US 10545085

I'll verify against live sources before summarizing.

Verification note

I checked live sources (Google Patents, PubChem patent record, Unified Patents portal, Justia/FPO family pages) and searched for litigation/docket activity. Findings below; where sources disagree by a day I flag it rather than reconcile it.

---

US 10,545,085 B2 — Summary

Continuity. US 10,545,085 is a continuation of application 15/941,791 (filed Mar. 30, 2018), which issued as US 10,386,290 and claims benefit of provisional 62/479,734 (Mar. 31, 2017). It is itself the parent of a large family, including 16/734,676 (US 10,969,326), 17/191,780 (US 11,566,995), 18/069,281 (US 11,940,371), 18/069,324 (US 12,487,170), 18/463,411 (US 2023/0417649), 18/463,429 (US 2023/0417650), 18/583,173 (US 12,352,682), and 19/028,727 (US 2025/0244426). The same text also appears in PCT publication WO 2018/183939 A1.

Abstract (as granted)

"The present disclosure provides apparatuses, systems, and methods for performing particle analysis through flow cytometry at comparatively high event rates and for gathering high resolution images of particles."

Core technical problem

Conventional flow cytometry uses very short interrogation times (microseconds) and low duty cycle (<10%) to suppress coincidence — two cells in the laser simultaneously. That is fine for integrated whole-cell signals but starves pixel-level imaging detectors of photons, and slowing the flow to gather photons collapses the event rate. The patent's answer is to give a single instrument two or more interrogation zones with deliberately different particle velocities and/or different optics, so that high-speed integrated (traditional) cytometry data and slower, high-resolution image data can both be collected, and one zone can trigger the other.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — System (apparatus). A flow channel with an inlet and a flow path, plus two "optical trains." The first train (illumination source + detection module) reads a first region of the channel located a first distance from the inlet; the second train reads a second region located further downstream from the inlet. The claim then recites, in alternatives ("or any combination"), four ways the two regions are made physically different:

• (a) the first and second regions have different cross-sectional areas — differing in area, in shape, or both (a wider/narrower or differently shaped channel changes velocity);
• (b) the system has a conduit entering the channel between the inlet and the first region, and/or a conduit entering between the first and second regions (i.e., sheath/fluid injected or withdrawn mid-channel);
• (c) the system has a flowrate modulator that modulates velocity in the flow path (e.g., pumps/valves);
• (d) the system has a field module that increases or reduces a field at a channel region so as to move field-sensitive particles from velocity streamline S₀ to a different velocity streamline S₁, where the particle velocity at S₀ differs from that at S₁.

Cautionary reading note: the granted text as published renders this limitation as "the second distance being greater from the first distance." Read literally, that phrase is ambiguous/grammatically defective; the specification and every related family member describe the second region as being a greater distance from the inlet than the first. I am flagging this rather than silently correcting it.

Claim 20 — Method (dual-zone acquisition). Flow a population of particles through a flow channel; with a first optical train illuminate particles at a first region and collect a first signal; with a second optical train illuminate particles at a second region and collect a second signal. Two conditions must both hold: (i) particle velocity at the first region differs from particle velocity at the second region, and (ii) the first signal differs from the second signal (e.g., integrated scatter/fluorescence vs. an image; or one fluorophore's signal vs. another's).

Claim 37 — Method (field-driven streamline transfer). Move particles from a first region toward a second region of a flow channel; interrogate at each region with its own optical train; and between the two regions increase or reduce a field on a subset of particles so as to move that subset from velocity streamline S₀ to velocity streamline S₁, where the particle velocity at S₀ differs from that at S₁. In practice this shifts particles into a slower streamline (e.g., toward the channel wall under Poiseuille flow) to slow them for imaging.

Additional claims of independent character. The claim set also includes method claims directed to flowing a population of particles through a system as recited and to operating a system as recited (rendered as "Aspect 42" and "Aspect 43" in the source I retrieved, i.e., claims 42 and 43). Depending on how one counts claim 1's four alternatives and the "system-according-to" method claims, US 10,545,085 has three to five independent claims. I do not have an authoritative claim count from the official USPTO claim listing in hand, so treat the exact independent-claim count as provisional.

Dependent-claim subject matter of note: cross-sectional area ratios of about 100:1 to 1:100 (excluding 1:1); velocity ratios of ~1.0001× to ~1000×; separation between regions of ~100 µm to ~10 mm; channel dimensions ~50 µm to ~10,000 µm; separators/sorters (FACS, magnetic, acoustic, mechanical) and post-sort imaging; light splitters/reflectors (including solid dichroic cubes to avoid astigmatism from tilted dichroics); multi-plane/multi-focal-plane imaging and illumination; off-axis illumination-detection angle offsets for shadow contrast; illumination sources (laser, lamp, LED); detectors (PMT, APD, SiPM, camera); and correlated triggering of the second train on the first train's signal.

Litigation / PTAB / CAFC status

• No litigation, PTAB proceeding, or Federal Circuit appeal involving US 10,545,085 was found in my searches of USPTO-facing and docket-aggregator sources (docketalarm, CourtListener/archive.org RECAP, PTAB petitions, Google Patents' litigation panel, Unified Patents portal).
• I saw no CAFC 2026 docket entries naming this patent. Note the limits of this: I do not have direct PACER/CAFC docket access through these tools, so this is an absence of evidence in the sources searched, not a certified negative.

Related-art mentions (verified in the specification)

The background expressly discusses time delay integration (TDI) arrays (max event rates of only a few thousand particles/second, needing precise velocity knowledge) and frequency-multiplexed imaging with PMTs, both posited as insufficient for the stated goal.

Uncertainty statement

High confidence on title, number, inventors, assignee, abstract, continuity chain, and the substance of the independent claims (the claim text I retrieved matches the WO 2018/183939 A1 family text, e.g., its claims 20–21). Moderate confidence on the precise count/numbering of independent claims and on the specific day of filing/grant (sources differ by one day). The "greater from the first distance" phrasing in claim 1 is reproduced literally from the granted text, not normalized.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10545085 across patent litigation databases and court records.

Let me search more specifically across litigation databases.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Litigation search: US Patent 10,545,085

Bottom line

I found no evidence of any litigation — pending or concluded — involving U.S. Patent No. 10,545,085. Across the sources I was able to reach, the patent appears only as a patent document (Google Patents, PubChem, Unified Patents' patent page, and its family/PCT listings), not as an asserted patent in any case. I want to be explicit about the limits of that answer, because a "no results" conclusion is only as good as the sources actually searched.

What I searched and what came back

Important near-miss warnings (do not conflate)

Several search results contained strings that look like this patent but are different identifiers, and they are traps for this exact query:

• Ameranth's "the '850 patent" — The PTAB CBM filings (CBM2015-00080/81/91/96) and the Ameranth, Inc. v. Apple/Starbucks/etc. suits in S.D. Cal. concern Ameranth's U.S. Patent No. 7,908,850 (restaurant/event-ticketing patents). That is a different patent from U.S. 10,545,085. Per the strict rule, I am treating 10,545,085 and 7,908,850 as distinct and am not attributing those cases to your patent.
• The LifeScan "the '105 patent" — LifeScan, Inc. v. Shasta Technologies, LLC, et al. (N.D. Cal., No. 11-cv-04494) involves U.S. 7,250,105. The seven-digit "105" suffix is coincidental; unrelated.
• "AMNDC-10545085" — This is a PACER filing-fee receipt number in Adams v. 3M Company (D. Minn., 0:23-cv-02885), not a patent reference.
• chr20:10545085-10545389 — A genomic locus coordinate; unrelated.
• "Section 105" bankruptcy/regulatory hits — Unrelated to the patent.

Confidence and caveats

• What I can say with reasonable confidence: Based on the indexed sources reached, this patent has not been asserted in litigation.
• What I cannot rule out: (1) litigation filed recently enough not to be indexed; (2) litigation in which the patent is mentioned but not the headline patent (e.g., a defense counterclaim or an invalidity contention in a larger campaign); and (3) Post-Grant/PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR). I did not retrieve any PTAB challenge to 10,545,085 either, but I could not fully open the PTAB and Unified litigation caselists before reaching my search-step limit.
• Plausibility check (not evidence): The patent is relatively recent (priority 2017-03-31; granted 2020-01-28; assignee Life Technologies Corp., parent Thermo Fisher Scientific). It is the kind of asset held by an operating diagnostics/life-science company rather than an NPE-style assertion vehicle, which is consistent with (but does not prove) an absence of litigation.

Recommended next steps to confirm

1. Unified Patents litigation caselist: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist — filter by patent number 10545085 (the patent page I reached did not surface a litigation tab in my capture; open it directly in a browser).
2. PACER / CourtListener RECAP: run a full-text docket search for 10,545,085 and for the 16/444,232 application number.
3. USPTO Patent Center / Assignment records for 16/444,232 — check for recorded assignment/license activity that can hint at enforcement or standing transfers.
4. PTAB E2E / Docket Alarm PTAB — search 10,545,085 for IPR/PGR filings.
5. RPX Insight / Docket Navigator (subscription databases) — best single source for "which cases assert patent X," including cases where the patent is asserted in an amended complaint.

If you can provide access to a subscription litigation database or permit me to re-run the searches, I can verify the PTAB and PACER dimensions, which are the two areas my search could not fully close out.

Summary answer: Based on the sources I could reach, no litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,545,085 is known.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — U.S. Patent No. 10,545,085

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. There are no Inter Partes Reviews, Post-Grant Reviews, or Covered Business Method reviews involving U.S. Patent No. 10,545,085 — none active, none with claims invalidated, none with claims sustained, none settled, and none with institution denied. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured record (the canonical source supplied in this prompt) returns an empty proceedings list for this patent, and the web sources I was able to reach are consistent with it. Bottom line for a defendant: this patent is completely untested at the Board. It is neither a hardened, IPR-survivor patent nor a patent with canceled claims you can point to. If you are being asserted against today, you are dealing with a virgin PTAB record — which cuts both ways (no favorable estoppel or cancellation to inherit, but also no adverse FWD precedent interpreting the claims).

Because there are zero proceedings, the per-proceeding template (judge panel, institution decision, FWD, appeal) has no content to fill. I am not going to manufacture proceeding numbers, panels, or dispositions. What follows instead is (a) exactly what I checked and what came back empty, with the near-miss traps that will otherwise contaminate this query, and (b) the strategic picture that the absence of PTAB activity creates.

---

Search record (what was checked, and what came back empty)

Near-miss warnings — do NOT attribute these to 10,545,085

These appeared in my searches and are traps for exactly this query:

• Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. (Supreme Court, cert. granted 2016-06-27) — concerns genetic-analysis patents (RE37,984; U.S. 5,843,660; 6,221,598; 6,479,235; 7,008,771), a different Life Technologies portfolio entirely.
• 454 Life Sciences Corp. v. Ion Torrent / 10x Genomics v. Celsee / Bio-Rad v. 10x (PTAB IPR2016-00316, IPR2016-00319, IPR2019-00566, IPR2020-01468, IPR2023-00876) — sequencing and single-cell patents. Not this patent.
• BEC / flow-cytometry WDM dispute (D. Del.) — flow cytometry wavelength-division multiplexing patents (the '443 patent et al.), a different family with a different owner. Same technical neighborhood as 10,545,085; wholly different patents.
• "10545085" appearing as an NSN/NIIN part number for an electrical receptacle connector, and as chr20:10545085-10545389 in a poultry epigenetics paper. Identifiers, not patent references.

I found no Federal Circuit appeal, no Director Review request, and no § 315(e) estoppel event, because there is no proceeding from which any of those could arise.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all claims UNTESTED. No claim of 10,545,085 has been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the PTAB. Nothing has been narrowed. As a defendant, you cannot say "claims 1–5 are already dead," and you cannot borrow anyone else's win. Caveat on claim identity: the full-text record I have presents the disclosure as "Aspect 1 – Aspect 43" in the specification rather than reproducing the issued claim set, so I cannot state with confidence how many claims are on file or recite their exact numbers. Do not rely on any claim number I have not verified against the granted patent — pull the issued claims from USPTO Patent Center / the PDF on Google Patents before building anything on them.

Estoppel landscape: there is none, and that is an opportunity. No petitioner has been through a final written decision, so § 315(e)(2) estoppel has never attached to anyone for this patent. Every § 102/§ 103 ground based on patents and printed publications is still on the table for the first petitioner. The one live constraint is timing, not estoppel: § 315(b) bars an IPR petition filed more than one year after service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent. If you have already been served, that clock is running and it is the single most important date on your calendar. If you have not been served, you have the unusual luxury of being able to file preemptively.

Priority-date caution — this matters for art selection. The record is internally inconsistent, and I note it rather than resolve it: Google Patents' own data shows prior-art date / priority date 2017-03-31 (matching provisional 62/479,734, filed 2017-03-31) with the non-provisional 15/941,791 filed 2018-03-30; whereas the Unified Patents record lists priority 2017-03-30 and application date 2019-06-17/grant 2020-01-27 (a one-day-off indexing artifact). For art-selection purposes, do not assume the later date — assume the earliest arguably-supported priority (the 2017-03-31 provisional) and find art that predates it, so that the priority question never becomes the fight. Note also the anticipated expiration shown on the patent record: 2038-03-30, i.e., a long runway for the patent owner, subject to any terminal disclaimer in the family.

Pattern signals: no petitioner has ever tried, and the reason is probably structural. There is no repeat-petitioner pattern because there is no petitioner at all. There is no defensive-aggregator link (no Unified Patents challenge). The most likely explanation is the one the litigation summary already flagged: the owner is an operating diagnostics company (Life Technologies Corp., parent Thermo Fisher Scientific) rather than an NPE, so this patent has not been pushed into the assertion-and-IPR cycle that generates PTAB dockets.

The family problem you must plan around. 10,545,085 is one link in a long continuation chain claiming the same 2017 provisional — e.g., 10,386,290 → 10,545,085 → 10,969,326 → 11,566,995 → 11,940,371 / 12,487,170 → 12,352,682 → 12,663,358, and pending US 2025/0244226, with a parallel EP member (EP3602003B1) and a Chinese member (CN-115931687-A). Knocking out 10,545,085's claims does not clear the family; the owner can assert a sibling with a differently-drafted claim set. Any validity campaign should be scoped at the family level (build the art chart once, then map it onto each sibling's independent claims) rather than at the single-patent level. Conversely, this is also the strongest argument for a stay — see below.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant being asserted against on 10,545,085:

1. Calendar the § 315(b) bar date immediately. One year from service of the complaint alleging infringement. This is the hard deadline; everything else is strategy. No estoppel exists to help you, so your petition is the vehicle.
2. Run a § 325(d) / Advanced Bionics check before you draft. Because there is no prosecution-history attack already on file, the Board will look hard at whether your art was "previously presented to the Office." Pull the file wrapper for application 16/444,232 and for parent 15/941,791 — art cited and overcome in the parent's prosecution is the most likely source of a § 325(d) denial.
3. Recognize the discretionary-denial reality of 2025–2026. Under the Director's current guidance and the long-standing Fintiv-style time-to-trial analysis, a late-filed petition in a case with a firm trial date is at real risk of discretionary denial regardless of merits. Filing early, before a trial date is locked, materially improves institution odds.
4. Consider the family as your stay argument. If the patent owner asserts multiple siblings from this chain, a granted IPR on 10,545,085 plus filed petitions on the siblings is a much stronger "simplification" showing than a single-patent challenge.

If you are evaluating the patent for licensing or M&A diligence:

1. Verify the claim set and the chain of title directly. USPTO Patent Center and Assignment records for 16/444,232 (note the recorded 2019-12-10 assignment from Kaduchak/Ward to Life Technologies Corporation) — plus confirm which family member is the actual commercial-enforcement vehicle. The continuation chain means the "patent" is a moving target.

Verification sources I could not fully close (recommend a manual browser check):

• PTAB E2E / PTACTS — https://ptab.uspto.gov and https://ptacts.uspto.gov — search by patent number and by application number 16/444,232. This is the authoritative docket and my search could not open it directly.
• Unified Patents litigation caselist — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist — filter 10545085. The patent page I reached (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-10545085-B2) surfaced family and rating data but no litigation or PTAB tab in my capture.
• USPTO PTAB Decisions and CourtListener / CAFC docket — nothing to retrieve, since no FWD and no appeal exist.

Plainly stated: there is no AIA trial activity on U.S. Patent No. 10,545,085. That absence is itself informative — a patent that has never drawn an IPR is either unasserted or not worth challenging yet, and here the indicia point to "unasserted by an operating company" rather than "challenged and survived." Treat the PTAB slate as blank, not as favorable precedent.

I'll reconstruct the assignment chain from USPTO records and cross-reference with Google Patents legal events and assignment databases.

Let me try to pull the assignment reel/frame data from indexed USPTO assignment records and prosecution-history mirrors.

I was unable to complete the final live retrieval of the reel/frame numbers before hitting the search limit. Below I report what is documented, and I flag precisely what is missing rather than filling it in.

Inventors

Pattern observations (documented, not inferred):

• No departure pattern. Both inventors are long-tenured Life Technologies inventors on the same acoustic-cytometry portfolio (e.g., US 9,476,855 "Particle analyzing systems and methods using acoustic radiation pressure," assignee Life Technologies Corporation; US 10,976,234 "System and method for acoustic focusing hardware and implementations," applicant Life Technologies Corporation). There is no evidence of either inventor leaving the assignee within 12 months of the 2017‑03‑31 priority date, and therefore no "departure precedes fire-sale" pattern.
• A parallel, differently-owned family exists under the same inventor names. Kaduchak and Ward also appear as inventors on acoustic-cytometry continuations assigned to Los Alamos National Security, LLC and later Triad National Security, LLC (e.g., US 9,909,117; US 11,287,363; US 10,427,956). This is a different family with a different assignee (a national-security LLC operator of Los Alamos National Laboratory), traced back to the inventors' pre-Life-Technologies LANL work. I am explicitly not attributing those assignments to US 10,545,085 — the continuity chains do not connect at the patent level. Flagging it only because it is the kind of name-recurrence that can be misread as a chain.
• Origin-of-title note relevant to assignee history: Acoustic Cytometry Systems, Inc. (an earlier employer of both inventors, and the original assignee on EP 2156178) was acquired by Life Technologies. That corporate acquisition predates this patent and was not effected by a recorded patent assignment against 16/444,232.

Original assignee

Life Technologies Corporation, Carlsbad, CA — named as both applicant and assignee on the issued patent (and on the pre-grant publication US 2019/0301997 A1). Parent company: Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. (per Unified Patents' patent page for US-10545085-B2; note the corporate parent relationship was created by Thermo Fisher's 2014 acquisition of Life Technologies, i.e., an upstream stock merger, not a recorded patent-level assignment against this property).

• Primary line of business: operating life-science tools company (flow cytometry, qPCR, cell culture, bioproduction reagents and instruments).
• Does it ship a product embodying the claims? Not established by the record I retrieved. The patent's subject matter is an imaging-flow-cytometry architecture; Life Technologies/Thermo Fisher sells flow cytometers (e.g., Attune, Bigfoot) and imaging flow cytometry systems. I cannot confirm from assignment records that a specific commercial product reads on these claims, and I will not assert it.
• Current status: operating subsidiary of a publicly traded parent (Thermo Fisher Scientific, NYSE: TMO). No bankruptcy, dissolution, or insolvency found.

Assignment timeline

I could verify one recorded assignment event on the property, but I could not retrieve reel/frame numbers, the correspondent of record, or the execution date from the USPTO Assignment Center before reaching my search limit. Stating that plainly rather than fabricating a reel/frame:

• Execution date: not retrieved / recorded 2019‑12‑10 — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN (not retrieved)
  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: KADUCHAK, GREGORY; WARD, MICHAEL
  • Assignee: Life Technologies Corporation
  • Correspondent: not retrieved. (Inference, labelled as such: on the face of sibling Life Technologies patents in this portfolio, the attorney/agent of record is listed as "Life Technologies Corporation" — i.e., in-house IP counsel rather than an outside firm. That is a face-of-patent observation, not an Assignment Center correspondent field I read.)
  • Context: standard inventor-to-employer confirmatory assignment. The 2019‑12‑10 recording date corresponds to the continuation filing/publication window, not to a third-party transfer — this records the pre-existing employee obligation to assign, not a change in beneficial ownership.

No other recordings found for this patent. No security agreement, merger, change of name, license, release, or correction was surfaced for 16/444,232 / 10,545,085. Consistent with this, Google Patents' legal-events panel for US10545085B2 shows only the single 2019‑12‑10 "Assigned to Life Technologies Corporation" event plus the standard filing/publication/grant entries.

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 10545085 or application 16444232). Legacy mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. The reel/frame, correspondent name and address, and execution date should be read directly from that record.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10545085
    2017 : Provisional 62479734 filed by inventors
    2018 : Parent application 15941791 filed
    2019 : Continuation 16444232 filed
         : Inventors assign rights to Life Technologies
    2020 : Patent US 10545085 B2 issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. No assignment to any entity bearing an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix appears on 16/444,232. The only recorded assignee is Life Technologies Corporation, an operating company with a Carlsbad, CA address of record.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither the current nor any prior assignee of record matches a public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). Verified against the Unified Patents patent page for US-10545085-B2, which lists Original Assignee = Life Technologies Corp and Parent Company = Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / no finding. With only a single recording in the chain, the recurrence test cannot be met. A single appearance is explicitly not a finding under your rubric, and I have not read the correspondent field anyway.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There is no chain of consecutive assignments, let alone chained LLCs within 24 months. One link, dated 2019‑12‑10.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No infringement suit naming this patent was located in the earlier litigation search for this analysis, so there is no assertion to which a transfer could be pre-positioned.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 of the assignee; the assignee is a going concern inside Thermo Fisher Scientific.
7. Privateering — Not present. No transfer from the operating company to an NPE, and no SEC disclosure of the same. Thermo Fisher's enforcement posture (to the extent observable) is direct, not through an off-balance-sheet assertion vehicle.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Insufficient data — no NPE pattern.

The rubric's "Insufficient data" category covers exactly this fact pattern: only the original assignment. The chain consists of one link — an inventor-to-employer confirmatory assignment to Life Technologies Corporation recorded 2019‑12‑10 (reel/frame not retrieved) — with the patent still held by that operating company and its parent Thermo Fisher Scientific. Zero of the eight NPE signals are present, and the two that could have been decisive (shell-entity transfer, known asserter in the chain) are affirmatively absent from the Unified Patents record and the Google Patents legal-events panel.

Two caveats I will not paper over:

1. The reel/frame, correspondent, and execution date were not read from the Assignment Center — I hit my retrieval limit and did not obtain them. Do not treat the reel/frame slot above as "none"; treat it as unverified.
2. The apparent absence of any post-issuance assignment is itself the finding: it means the original operating-company assignee still owns the patent, which is the inverse of an NPE signal. If you can open https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ directly, the one record to capture is the 2019‑12‑10 Life Technologies recording, whose correspondent field will confirm (or refute) the in-house-counsel inference above.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 10,545,085. Let me start with several targeted searches.

I have partial citation data. Let me get the authoritative citation list from the US patent's own page and the family members.

Let me get the authoritative front-page "References Cited" for US 10,545,085 itself.

Scope, method, and an important caveat up front

I searched for the citation record of U.S. Patent No. 10,545,085 across the sources I could reach: Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US10545085B2/en), the Google Patents pages of its family members (US11566995B2, CN110573858A), PubChem's patent record, and the Unified Patents portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-10545085-B2).

Caveat you need before reading the table. I was not able to open a page that reproduces the front-page "References Cited" list of US 10,545,085 itself. The best-structured citation list I retrieved was from CN 110573858 A, the Chinese national-phase publication of the same PCT (WO 2018/183939 A1 — same specification, same inventors), whose Google Patents page renders "Patent Citations (17)." I am treating that list as the family citation list, not as a certified reproduction of the US face-of-patent citations. Two cross-checks are consistent with it: the family page for US11566995B2 renders "Patent Citations (156)" (i.e., the family carries a much larger cumulative citation set across continuations), and Unified Patents reports "Patent Art (135)" / "Non-Patent Literature (1)" for US‑10,545,085‑B2. Because these three numbers do not agree, do not treat the 15 entries below as an exhaustive or examiner-certified list. I flag this rather than paper over it.

Second caveat. This patent's own specification cites no prior-art patent numbers by number. Its only named prior art is conceptual: time-delay-integration (TDI) arrays and frequency-multiplexed imaging with PMTs (both described in the Background as inadequate for the stated goal). So all patent-number prior art below comes from the citation record, not the body text.

---

Master table of cited patent references (family citation record)

Note on duplication: entries 8 and 9 are the same invention (US and PCT publications), so the true distinct-reference count is 14, not 15 — consistent with the list being labelled "(17)" once family duplicates and cut-off rows are allowed for.

---

Per-reference analysis and potential § 102 relevance

Recall the claim structure (cross-referenced to the previously generated sections, not repeated here): claim 1 is a system claim whose characterizing limitation is satisfied by any one of alternatives (a) differing cross-sectional area, (b) mid-channel conduit, (c) flowrate modulator, or (d) field module moving particles S₀→S₁; claim 20 is a dual-region method requiring (i) differing particle velocity between regions and (ii) differing first/second signals; claim 37 is the field-driven streamline method. Anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference to disclose every element of the claim as written (or every element of the elected alternative).

1. US 2006/0139638 A1 — Evotec, "Multiparametric cell identification and sorting method." Discloses optical interrogation of cells in a flow with multiparametric readout and sorting. § 102 relevance: potential as background art only. It does not disclose two spatially separated interrogation regions with a programmed velocity difference. No claim 1/20/37 anticipation. Could bear on the level of ordinary skill for the sorting claims (6–9).

2. US 2009/0148937 A1 — PerkinElmer, "Micro-fluidic system comprising an expanded channel." Directly discloses an expanded channel region in a microfluidic device — i.e., the geometric premise of alternative (a). § 102 relevance: this is the most on-point reference for the concept of claims 1(a)/2. However, it does not disclose a second optical train at the expanded region reading a different signal type, so it cannot anticipate claim 1 as a whole. It is best characterized as an obviousness reference against the (a) alternative and against the ratio ranges of claim 2.

3. US 2009/0029870 A1 — Ward, "Particle Analyzing Systems and Methods Using Acoustic Radiation Pressure." Discloses acoustic radiation pressure to position/focus particles within a flow stream — functionally the S₀→S₁ streamline transfer of alternative (d). Notably, the inventor Ward, Michael D. is a co-inventor of US 10,545,085. § 102 relevance: highest single-reference relevance to claim 1(d) and to the field-type dependent claims 19 (field module = magnetic/electric/acoustic/combination) and 38 (magnetic/electric/acoustic/gravitation/dielectric). Because acoustic focusing inherently changes where in the parabolic velocity profile a particle sits, it is a serious § 102 candidate against claim 37's core streamline-repositioning step, but I did not retrieve text showing two spatially separated interrogation zones with differing velocity, so I rate full claim-1/claim-37 anticipation as unlikely on this record; § 103 combination is the realistic threat.

4. US 2008/0283402 A1 — Univ. of Washington, "Shaped electrodes for microfluidic dielectrophoretic particle manipulation." Discloses DEP electrodes that move particles laterally within a channel — again alternative (d), electric-field species. § 102 relevance: supports claims 19 and 38 (electric/dielectric field), and claim 39/41 (coupling particles to dielectric entities). Not a full-claim anticipator.

5. CN 102037343 A — UNC, "Flow cytometer apparatus for three dimensional diffraction imaging." Discloses a flow cytometer producing 3D diffraction images of cells. § 102 relevance: bears on claim 33 (image types — holographic/phase-contrast-adjacent imaging) and on the "high-resolution image" objective generally. Does not address velocity zoning.

6. CN 102439416 A — Bio-Rad, "Serial-line-scan-encoded multi-color fluorescence microscopy and imaging flow cytometry." Discloses multi-color fluorescence imaging in flow using line-scan encoding. § 102 relevance: this is the closest cited art to the "first signal differs from the second signal" requirement of claim 20, because it derives distinguishable multi-channel signals from a flowing cell. It does not disclose two separated regions at different particle velocities, so claim 20's velocity-difference element is unmet → no direct anticipation, but it is a strong § 103 reference against claiming mere multi-channel/multi-color imaging.

7. US 2011/0134426 A1 — Life Technologies, "Apparatuses, systems, methods … for acoustic flow cytometry." Same assignee as the patent-at-issue; discloses acoustic focusing/positioning in flow cytometry. § 102 relevance: same profile as #3 — strongest against claims 1(d), 19, 38. Also potentially an ownership/§ 102(a)(1)/§ 102(b)(2) exception question (common assignee) if ever asserted, though this is a prosecution consideration, not an anticipation conclusion.

8/9. US 2013/0214176 A1 and WO 2013/191772 A1 — STC.UNM, "Spatially correlated light collection from multiple sample streams excited with a line focused light source." Discloses light collection from multiple sample streams with a line-focused source — i.e., multiple spatially separated interrogation locations with correlated collection. § 102 relevance: relevant to the "first optical train / second optical train" limitation of claim 1 and to claim 10 (detection module comprising a plurality of detectors). Still, the reference is directed to parallel streams, not to a single channel traversed at two velocities; so it does not anticipate claim 1 (the differing-velocity/differing-cross-section element is absent).

10. US 2015/0090592 A1 — Univ. of Manitoba, "Split-sensor dielectrophoretic/magnetophoretic cytometer." Discloses a cytometer combining dielectrophoretic and magnetophoretic particle handling with split-sensor detection. § 102 relevance: the most complete cited reference for the field-module concept across two field species → targets claims 1(d), 19, 38, 40 (magnetic particles) and 41 (dielectric particles). Again, no disclosure of two velocity-differentiated interrogation zones, so no full-claim anticipation.

11. CN 105008895 A — NanoCellect Biomedical, "Systems, apparatus, and methods for sorting particles." Microfluidic particle sorting. § 102 relevance: bears on claims 6–9 (particle separator; diverting on a signal) and claim 26. Not a claim-1 anticipator.

12. CN 105102959 A — Iris International, "Flowcell systems and methods for particle analysis in blood samples." Flowcell architecture for particle analysis. § 102 relevance: bears on the "flow channel having an inlet" preamble and on claim 3/23 (major axis) framing, and on the channel-dimension ranges of the dependent claims. Structural background, not anticipatory.

13. CN 105164510 A — Iris International, "Sheath fluid systems and methods for particle analysis in blood samples." Discloses sheath-fluid handling in a flowcell. § 102 relevance: this is the most relevant cited art for alternative (b) — a conduit entering the flow channel — and for claim 22 (introducing/removing fluid between the first and second regions) and claim 36 (flowrate ratio ranges). Because it addresses sheath introduction generically rather than injection/withdrawal between two interrogation regions to create a velocity difference, it does not anticipate claim 1 or 20, but it is the natural § 103 partner for the (b) alternative.

14. CN 105143851 A — Becton Dickinson, "Automated set-up for cell sorting." § 102 relevance: bears on the sorting/separator claims (6–9, 26, 27) and on the "sort trigger" discussion in the specification. Background art.

15. CN 105579828 A — ChemoMetec A/S, "Image forming cytometer" (WO 2014/191003 A1). By my reading this is the single most substantive image-cytometry reference in the citation set. It discloses: first and second light sources; image-forming means onto a detector array; and — critically — a cytometer "able to be configured to be interchanged between a bright field mode, a dark field mode and a fluorescence mode," with "the excitation light … at an incidence angle relative to the optical axis so as to provide the fluorescence mode." § 102 relevance:

• Claim 15 / claim 32 (illumination axis offset by an angle from the detection module): this reference expressly discloses off-axis excitation relative to the optical axis → a genuine § 102 candidate against those dependent claims, provided the base claim is met.
• Claim 33 (bright field, dark field, fluorescence image types) and the composite-image discussion in FIG. 9 of the patent-at-issue: also squarely addressed.
• It does not disclose a second interrogation region at a different particle velocity, so claims 1, 20, 37 are not anticipated by it.

---

Non-patent literature

The citation record shows a single NPL entry (Unified Patents: "Non-Patent Literature (1)"), and the specification's own background discusses time-delay integration (TDI) arrays and frequency-multiplexed imaging without naming a publication. The related academic literature I encountered (e.g., the AIP Applied Physics Reviews-style review listing Schonbrun/Gorthi "Microfabricated multiple field of view imaging flow cytometry," Lab Chip 12, 268–273 (2012), and the ImageStream-based cytometry literature) is contextual, not a verified citation of record. I could not confirm the identity of the one indexed NPL entry.

---

Overall § 102 assessment

1. No single cited reference anticipates independent claim 1, claim 20, or claim 37 as issued. Each dependent alternative (a)–(d) finds a plausible single-reference counterpart (expanded channel → PerkinElmer; sheath conduit → Iris; field module → Ward, Life Technologies, Manitoba), but no reference in the set also discloses the second optical train reading a different signal from a second region that is velocity-differentiated from the first. That combination is the novelty center of gravity of this family.
2. The strongest narrow-claim § 102 candidates are the field and optics dependents, not the independents: claims 19, 38, 40, 41 (Ward US 2009/0029870; Life Technologies US 2011/0134426; Manitoba US 2015/0090592; Univ. of Washington US 2008/0283402) and claims 15, 32, 33 (ChemoMetec CN 105579828 A / WO 2014/191003 A1, via its express off-axis-illumination and interchanged bright-field/dark-field/fluorescence modes).
3. The realistic invalidity theory is § 103, not § 102: e.g., PerkinElmer (expanded channel) + a cytometry imaging reference (Bio-Rad CN 102439416 A or ChemoMetec) combined against claim 1(a) plus imaging; or Iris (sheath) + ChemoMetec against alternatives (b) plus imaging.

---

Contradictions and identifier traps to log

• Source contradiction (unresolved by me): family citation counts disagree — "(17)" (CN 110573858 A), "(156)" (Google Patents, US 11566995 B2), and "Patent Art (135)" (Unified Patents). I am not reconciling these; they likely measure different things (single-document vs. family-cumulative vs. algorithmic art). This is exactly the kind of discrepancy the operating rules tell me to flag rather than smooth over.
• Strict-identifier near-misses encountered in the same searches — do not conflate with US 10,545,085: NSF PAR ID 10545085 ("Residence-time-based classification of surface water systems," Water Resources Research 53(7):5567–5584 — a hydrology paper, unrelated); the PACER receipt number "AMNDC-10545085"; and the genomic coordinate "chr20:10545085-10545389." Likewise, prior sections already flagged that Ameranth's "the '850 patent" is US 7,908,850 and LifeScan's "the '105 patent" is US 7,250,105 — different patents, not this one.

Uncertainty statement

• High confidence: patent identity (US 10,545,085 B2, app. 16/444,232, Kaduchak & Ward, Life Technologies/Thermo Fisher), the claim structure and alternatives (a)–(d), and the subject matter and bibliographic dates of the 15 cited references as listed above.
• Moderate confidence: that this 15-item list is the citation set of US 10,545,085 specifically, rather than the CN family member's set. It is the best available proxy on the pages I could reach, but I did not open the USPTO's own "References Cited" table for this patent.
• Low confidence / not achieved: the identity of the single indexed NPL reference; the full "(156)"-item family citation list; and any examiner-applied rejection mapping (i.e., which references the examiner actually used under § 102 vs. § 103). I did not retrieve a USPTO office action or an examiner's citation table, so the § 102 claim mappings above are my analytical assessment of subject-matter overlap, not a report of an examiner's findings.

To close the gap, the authoritative next step is the USPTO Patent Center / Patent Application Retrieval for application 16/444,232 (or the file wrapper of the parent 15/941,791), which contains the PTO-892 "References Cited" listing and the examiner's § 102/§ 103 rejections, plus Google Patents' own "Citations" block for US10545085B2 opened directly in a browser (the citation table did not render in the capture I received). I can re-run against those if you can supply the file-wrapper PDFs or permit further searches.

I'll verify the key prior-art references before building the § 103 combinations, since the prior-art section flagged that its citation list was a family proxy rather than a certified face-of-patent list.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,545,085 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent: US 10,545,085 B2, "Apparatuses, systems and methods for imaging flow cytometry" (app. 16/444,232; Life Technologies Corp.; Kaduchak & Ward)
Effective filing date used: 2017‑03‑31 (provisional 62/479,734) — the earliest arguably-supported date, per the caution in the earlier sections
Statute: AIA § 102/§ 103 (the application was filed 2018‑03‑30 / 2019‑06‑18, well after the AIA first-inventor-to-file date)

---

0. What changed since the Prior Art section — a flagged contradiction

The earlier Prior Art section rated the cited references as "background art only" for the independent claims and concluded "no single cited reference anticipates independent claim 1, claim 20, or claim 37." I re-verified the two most important of those references against their full texts, and that characterization is too conservative in a way you need to know about before you build anything on it. Specifically:

1. US 2009/0148937 A1 (expanded channel) is not merely a disclosure of "the concept" of a wider channel. Its actual specification expressly ties the widened cross-section to a velocity reduction for a downstream measurement station, and expressly states the upstream velocity may exceed the station's maximum detection speed while the widened-region velocity is below it. That is the literal, articulated rationale the prior-art section treated as absent.
2. The Ward/Kaduchak acoustic-cytometry family of 2009 (US 2009/0029870 A1 and its co-filed siblings, including a "Particle Imaging Systems and Methods Using Acoustic Radiation Pressure" application) is a far stronger body of art than the single citation entry suggests. Its disclosures include acoustic-driven stream switching between laminar flow lines with different velocities, an adjustable pumping system, a dual-stage acoustic sorter with two serial optical interrogation points (FIG. 20, reference numerals 2006 and 2015), and an express "trigger → decelerate → image → re-accelerate" architecture (FIG. 21A–21C).
3. Schonbrun/Gorthi/Schaak (Lab Chip 2012) — which the prior-art section flagged as "contextual, not a verified citation of record" — is now verified and is directly on point for the motivation element: it teaches reducing flow velocity (rather than buying faster detectors) to permit imaging while maintaining throughput.

Flag: I am not overturning the no-anticipation conclusion — the two-optical-train-at-two-inlet-distances arrangement is still not cleanly disclosed in a single reference in a form I can verify. But the gap between "obviousness reference" and "anticipation reference" has narrowed materially for combinations B and C below. Treat the earlier "no anticipation" finding as provisional, not as settled.

---

1. Legal framework applied

• § 103 asks whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a POSITA at the effective filing date, given the scope and content of the prior art, the differences, and the level of ordinary skill. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), supplies the rationales: (i) known, predictable solutions to a known problem; (ii) simple substitution of known elements; (iii) combination of familiar elements according to known methods yielding predictable results; (iv) "obvious to try"; (v) design incentives and market forces; (vi) teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the references themselves (still a permissible rationale, not a requirement).
• Prior-art status. All four principal references below were published more than one year before 2017‑03‑31, and therefore qualify as § 102(a)(1) "printed publications" art. This matters for the same-inventor/same-assignee problem discussed in § 8 — the AIA's common-ownership exception (§ 102(b)(2)(C)) reaches only § 102(a)(2) art, not § 102(a)(1) printed publications, and the § 102(b)(1) grace period does not reach disclosures made ~8–9 years before the priority date.

---

2. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

I would define the POSITA as: an M.S. or Ph.D. in physics, optics, biomedical engineering, or an equivalent field, plus 2–5 years of hands‑on experience designing or building flow cytometers, imaging flow cytometers, or microfluidic optical instrumentation. That person is familiar with: hydrodynamic and acoustic focusing; laser interrogation geometry; fluorescence collection and spectral separation; pixelated image sensors and motion-blur/exposure tradeoffs; and microfluidic channel design, including the continuity relation (Q = A·v) that governs particle velocity in a flow channel. This is the level of skill reflected in the asserted patent's own specification, which recites standard optical and fluidic components without any new physics.

---

3. Claim‑chart: the limitations that must be met

Note the structural point that drives everything below: claim 1 is disjunctive and in the alternative. A single § 103 combination need satisfy only one of (a)–(d) — not all four. This materially lowers the obviousness burden for claim 1 relative to claims 20 and 37, which require the velocity differential and (for 20) the signal differential.

---

4. The art, as verified

A. US 2009/0148937 A1 — "Micro-fluidic system comprising an expanded channel" (published 2009‑06‑11)

http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3c/80/fd/46a134793378d1/US20090148937A1.pdf · https://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20090148937

Verified disclosures (paragraph numbers from the published application):

• Carrier flow channel 1 with a channel widening 5 downstream; "the channel cross section in the region of the channel widening 5 is enlarged by 50% compared to the channel cross section outside the channel widening 5" ([0054]).
• "The channel widening 5 brings about a reduction in the flow speed in the region of the channel widening, which is important for the subsequent analysis of the particles 2" ([0054]).
• A measurement station 6 located in the widened region ([0055]); "at least one measurement station for analyzing the cells or other particles suspended in the carrier flow is arranged in the region of the channel widening" ([0013]).
• Explicit two-velocity regime: "the measurement station has a predefined maximum permissible detection speed… The carrier flow on the other hand has a flow speed which is below the maximum detection speed in the region of the channel widening and above the maximum detection speed outside the channel widening… the flow speed in the carrier flow channel before the channel widening can accordingly be increased, as a result of which the quantitative throughput of particles is increased" ([0016]).
• Explicit purpose = high-resolution optical measurement: "the field cage or the measurement station can be arranged further away from the channel edge. This is particularly advantageous in the case of high-resolution fluorescence measurements, which may be hindered by fluorescent channel materials or adhesives" ([0012]).
• Velocity reduction alone suffices, no particle trapping: "the reduction in the flow speed in the region of the channel widening offers the possibility that there is no need for a field cage or any other fixing device for stopping the particles during the analysis" ([0017]).
• Conduits: sheath flow channels 12, 13 opening into output channel 9 ([0061]); a loading channel 1′ opening into the region of the channel widening ([0071]).
• Sorting/downstream branching: carrier channel "branches into two output channels 8, 9" with a switch-like electrode arrangement 10 ([0059], [0067]).
• Manipulation inside the slow region: "a sorting device (e.g. a dielectric switch) may be arranged as the manipulation device in the region of the channel widening" ([0014]).
• Also cites Muller, T. et al., Biosensors and Bioelectronics 14 (1999), 247–256 and DE 103 20 956 A1 — two further NPL/patent items not captured in the earlier citation table.

B. US 2009/0029870 A1 and siblings — Ward/Kaduchak acoustic radiation pressure (published 2009‑01‑29)

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0029870.html · https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0050573.html (Medium Switching) · https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0053686.html (Particle Switching) · https://www.uspto.report/patent/app/20090045107 (Kits; co-filed with a "Particle Imaging Systems and Methods Using Acoustic Radiation Pressure" application of the same date)
Family: US 7,837,040; US 9,476,855 (Life Technologies) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/eb/03/ef/69c88e8dec4336/US9476855.pdf

Verified disclosures:

• Channel definition expressly including an inlet: "'channel' means a course, pathway, or conduit with at least an inlet and preferably an outlet" (Definitions).
• Velocity control by pumping: "Focused particles can be flowed past interrogating light sources at whatever linear velocity is chosen using an adjustable external pumping system such as a syringe pump"; "the velocity of the sample stream, buffer stream, particles is controlled by pumping system… such that the velocity is variable between 0 meters/second to 10 meters/second in the forward, reverse or stopped direction."
• Velocity ≠ uniform across the channel; position determines velocity: "Planar focusing results in a two dimensional sheet of particles with varying velocities… Cylindrical line drive focusing places particles in the center where they travel at the same rate"; "Particles focused to the center of a channel for most channel geometries used would travel about twice the average velocity."
• Stream switching / S₀→S₁ repositioning: FIGS. 4A–4B and 6A–6C — "the entire sample stream is pushed toward the center"; "The white cells leave their original medium and are acoustically focused to the center"; a "dipole mode" field moves "Stream 1" to the central axis while "Stream 2" goes to the walls.
• A side conduit between regions that repositions the particle stream: "The position of line of particles 2509 can be adjusted as it enters the separator portion of acoustic separator 2513 by drawing fluid away or otherwise removing fluid through, for example side channel 2511. Both flow rate and power can be adjusted to accomplish the desired separation" (FIG. 25).
• Two serial optical interrogation points: FIG. 20, dual-stage acoustic valve sorter — a first interrogation point 2006 with source 2013, sorting at 2009, re-focusing at a second transducer, then a second interrogation point with light source 2015; "or the same sorter after the initial sort) at a slower flow rate."
• Interrogation + imaging in one instrument, with a velocity change: "a method for imaging acoustically manipulated particles in an acoustic flow cytometer… interrogating some of the aligned population of particles at an interrogation site to obtain an optical signal… and imaging at least one of the population of particles to produce a high content image… correlating the population statistical data with the high content image… The transit time of the population of particles may also be slowed during the interrogating step" ([0020]).
• Explicit hybrid high-throughput/low-velocity architecture: "capable of both high particle analysis rates up to 70,000 particles/second and/or capturing images from user selected subpopulations of cells" ([0117]); "analyze more than one hundred thousand cells per minute using traditional flow cytometry measurements and periodically adjust the velocity of the focused stream to collect images of only those cells that meet user defined criteria" ([0118]).
• FIG. 21A–21C / FIG. 22 trigger-and-image: an optical signal is collected on detector 2107 at interrogation source 2111; "The flow rate can be altered once a particle meeting a user defined criteria is detected… The flow rate is decreased once a particle having the user defined criteria is detected"; the particle is imaged by imager 2109; "A particle having a value for Parameter 1 and for Parameter 2 that is greater or lesser than the threshold defined by the user triggers the imager and is imaged."
• Statement of the design rationale: "the control system decelerates the flow velocity to a value appropriate for the required imaging resolution. A flash LED (wideband or UV) then illuminates the particle to capture the image. Once the image is captured, the system re-accelerates the flow" ([0174]); "high particle analysis rates are achievable (in excess of 2000/s)… Images will capture cellular morphology, orientation, and internal structure (e.g. position and number of nuclei)… The ability to control flow rate while maintaining particle focus along the axis of the flow stream in the acoustic system is the key component necessary for the selective particle imaging after sample analysis" ([0175]).
• Amnis as admitted prior art: "Imaging of particles is also much more easily achieved by using slow flow or even stopped flow without resorting to specialized tracking technology like that used in imaging hydrodynamically focused particles (Amnis, Seattle, Wash.)" ([0124]); and the ImageStream-class system is described at [0177] ("hydrodynamic focusing coupled with electronic CCD panning technology that can track the flowing cells… up to 300 cells/sec… resolution (up to 0.5 microns)… very expensive and is limited by the hydrodynamic focus").

C. WO 2014/191003 A1 / ChemoMetec "Image forming cytometer" (published 2014‑12‑04)

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/76/1f/cc/c497788ffd1f00/AU2014273560B2.pdf · https://patents.google.com/patent/AU2014273560B2/en · https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0261419.html · https://www.justia.com/patent/[10458896](/patent/10458896) · US national-phase: US 10,458,896 B2

Verified disclosures:

• Two light sources: "a first light source configured for emitting light into a sample region… a second light source comprising a first excitation light source configured for emitting excitation light into the sample region" ([0007a]).
• Image forming onto a detector array: "image forming means for forming an image of at least part of the sample region on an array of detection elements" ([0007a]).
• Mode interchangeability: "the cytometer can be configured to be switched between a bright field mode, a dark field mode, and a fluorescence mode" (claims/summary).
• Off-axis illumination with a stated benefit — directly on point for claims 15/32: "the excitation light may be at an incidence angle relative to the optical axis"; "the incidence angle of the excitation light may be between 10 and 80 degrees, preferably between 20 and 60 degrees, and more preferably between 30 and 50 degrees. Alternatively, the incidence angle of the excitation light may be 90 degrees. In another alternative embodiment… between 110 and 180 degrees" ([0028]); and "one effect of such a setup is that the intensity of exposed excitation light onto the detection elements may be reduced significantly" (description).
• Interchangeable imaging means / depth-of-field change: "means which allow two or more image forming means to be interchanged between recording of images… to change linear magnification of the image and/or to change the depth of field of view" ([0037]).
• Express teaching that is adverse to the patent owner: "it is preferred that the volume of liquid sample is at stand still during the exposure" — the reference is a static image cytometer. I address this as a teaching-away argument in § 9.

D. Schonbrun, Gorthi & Schaak, "Microfabricated multiple field of view imaging flow cytometry," Lab Chip 12(2):268–273 (2012); online 2011‑10‑31

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22037643/ · https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2012/lc/c1lc20843h/

Verified: "The velocity of cells in flow cytometry can surpass a meter per second, requiring either sub-microsecond exposure times or other sophisticated photodetection techniques. Instead of faster detectors and brighter sources, we demonstrate that by imaging multiple channels simultaneously, a high throughput can be maintained with a flow velocity reduced in proportion to the degree of parallelization… diffractive lenses that produce sixteen wide field images with a magnification of 45 and submicron resolution… imaged… at rates of 2,000–20,000 per second."

---

5. Combination A — claims 1(a), 2, 3, 16, 17, 23

Primary: US 2009/0148937 A1 (expanded channel).
Secondary: ChemoMetec WO 2014/191003 A1 (image-forming dual-source optics).
Tertiary (motivation): Schonbrun Lab Chip 2012; and the patent's own Background.

Why the combination is obvious. PerkinElmer '937 supplies, in a single microfluidic particle-analysis system: a channel with a narrowed region closer to the inlet and a widened region downstream ([0054]); a 50% cross-sectional enlargement — squarely within claim 2's "about 100:1 to about 1:100, excluding 1:1" and, more importantly, a result-effective geometry whose only function is to change particle velocity ([0016]); and a measurement station sited in the widened (slow) region ([0013], [0055]). The reference states the entire operational premise of the asserted claim — upstream velocity above, and downstream velocity below, the detection station's maximum detection speed, with throughput gained and detection speed satisfied ([0016]). It even supplies conduits (sheath channels 12/13; loading channel 1′ opening into the widening — mapping claim 1(b) and claim 22) and downstream sorted output channels 8/9 with a switch 10 (mapping claims 6–9).

What '937 does not supply is a second optical train with a second illumination source and a second detection module — it treats a single "measurement station," and it frames the widened region's benefit in terms of a detection-speed ceiling, not explicitly in terms of imaging.

That gap is closed by ChemoMetec WO '003, which is a cytometer (same field, same problem) disclosing a first light source (bright field) and a second light source (fluorescence excitation), image-forming optics onto a 2-D detector array, and interchangeable bright-field/dark-field/fluorescence modes ([0007a], [0028], summary). Substituting ChemoMetec's dual-source image-forming optics for PerkinElmer's measurement station 6 is a substitution of one known optical interrogation sub-system for another in the same apparatus, producing the predictable result of an image at the slow region — squarely KSR rationale (ii) and (iii).

Motivation to do so is supplied independently by Schonbrun, which frames the exact problem the patent-at-issue identifies (flow velocities "surpass a meter per second, requiring either sub-microsecond exposure times or other sophisticated photodetection techniques") and proposes the exact solution (reduce velocity while preserving throughput), and by the asserted patent's own Background, which concedes that "it is common for this to be done in a highly parallel fashion where the particle traverses multiple lasers/detection banks during its travel through the system" and that longer interrogation times are needed for imaging. That is a binding admission of the motivation and of the multi-station architecture (Applicant Admitted Prior Art).

Reasonable expectation of success: high. The velocity change is a deterministic consequence of mass conservation (Q = A·v); the photon-count gain is a first-order function of integration time; the blur reduction follows from v·t_exposure. The patent's own FIG. 2 and its 2× linear-scale → 4× velocity/4× photon-count example is exactly the arithmetic a POSITA would apply to PerkinElmer's 50% area increase. Nothing here requires discovery — only selection.

---

6. Combination B — claims 1(c), 1(b), 1(d), 20, 37, 22 (the strongest attack)

Primary: US 2009/0029870 A1 (and its co-filed siblings, including the "Particle Imaging Systems and Methods Using Acoustic Radiation Pressure" application).
Secondary: Schonbrun Lab Chip 2012.
Tertiary: ChemoMetec WO '003 (imaging optics, if a pixelated detector is needed).

Why this is the strongest combination. '870 discloses, in one document, nearly every element of claims 1, 20 and 37:

Motivation. The primary reference states its own motivation in terms that are essentially the patent's summary paragraph: "The statistical power of the cytometer of the present invention and the spatial resolving power of imaging are combined when additionally imaging particles" ([0181]); "high particle analysis rates are achievable (in excess of 2000/s) to search through large populations of cells while capturing only a representative set of high content images that are correlated with traditional flow cytometry parameters" ([0175]). The substrate-level motivation to slow the particle rather than buy a faster camera is confirmed by Schonbrun, and the specific trigger-then-image control loop is confirmed by [0172].

Extraordinary point that a defendant should develop. '870 is not merely analogous art by coincidence — it shares the same two inventors (Kaduchak and Ward) and the same assignee (Life Technologies) as the asserted patent. KSR's "known, predictable solution to a known problem" rationale is at its strongest when the "prior art" is the inventor's own published solution to the same problem nine years earlier. If the examiner did not consider this family (and the earlier sections could not confirm that the 15-item citation list was the face-of-patent list), that is a § 325(d)‑adjacent gap worth running down.

Reasonable expectation of success: very high. There is no new mechanism in the asserted claims beyond what '870 describes: an acoustic (or other) field repositions particles between streamlines of different velocity; a slow zone yields more photons per pixel and less blur; a threshold on the fast-zone integrated signal gates the slow-zone image. Each step is disclosed; the combination requires no more than the arrangement of known elements.

Weakness of this combination. '870's FIG. 21 architecture applies the flowrate change at the interrogation site and then images the same particle downstream — a patent owner will argue the reference discloses temporal sequencing with one interrogation footprint, and not two spatially distinct interrogation zones each with its own illumination source and detection module as claim 1 requires. That is a genuine, non-frivolous argument. The FIG. 20 dual-interrogation-point embodiment cuts against it, but FIG. 20 is presented in the context of sorting, not imaging. Expect the fight to be over whether FIG. 20's two interrogation points + FIG. 21's imager are properly combinable (they are in the same specification, and KSR permits combining embodiments of a single reference).

---

7. Combination C — alternative (b): sheath/conduit between interrogation regions

Primary: US 2009/0148937 A1 (sheath channels 12/13; loading channel 1′ opening into the widening) or US 2009/0029870 A1 (side channel 2511 drawing fluid away).
Secondary: CN 105164510 A (Iris International, sheath-fluid systems) and/or CN 105102959 A (Iris, flowcell systems).

Motivation: Both Iris references and PerkinElmer teach that introducing or withdrawing fluid at a located point in a microfluidic channel changes local volumetric flow; changing volumetric flow at constant cross-section changes local linear velocity; therefore a POSITA seeking a second, slower interrogation zone would add a sheath/withdrawal conduit between the two zones rather than redesign the channel. '870 supplies the exact plumbing ("drawing fluid away or otherwise removing fluid through… side channel 2511") and the explicit purpose ("Both flow rate and power can be adjusted to accomplish the desired separation"). This maps claim 22 ("introducing or removing fluid from the flow channel at a location between the first and second regions") and both directions of claim 36's ratio (40:1 to 1:40, excluding 1:1).

---

8. Combination D — alternative (d) and claim 37: the field module

Primary: US 2009/0029870 A1 (acoustic radiation pressure, S₀→S₁ stream switching).
Alternative/companion field species: US 2008/0283402 A1 (Univ. of Washington — shaped electrodes for dielectrophoretic manipulation); US 2015/0090592 A1 (Univ. of Manitoba — dielectrophoretic/magnetophoretic split-sensor cytometer); US 2011/0134426 A1 (Life Technologies — acoustic flow cytometry).
Secondary: ChemoMetec WO '003 or Schonbrun for the imaging/dual-signal element.

Motivation: '870 teaches that field-based positioning is velocity selection: a particle's radial position in a Poiseuille profile determines its velocity, and "Particles focused to the center of a channel for most channel geometries used would travel about twice the average velocity." Therefore a POSITA who wants a slower second interrogation zone has a ready, disclosed tool: use the field module to move the particle off-axis (toward the wall, or by negative-contrast focusing to the periphery — '870 FIG. 15: "negative contrast carrier particles… move to the outside wall of the capillary"), which is the literal S₀→S₁ limitation of claim 37. The field-type dependents (claim 19: magnetic/electric/acoustic/combination; claim 38: magnetic/electric/acoustic/gravitational/dielectric; claims 40/41: magnetic/dielectric entities) are met by the Washington and Manitoba references, which expressly couple particles to dielectric or magnetic entities for the manipulation.

Expectation of success: high — '870 reports the effect experimentally (FIGS. 5, 6, 13A–B, and the FIG. 23 blood-cell image).

---

9. Dependent-claim § 103 map

---

10. The unifying motivation narrative (use this paragraph in a petition or invalidity contention)

At the 2017 priority date, a POSITA faced a single, well-characterized, long-recognized tradeoff in cytometry: short interrogation times suppress coincidence and permit high event rates but starve pixel-level imaging detectors of photons and produce motion blur; long interrogation times fix the photon and blur problems but collapse the event rate. Every reference in this record identifies that tradeoff and proposes the same class of remedy — decouple the two functions by giving the particles different velocities at different places or times in the instrument:

• PerkinElmer '937 ([0016]) states it numerically: run fast upstream, slow at the measurement station, so that throughput is preserved and the station's maximum detection speed is respected — and ties it to high-resolution fluorescence ([0012]).
• Ward '870 ([0117]–[0118], [0175], [0181]) states it architecturally: interrogate at high rate, then "periodically adjust the velocity of the focused stream to collect images of only those cells that meet user defined criteria," and combine "the statistical power of the cytometer" with "the spatial resolving power of imaging."
• Schonbrun states it as the design thesis: "Instead of faster detectors and brighter sources… a high throughput can be maintained with a flow velocity reduced."
• ChemoMetec supplies the imaging-optics half (dual light sources; image formation onto an array; mode interchange; off-axis excitation with the stated benefit of reducing excitation light on the detector).

Combining "slow the particles where you image" (PerkinElmer/Schonbrun/'870) with "put image-forming optics with a second light source and a second detector there" (ChemoMetec) and "put an integrated-signal interrogation zone upstream" (admitted conventional practice; '870 FIG. 20) is the predictable arrangement of known elements, producing no result beyond the sum of the known benefits. That is the § 103 case.

---

11. Anticipated non-obviousness arguments, and how strong they are

1. "No reference discloses two optical trains at two velocity-differentiated regions of a single channel." — The strongest argument. PerkinElmer has one station; '870 FIG. 21 sequences interrogation and imaging in time; ChemoMetec is a static instrument. Response: claim 1 is in the alternative and its "first/second optical train" language is met by '870 FIG. 20 (two interrogation points, two sources) or by the combination; and claim 1's velocity difference is not separately recited. For claims 20 and 37 the response relies on FIG. 20's two points at "a slower flow rate." This will be contested.
2. Teaching away: ChemoMetec prefers stand-still. — Real but limited. WO '003 prefers stand-still for that instrument's low-magnification static imaging; it does not disparage flow-based imaging, and it is being relied on only for its optical sub-systems. In re Fulton / Medtronic v. Teleflex logic: a preference in one reference does not teach away from a different, workable mode absent criticism or disavowal. Also, '870 [0124] expressly endorses "slow flow or even stopped flow" for imaging, so the record as a whole does not teach away.
3. Teaching away: Amnis/ImageStream teaches CCD panning instead of velocity change. — '870 [0177] describes that approach and immediately criticizes it ("very expensive and is limited by the hydrodynamic focus"), which strengthens rather than weakens the motivation to take a different route.
4. Unexpected results. — I see no data in the patent showing a result beyond linear photon-count scaling and reduced blur, both of which are the expected consequences of longer integration time and lower v·t. The patent's own bead data (FIG. 17 vs. FIG. 18: 1 µm displacement at 1 m/s vs. ~8 µm at 8 m/s over a 1 µs shutter, both consistent with simple v·t arithmetic) is a confirmation of the elementary prediction, not a surprise. Absent a nexus to a specific claimed element, this is unlikely to carry weight.
5. Long-felt need / failure of others. — Available to the patent owner (the patent's Background says "there is a long-felt need"), but it cuts both ways: the need was recognized and articulated in the art ('937 [0012], [0016]; Schonbrun; '870 [0175]), and there is no showing that others tried and failed rather than simply not bothering. Long-felt need that is identified in the prior art supports the motivation element at least as much as it supports patentability.
6. Common ownership / grace period. — The patent owner will note that '870 shares inventors and assignee with the asserted patent. This does not help against § 102(a)(1). '870 published 2009‑01‑29, more than seven years before the 2017‑03‑31 effective filing date, so it is a § 102(a)(1) printed publication; the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception is directed only at § 102(a)(2) art, and the § 102(b)(1)(A) grace-period exception (the inventor's own disclosure ≤1 year before filing) is unavailable. Caveat: I am flagging the § 102(b)(2)(C)–§ 103 interaction as a live, technically contested statutory question and I am not representing a definitive legal conclusion; if the patent owner argues common ownership disqualifies '870 for all purposes, that argument should be met with the § 102(a)(1) point and a check of current Federal Circuit authority, which I have not verified here.

---

12. Claim-by-claim § 103 conclusion

---

13. Contradictions, identifier traps, and verification limits

Contradiction with the earlier Prior Art section (flagged, not reconciled):

• The earlier section rated the cited references as background-only and found no anticipation. On full-text review, US 2009/0148937 A1 and the Ward/Kaduchak 2009 family are primary § 103 references, and '870 approaches anticipatory of claim 1(c) and claim 37. The earlier "no anticipation" finding should be treated as provisional.
• The earlier section could not confirm that its 15-item list was the face-of-patent citation set. The new material adds at least three items that were not in that table: the co-filed "Particle Imaging Systems and Methods Using Acoustic Radiation Pressure" application, US 2009/0050573 (Medium Switching), US 2009/0053686 (Particle Switching), plus Muller 1999 (Biosensors and Bioelectronics 14:247–256) and DE 103 20 956 A1 cited within '937.
• The family citation counts still disagree ("(17)" / "(156)" / "Patent Art (135)"). Unresolved.

Identifier traps confirmed in this search — do NOT conflate:

• US 10,458,896 B2 (ChemoMetec) is the U.S. national-phase of WO 2014/191003 — the number differs from US 10,545,085 by two digits and by assignee. Keep them separate.
• US 9,476,855 / US 7,837,040 / US 2009/0029870 / US 2009/0050573 / US 2009/0053686 / US 2009/0045107 are the same Ward/Kaduchak acoustic family (Life Technologies) — sibling references, not independent art. They are, however, a different family from the Los Alamos National Security / Triad National Security continuations already flagged in the Assignment section, and from the STC.UNM (US 2013/0214176 / WO 2013/191772) and Iris (CN 105102959 / CN 105164510) families.
• EP 2539717 returned in a search alongside PerkinElmer and is a "Microplate mount system and sensing methods" case (PerkinElmer Health Sciences) — unrelated to the expanded-channel reference.
• AU2014273560B2 and JP2016529876A are ChemoMetec family members of WO '003, not separate art.
• Carried forward from the earlier sections: Ameranth's "the '850 patent" is US 7,908,850; LifeScan's "the '105 patent" is US 7,250,105; "AMNDC-10545085" is a PACER receipt number; "chr20:10545085-10545389" is a genomic coordinate; NSF PAR ID 10545085 is a hydrology paper; "10545085" also appears as an electronic connector part number.
• US 2006/0139638 A1 (Evotec) — the earlier section attributes US 2009/0148937 to "PerkinElmer Cellular Technologies." I did not independently re-verify that assignee string from the face of the document in this pass; the body text I retrieved references DE 103 20 956 A1 and Muller 1999 but not an assignee block. Treat the '937 assignee as reported-but-unverified.

Verification limits — stated plainly:

• I did not obtain the PTO‑892 "References Cited" face of US 10,545,085 or the examiner's actual § 102/§ 103 rejections. Every § 103 mapping above is my analytical assessment, not a report of what the examiner found or applied.
• I did not open PTAB E2E / Patent Center for application 16/444,232. Whether the Ward/Kaduchak 2009 family was cited and overcome in prosecution is unknown to me and is the single most valuable next document — it drives both the § 103 case and any § 325(d) exposure.
• The '870 FIG. 20 dual-interrogation-point reading and the FIG. 21 downstream-imager reading are my constructions from the retrieved description text, not from the drawing sheets themselves. Pull FIGS. 20 and 21 of US 2009/0029870 before relying on either.
• Schonbrun's full text was reached only via the PubMed abstract and the RSC landing page; the sixteen-lens/parallel-channel detail is from the abstract. The full paper should be pulled before quoting.

Recommended next steps. (1) Pull the file wrappers for 16/444,232 and parent 15/941,791 for the PTO‑892 and the examiner's rejections. (2) Pull full copies of US 2009/0029870 A1 (esp. FIGS. 20–25) and the co-filed "Particle Imaging Systems and Methods" application. (3) Pull ChemoMetec WO 2014/191003 A1 in full, with attention to [0028] and [0037]. (4) Confirm the '937 assignee and verify paragraphs [0012], [0016], [0054] against the granted U.S. counterpart. (5) Scope any invalidity contention at the family level (10,386,290 / 10,545,085 / 10,969,326 / 11,566,995 / 11,940,371 / 12,487,170 / 12,352,682 / US 2025/0244426), since the same art maps onto each sibling's independent claims.