www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`15/187,714
`
`06/20/2016
`
`William BANYAI
`
`44854-701304
`
`1444
`
`WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI
`650 PAGE MILL ROAD
`PALO ALTO, CA 94304-1050
`
`ZHANG KAUIANG
`
`ART UNIT
`
`1639
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/17/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patentdoeket@ wsgroom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/187,714
`Examiner
`KAIJIANG ZHANG
`
`Applicant(s)
`BANYAI et al.
`Art Unit
`1639
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 09 May 2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`23 and 25—40 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 23 and 25—40 is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabie. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)[:] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)D accepted or b)l:] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12):] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)D All
`
`b)I:l Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.[:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) C] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date w.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190909
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/187,714
`Art Unit: 1639
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This action is written in response to applicant’s correspondence filed 5/9/2019.
`
`Applicant has amended claims 23 and 33-34, canceled claim 24, and added new claims
`
`37-40. Claims 23 and 25-40 are currently pending for examination. All the
`
`amendments and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed but are found insufficient
`
`to place the instantly examined claims in condition for allowance. Specifically, all the
`
`rejections from the previous Office action have been maintained.
`
`Double Parenting
`
`2.
`
`The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created
`
`doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the
`
`unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent
`
`and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double
`
`patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at
`
`least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference
`
`claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have
`
`been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46
`
`USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum,
`
`686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619
`
`(CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
`
`A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d)
`
`may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory
`
`double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/187,714
`Art Unit: 1639
`
`Page 3
`
`commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a
`
`result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See
`
`MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file
`
`provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) -
`
`706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file
`
`provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR
`
`1.321 (b).
`
`The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be
`
`used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application
`
`in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26,
`
`PTO/AlA/25, or PTO/AlA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may
`
`be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets
`
`all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For
`
`more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
`
`www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 23 and 25-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting
`
`as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,409,139. Although the
`
`claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other
`
`because claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,409,139 teach or render obvious all the
`
`features as instantly claimed.
`
`Specifically, claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,409,139 disclose all the essential
`
`features of the instantly claimed method, such as synthesizing a plurality of
`
`polynucleotides (e.g., at least 20,000 or 800,000 polynucleotides) encoding sequences
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/187,714
`Art Unit: 1639
`
`Page 4
`
`with an aggregate error rate of less than 1
`
`in 1000 bases (e.g., less than 1
`
`in 2000
`
`bases) without correcting errors (see claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,409,139),
`
`assembling at least 750 or 1,000 (e.g., 6,000. See claim 17 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,409,139) preselected nucleic acids (which may be any nucleic acids of interest,
`
`including genes), and treating the assembled nucleic acids with an error correction
`
`enzyme (see claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,409,139). As for the features of “receiving
`
`instructions in a computer readable non-transient medium”, “processing the instructions
`
`in a computer and transmitting synthesis instructions to a material deposition device”
`
`and “releasing synthesis reagents from the material deposition device to synthesize the
`
`plurality of polynucleotides”, such features are obvious and necessary elements for the
`
`microarray-based nucleic acid synthesis method as disclosed in the claims of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,409,139, as evidenced by the same specification shared by the instant
`
`application and U.S. Patent No. 9,409,139.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 23 and 25-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting
`
`as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 9,833,761 in view of Church
`
`et al. (WO 2012/154201 A1).
`
`Claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 9,833,761 disclose, explicitly, implicitly or
`
`inherently, all the features of the instantly claimed method, except the step of
`
`“assembling”.
`
`However, Church et al. teach that the use of such library of oligonucleic acids for
`
`the assembly of genes (see the whole document, which is also discussed in details in
`
`the 102/103 rejections below).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/187,714
`Art Unit: 1639
`
`Page 5
`
`It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
`
`the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the library of oligonucleic acids
`
`synthesized by the method of claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 9,833,761 for the
`
`assembly of genes as taught by Church et al. thus arriving at the instantly claimed
`
`invention, because such library of oligonucleic acids was recognized in the art as
`
`suitable for the assembly of genes. In addition, combining prior art elements according
`
`to known methods to yield predictable results is considered prima facie obvious (see
`
`MPEP 2143.I.A).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
`
`5.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any
`
`correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`6.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
`
`form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use,
`on sale or othenNise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed
`invention.
`
`(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
`application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the
`patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
`before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
`
`7.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed
`invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/187,714
`Art Unit: 1639
`
`Page 6
`
`claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have
`been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be
`negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`8.
`
`This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the
`
`claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was
`
`commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any
`
`evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to
`
`point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly
`
`owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to
`
`consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)
`
`prior art against the later invention.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 23 and 25-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C.
`
`102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious
`
`over Church et al. (WO 2012/154201 A1).
`
`Regarding claim 23
`
`Church et al. teach, throughout the whole document, a method for computer-
`
`assisted nucleic acid synthesis, comprising: receiving instructions in a computer
`
`readable non-transient medium for synthesis of cDNA sequences encoding for a
`
`plurality of genes (see paragraphs [038], [096] and [099]; Figure 14); processing the
`
`instructions in a computer and transmitting synthesis instructions to a material
`
`deposition device (e.g., chip/array-based oligonucleotide synthesizing device), wherein
`
`the synthesis instructions provide for synthesis of a plurality of polynucleotides that
`
`collectively encode for the cDNA sequences (see paragraphs [069], [074] and [096]);
`
`releasing synthesis reagents from the material deposition device to synthesize the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/187,714
`Art Unit: 1639
`
`Page 7
`
`plurality of polynucleotides (see paragraphs [069], [074] and [096]), wherein the plurality
`
`of polynucleotides encode sequences with an aggregate error rate of less than 1
`
`in
`
`1000 bases without correcting errors compared to the cDNA sequences received in the
`
`instructions in the computer readable non-transient medium (see paragraph [0106].
`
`
`When the polynucleotides are 130-mers, the overall error rate, which reflects errors
`
`introduced in both the synthesis step and the subsequent amplification and assembly
`
`steps, is approximately “1/1000 bp”. Thus, the aggregate error rate for the synthesized
`
`polynucleotides, prior to their use in the subsequent amplification and assembly steps
`
`(which also introduce errors), is less than 1/1000 bp. Furthermore, Church et al.
`
`showed in EXAMPLE I (particularly paragraphs [096]—[0102]) that GFP43 and GFP35,
`
`assembled from subpools of OLS Pool 1 (130-mers), have overall error rates of “1/1,500
`
`bp” and “1/1130 bp” respectively without error correction (see paragraph [0102] and
`
`Figure 3b).); and assembling a plurality of nucleic acids from a subset of the plurality of
`
`polynucleotides, wherein the plurality of nucleic acids comprise sequences encoded by
`
`the cDNA sequences encoding for a plurality of genes (see paragraphs [037] and [096];
`
`Figure 1). Regarding the plurality of genes used in the method, Church et al. teach or
`
`expressly suggest that “750, 1,000 or more” genes (assembled as “nucleic acid
`
`sequence of interest”, each of which comprises sequence encoded by the cDNA
`
`sequence encoding for one of the “750, 1,000 or more” genes, and each of which is
`
`assembled using one of the “750, 1,000 or more” oligonucleotide sets) may be
`
`synthesized/assembled (see paragraphs [011]: “...the nucleic acid sequence of interest
`
`is a DNA sequence, e.g., a regulatory element, a gene, a pathway and/or a genome. In
`
`yet other aspects, 50, 100, 500, 750, 1,000 or more oligonucleotide sets are provided,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/187,714
`Art Unit: 1639
`
`Page 8
`
`wherein each set is specific for a unigue nucleic acid seguence of interest”).
`
`Accordingly, the teachings of Church et al. anticipate or at least render obvious the
`
`instantly claimed method.
`
`Regarding claim 25
`
`The method according to Church et al., wherein each nucleic acid of the plurality
`
`of nucleic acids is isolated (e.g., gel isolated) (see paragraph [0102]).
`
`Regarding claim 26
`
`The method according to Church et al., wherein each nucleic acid of the plurality
`
`of nucleic acids is purified (e.g., purified while being gel isolated) (see paragraph
`
`[0102D.
`
`Regarding claim 27
`
`The method according to Church et al., wherein each of the plurality of
`
`polynucleotides extends from a surface (see Figure 1).
`
`Regarding claim 28
`
`The method according to Church et al., further comprising treating the plurality of
`
`nucleic acids with an error correction enzyme (see paragraphs [014], [029], [096] and
`
`[0107D.
`
`Regarding claim 29
`
`The method according to Church et al., wherein each nucleic acid of the plurality
`
`of nucleic acids is at least 0.5 kb long (see paragraph [011]).
`
`Regarding claim 30
`
`The method according to Church et al., wherein each nucleic acid of the plurality
`
`of nucleic acids is at least 3 kb long (see paragraph [011]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/187,714
`Art Unit: 1639
`
`Regarding claims 31 -32
`
`Page 9
`
`The method according to Church et al., wherein the plurality of polynucleotides
`
`comprises at least 60,000 or 100,000 polynucleotides (see paragraph [033]).
`
`Regarding claim 33
`
`According to Church et al., the plurality of polynucleotides may comprise at least
`
`100,000 or more polynucleotides (see paragraph [033]). Although Church et al. do not
`
`specifically disclose the number range of “at least 600,000” as recited in the instant
`
`claim, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the invention was made to vary or optimize the number range for the plurality of
`
`polynucleotides synthesized in the method of Church et al. via routine experimentation
`
`thus arriving at the working or optimal number range as instantly claimed. The MPEP
`
`states that “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is
`
`not inventive to discover the optimum or working ranges by routine experimentation” In
`
`re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315
`
`F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQZd at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to
`
`improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine
`
`where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of
`
`percentages”) (see MPEP 2144.05.11). Furthermore, in the case where the claimed
`
`ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05.l).
`
`Regarding claim 34
`
`The method according to Church et al., wherein the plurality of polynucleotides
`
`collectively encode and correspond to cDNA sequences for at least 1000 genes (see
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/187,714
`Art Unit: 1639
`
`Page 10
`
`paragraphs [011]: “...the nucleic acid sequence of interest is a DNA sequence, e.g., a
`
`regulatory element, a gene, a pathway and/or a genome. In yet other aspects, 50, 100,
`
`500, 750, 1,000 or more oligonucleotide sets are provided, wherein each set is specific
`
`for a unique nucleic acid sequence of interest”).
`
`Regarding claim 35
`
`The method according to Church et al., wherein each polynucleotide is 30 to 500
`
`bases in length (see paragraphs [034] and [096]).
`
`Regarding claim 36
`
`The method according to Church et al., wherein each polynucleotide is at least
`
`25 bases in length (see paragraphs [034] and [096]).
`
`Regarding claim 37
`
`The method according to Church et al., wherein each polynucleotide is 80 to 200
`
`bases in length (see paragraphs [034] and [096]).
`
`Regarding claim 38
`
`The method according to Church et al., wherein the aggregate error rate is
`
`determined by sequencing (see paragraph [0102]) following amplification (see
`
`paragraphs [023], [089], [0101]-[0102] and [0149]) of the plurality of polynucleotides.
`
`Regarding claim 39
`
`The method according to Church et al., wherein the sequencing may be
`
`performed using Sanger sequencing method (see paragraphs [097] and [0146])
`
`Regarding claim 40
`
`The method according to Church et al., wherein the amplification is performed
`
`using a DNA polymerase (see paragraphs [023], [089], [0101]-[0102] and [0149]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/187,714
`Art Unit: 1639
`
`Page 11
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`10.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed on 5/9/2019 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive.
`
`Fleiections under 35 USC 102/103
`
`Applicant argues that “the disclosure of Church fails to teach each and every
`
`element recited in claim 23” because “Church merely references a library of 130-mers
`
`having an estimated error rate of approximately 1 error in 1000 bases, using an Agilent
`
`OLS plate synthesized polynucleotide pool.”
`
`
`This is not found persuasive because: Church not only indicates the overall error
`
`rate (which reflects errors introduced in both the synthesis step and the subsequent
`
`amplification and assembly steps) is approximately “1/1000 bp” (thus the aggregate
`
`error rate for the synthesized polynucleotides, prior to their use in the subsequent
`
`amplification and assembly steps which also introduce errors, is less than 1/1000 bp)
`
`but also shows in a specific example (see EXAMPLE I, particularly paragraphs [096]-
`
`[0102]) that GFP43 and GFP35, assembled from subpools of OLS Pool 1 (130-mers),
`
`have overall error rates of “1/1,500 bp” and “1/1130 bp” respectively without error
`
`correction (see paragraph [0102] and Figure 3b).
`
`Applicant argues the following:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/187,714
`Art Unit: 1639
`
`Page 12
`
`.:
`\'
`'- mime.
`
`\‘
`‘1
`M‘
`\
`‘é $38 it
`V W83
`
`v
`\k
`-. may“
`
`‘
`
`m W3“
`
`amtrgml” mar
`
`-: m the amiss {if
`
`.-
`.-
`
`~:
`J.
`
`' rtiis‘rm.
`
`«p
`E
`
`misfit: q;-
`
`'
`
`"5 ‘§§€i$i§$§§
`
`_\~
`
`\k
`
`SR}?
`
`“EV .»
`
`‘
`
`f‘.‘ §3§3fi§ 'i
`
`{'
`taggémmm
`
`‘
`
`3R
`£1 N? sm‘
`
`was
`
`This is not found persuasive because Church does provide an enabling
`
`disclosure for synthesis of a plurality of polynucleotides “with an aggregate error rate of
`
`less than 1
`
`in 1000 bases without correcting errors” as recited in claim 23. Specifically,
`
`Church not only indicates the overall error rate (which reflects errors introduced in both
`
`the synthesis step and
`
`the subsequent amplification and assembly steps) is
`
`approximately “1/1000 bp” (thus the aggregate error rate for the synthesized
`
`polynucleotides
`
`, prior to their use in the subsequent amplification and assembly steps
`
`which also introduce errors, is less than 1/1000 bp)
`
`but also shows in a specific
`
`example
`
`(
`
`see EXAMPLE I,
`
`particularly paragraphs [096]
`
`-[0102]) that GFP43 and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/187,714
`Art Unit: 1639
`
`Page 13
`
`GFP35, assembled from subpools of OLS Pool 1 (130-mers), have overall error rates of
`
`“1/1,500 bp” and “1/1 130 bp” respectively without error correction (see paragraph [0102]
`
`and Figure 3b).
`
`In response to applicant’s argument about the Eroshenco reference, “an error
`
`rate on the order of 1/500 errors/b ” does NOT mean a fixed error rate of 1/500
`
`errors/bp.
`
`Instead, it merely suggests an error rate @ge from 1/5000 (i.e., 1/10 x
`
`1/500) errors/bp to 1/50 (Le, 10 x 1/500) errors/bp. Thus, the error rate of less than 1
`
`in
`
`1000 bases (e.g., “1/1,500 bp” for GFP43, and “1/1130 bp” for GFP35) for OLS Pool 1
`
`(130-mers) in the Church reference clearly falls within the order or range of error rate as
`
`disclosed in the Eroshenco reference.
`
`Double Parenting Rejections
`
`Applicant requests that “the rejections to the claims on the ground of nonstatutory
`
`double patenting be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is identified by the
`
`Office.”
`
`In response, the nonstatutory double patenting rejections have been maintained
`
`because applicant has neither filed terminal disclaimer(s) nor amended the claims in the
`
`instant application to be patentably distinct from the claims of the referenced patents.
`
`Conclusion
`
`11.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time
`
`policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/187,714
`Art Unit: 1639
`
`Page 14
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to KAIJIANG ZHANG whose telephone number is
`
`(571)272-5207. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:30 am -
`
`5 pm.
`
`Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video
`
`conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an
`
`interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
`
`(AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Heather Calamita can be reached on 571-272—2876. The fax phone number
`
`for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/187,714
`Art Unit: 1639
`
`Page 15
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1 000.
`
`/KAIJIANG ZHANG/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1639
`
`