30–F35)

• EP 0 501 006 (1992-09), EP 2 348 301 (2011-07), JP 2006-084233 (2006-03), JP 2007-033381 (2007-02), JP 2007-212201 (2007-08), JP 2008-002932 (2008-01, listed as "20082932"): all published before 28 May 2013 → §102(a)(1) art as of their publication dates (subject to any language/translation and publication-date verification). I could not retrieve their subject matter in this session, so no anticipation assessment is possible; on the face of the citation pattern, EP 2 348 301 (2011) is the most likely to be substantive (it is contemporaneous with the Nexcelom WO'014 work), and the Japanese documents are most likely microscope-optics references cited for §103.

---

3. Bottom line — ranking of most relevant prior art

1. WO 2011/088014 A2 (Nexcelom Bioscience) — the closest art. Discloses the same static-chamber image-cytometer architecture with oblique-incidence fluorescence excitation (10–80°), a separate collimated bright-field source, an objective and a CCD camera. Strongest §102(a)(1) exposure for the oblique-excitation and general apparatus claims; §103 against granted claim 1 (it lacks the express <400 nm limitation). Independently corroborated as "I"-category art by the EPO family search report on EP 4 027 132 A1.
2. US 2010/0189338 A1 (Lin et al. / Nexcelom Bioscience) — near-twin disclosure: collimated bright-field LED path + collimated fluorescence excitation path + objective + CCD + fixed-height chamber + movable shutter. §102(a)(1) for the broad apparatus concept; §103 against claim 1.
3. The Hansen/ChemoMetec family (US 6,710,879; 6,731,100; 6,919,960; 7,068,365; 8,081,312; 8,125,643; 8,363,221; 8,432,550) — same assignee, sub-400 nm image cytometry in a fixed chamber with fluorescence. The biggest §102(a)(1) threat to method claim 19 and the likely driver of the narrowing of granted claim 1.
4. US 4,881,802 (Stankewitz/Leitz) and DE 102 39 955 B3 (Carl Zeiss SMT) — the primary §103 pair for the bright-field/dark-field interchangeability (claim 5) and variable aperture/obstruction modulation claims; likely anticipate narrow stop/aperture claims.
5. US 2005/0259245 A1 (Cemic/Leica), US 2007/0190661 A1 (Gudermann), US 6,809,324 B1 (Schmidt) — secondary §103 art for modality switching, multi-image recording and fluorescence detection.
6. WO 2012/096153 A1 (Nikon) and the EP/JP documents — background/citation-of-record; not assessable as anticipatory on what I retrieved.

What could not be established and would change this ranking:

• Whether WO'014 or the Nexcelom US publication disclose any sub-400 nm illumination (if either does, its §102 exposure jumps from "narrow claims" to "granted claim 1").
• The full granted dependent-claim set — I have claim 1, claim 5 and claim 19 only, and even those are transcribed from secondary sources with OCR artifacts (see the earlier section's note).
• The effective filing dates of F16, F17, F18 and F28, which determine whether they are §102(a)(2) art at all, and whether they are disqualified by common ownership under §102(b)(2)(C).
• The contents of F1, F3, F9, F20, F22–F27, F30–F35.

Recommended next verification steps: pull the USPTO PatentCenter IFW for application 14/893,780 (PTOL-892 "References Cited," the PTO-1449/IDS forms, and the examiner's 892/103 rejections — the rejections will name which reference was mapped to which limitation); pull the EP 3 004 838 B1 / EP 4 027 132 A1 EESR and examination reports (the "I"/"A" categories and claim-relevance column are a ready-made §102/§103 map); and confirm the filing dates of the four post-priority references before treating any of them as prior art.

I'll research the prior art references relevant to US 10,458,896 to ground the obviousness analysis.

Let me search for the specific prior-art references cited on this patent's record.

I found that the EP family search report cites US 2012/0274760 A1 (King). Let me retrieve the full prior-art citation list from the EP family search reports and pin down the key references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,458,896 B2 ("Image forming cytometer")

0. Important sourcing note (read first)

The user instruction asks me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." The raw Google Patents "Prior Art" tab for US 10,458,896 (its patent-citation list, "Cited By" set, and "Similar Documents") was not returned by any of the searches I was able to complete in this session. I therefore did not fabricate a citation list for it. Instead I ground this analysis in:

• the prior-art references that are evidenced in the sources I reached (the EP family search report surfaced for the divisional publication EP 4027132 A1, and references cited in the field), and
• the admissions in the '896 specification's own "Description of the Related Art", which are usable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a patent's own background can supply the general knowledge of the art).

Where I am relying on second-hand information (e.g., the previously generated section's statement that the EP search report lists WO 2011/088014 A2 and US 2012/0274760 A1), I flag it. I found independent corroboration for the King reference: the EP 4027132 A1 document lists "US 2012274760 A1 20121101 – KING FREDERICK DAVID [CA]" among its cited documents (source: data.epo.org/pise-server/rest/collections/lgpi/EP4027132A1.pdf).

Confidence statement: this is a structured obviousness hypothesis keyed to the references I could verify, not a verbatim reproduction of the examiner's or a litigant's contentions. Several dependent claims were transcribed from secondary sources with OCR artifacts and should be verified against the granted claim set before being relied on.

---

1. Legal framework applied

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007):

1. A claim is obvious if the differences between the claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the effective filing date (2013-05-28, the DK priority date).
2. A combination of references is obvious when there is a motivation to combine, the references are analogous art, and there is a reasonable expectation of success. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981).
3. KSR permits reliance on common sense, design incentives, market forces, and the "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" to a known problem. A predictable variation of a known element, using a known technique, is obvious.
4. The patent's own background section is an evidentiary admission of what was known in the art ("Applicant's own specification may be used as prior art against it" for admissions of known art).

A POSITA here is a person with a degree in physics/optics or biomedical engineering and ~2–5 years' experience designing low-magnification image cytometers (cell counters imaging cells in a thin chamber onto a CCD/CMOS array).

---

2. The claims to be assessed (recap, per the prior-generated section)

• Claim 1 (apparatus): image cytometer with (a) a first light source emitting <400 nm light into a sample region; (b) a collimator forming collimated light along the optical axis into the sample region; (c) a second light source comprising a first excitation light source; (d) image forming means imaging the sample region onto an array of detection elements; (e) sample region between the collimator and the detector array and adjacent to the collimator so light passing the sample is collimated; (f) operable in a bright-field mode using the sub-400 nm collimated light.
• Claim 5 (dependent, "according to claim 1"): combination of bright-field, dark-field and fluorescence modes with interchangeability among the three.
• Claim 19 (method): assessing a quantity/quality parameter of a biological sample using such a sub-400 nm collimated-illumination cytometer; recording a fluorescence image; processing to distinguish particle signals from background; correlating to the parameter.
• The specification's independently-recited aspects (an illumination system and the method) were narrowed in prosecution so that claim 1 hard-requires the <400 nm source and the collimator-adjacent bright-field configuration (see prior-generated summary).

---

3. Prior art of record / relevant references

References A, C, D, E, G are all in the same field of endeavor (image-based cytometry / cell counting) → analogous art; B, F likewise.

---

4. Element-by-element mapping of Claim 1 to the prior art

Assessment: Every structural element of claim 1 except the explicit "<400 nm" numeric limitation is disclosed or suggested by Reference A alone (Nexcelom's cell counter: collimated BF + separate fluorescence excitation + objective + detector array + chamber), and compound reference D supplies the same architecture in the same assignee's own earlier fluorescence apparatus. The only gap is the wavelength value — which the '896 specification itself admits as a known microscopy technique (H).

---

5. Combinations that render the claims obvious

Combination 1 — Claim 1: A (Nexcelom Chan/Li) + H (admitted UV microscopy knowledge), optionally + D

• All structural elements of claim 1 are in A: collimated bright-field illumination, a separate excitation source, an objective imaging onto a detection array, and a sample chamber located between collimator and detector. A expressly discloses the "beam narrowing device = collimator" terminology that maps to the claimed "collimator."
• Motivation to substitute a sub-400 nm source for A's visible BF source: the '896 specification's own background states that (i) UV microscopy is known, (ii) short-wavelength light yields both absorbance-based contrast (DNA/protein at 260/280 nm) and higher resolution (resolution ∝ λ), and (iii) conventional BF/DF of cells gives "rather poor contrast." A POSITA seeking to improve cell contrast in a low-magnification cell counter therefore had a finite, identified, predictable set of options (shorter-wavelength illumination, phase contrast, fluorescence) — exactly the KSR "predictable solutions" scenario. Selecting a UV LED (365 nm) as the BF source is a predictable variation of a known element with a known technique, producing no more than the expected improvement in contrast/resolution.
• Reasonable expectation of success: UV LEDs at 365–380 nm were commercially mature by 2013; UV-transparent optics and UV-compatible detectors were known (the '896 spec itself lists "transmit[ting] light … between 200 nm and 1000 nm" as design parameters, i.e., routine engineering choices).

➡️ Claim 1 would have been obvious over A in view of the admitted UV-microscopy art (H), with D as a secondary teaching of the same architecture at the same assignee.

Combination 2 — Claim 1: C (Nexcelom WO 2011/088014) + B (King) + H

• C is (per the family search report) the closest "image cytometer" reference; B (King) supplies a complementary cytometry-imaging teaching. Adding H's admitted UV technique and the routine collimated-illumination geometry completes claim 1. This is a classic two-reference Keller combination: both references are in the same field, and the motivation is the shared objective of high-contrast, low-magnification imaging of low-contrast cells.

Combination 3 — Claim 5 (BF + DF + fluorescence, interchangeable): A + F + H

• A discloses both bright-field imaging and fluorescence imaging in one instrument with a shutter that switches between them; F discloses obtaining a refraction image plus a bright-field and/or fluorescence image. Adding dark-field imaging is not a leap: DF microscopy is admitted in the '896 background as one of "the two basic methods" (H), and the modulation means that convert BF↔DF (an aperture vs. an obstruction at the focal plane of collimated light — the '896 spec's own description) are conventional optical elements.
• Motivation: an instrument that can toggle BF/DF/fluorescence in a fixed optical train delivers complementary contrast mechanisms for cell location and classification (spec's stated goal) without moving light sources — a recognized design incentive. Interchangeability via a filter wheel / linear slider is routine.

Combination 4 — Angled excitation and stray-light suppression (relevant to the fluorescence-mode and background-reduction limitations): A + G (+ D)

• US 9,329,130 (A) expressly teaches "two or multiple oblique incident excitation beams," "various incident angles," to "maximize fluorescent signal … while minimizing background noise." This directly maps to the '896 feature of the excitation light at an incidence angle relative to the optical axis and the reduced exposure of excitation light onto the detector.
• The '896 specification's additional trick — placing one or more obstructions in the collimated excitation beam to remove rays that would otherwise enter the objective (its FIGS. 3C–3E; Table 3-1) — is a predictable application of a known masking technique to the known problem of excitation light leaking into the imaging path. The specification itself notes ideal blocking filters are imperfect (10⁻⁶–10⁻⁷), so the motivation to add spatial masking in the excitation path was explicit in the art. A beam obstruction in a collimated beam is the epitome of a predictable mechanical/optical expedient.
• Motivation to combine A with G/D: all three target the same problem (background from excitation light, autofocus/exposure control, imaging static cells in a fixed-height chamber); the references are combinable as a whole.

Combination 5 — Deep depth of field / short exposure / low magnification (dependent claims): A/G + H

• Low magnification (<20:1, and 1:1–4:1), a chamber of known height (A), and a depth of field greater than 5 μm are routine design parameters of image cytometers. G discloses autofocus and exposure-setting workflows. Limiting illumination duration to reduce phototoxicity (<1 s; 0.0001–0.1 s; ≤200 nJ/mm²) follows directly from the admitted photosensitivity of live cells and is a predictable optimization of exposure time — a classic case where KSR holds a range optimization obvious absent evidence of criticality.

---

6. Why a POSITA would have been motivated to combine (articulated rationale)

1. Same field, same problem. A/C/D/G all address counting/imaging cells in a thin, fixed-height chamber at low magnification with a camera — the exact field of claim 1. The shared objective is making low-contrast cells reliably detectable (the '896 patent's stated problem).
2. The '896 specification supplies the motivation itself. Its background admits that UV microscopy improves contrast/resolution and that BF/DF give "poor contrast" (H). A patent cannot claim as inventive a solution to a problem it admits was known to solve in the same way.
3. Finite, predictable design space. For "increase contrast in BF imaging of cells," the art recognized a small set of options: shorter wavelength, phase contrast, fluorescence, or modulation means. KSR makes predictable selection among these obvious.
4. Explicit teaching of the fluorescence-background solution. A's oblique/multi-angle excitation expressly aims to reduce background — directly supplying the "incidence angle relative to the optical axis" feature and its raison d'être.
5. Design incentives / market forces. Integrating BF+DF+fluorescence in one fixed optical train (avoiding moving the fluorescence source) is a recognized speed/robustness advantage; interchangeable modulation means (filter wheel) are routine hardware, lowering cost and enabling automation.
6. No teaching away. Nothing in A–H teaches away from using short-wavelength (sub-400 nm) collimated bright-field illumination; the art affirmatively points toward it.

---

7. Foreseeable patentee rebuttals and how they would be met

---

8. Overall conclusion

On the evidence I could reach, the claims of US 10,458,896 are vulnerable to a § 103 obviousness challenge. The strongest ground is:

Claim 1 — obvious over Nexcelom (Chan/Li) US 9,329,130 / US 2010/0189338 / US 2014/0347463 in view of the admitted UV-microscopy knowledge in the '896 specification itself (and the EP-cited Nexcelom WO 2011/088014 and King US 2012/0274760), optionally with ChemoMetec WO 2010/045949 as corroborating same-field art.

Claim 5 — obvious further in view of the admitted BF/DF/phase-contrast art and the routine interchangeability of modulation means (filter wheel/slider), with EP 1 316 793 teaching combined BF/fluorescence/refraction imaging.

Claim 19 (method) — obvious as the method counterpart to the above, using routine image-processing to segment particles from background (G).

Principal open items / where I lack confidence:

• I could not retrieve the Google Patents "Prior Art" tab for US 10,458,896, so the examiner's actual cited-art list and any X/Y-category designations are unverified; the references above are assembled from the EP-family search report, same-field patents, and the specification's own admissions.
• The content of US 2012/0274760 A1 (King) and WO 2011/088014 A2 (Nexcelom) was not independently retrieved; their scope is taken from the family search report and the previously-generated section.
• Dependent-claim limitations and claim counting rest on secondary sources (Justia/RPX) with OCR artifacts; verify against the granted claim text (and any US 10,921,234 continuation claims) before relying on a specific element.
• A full validity opinion would require the actual examination file history (applicant amendments/arguments, and any art of record) via USPTO PatentCenter, which I could not query here.

Caveat (per operating rules): This is an analytical hypothesis grounded in the references I could verify. It is not a legal conclusion, and a definitive obviousness determination requires the complete, verified prior-art of record and the prosecution history.