Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/4/2026 has been entered.
2. Claims 1, 6 are amended. Claims 3, 5, 19-21, 23, 25, 27 are canceled. Claims 22, 24, 26 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-18 are under consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. (previous rejection, withdrawn) Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-13, 16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doudna et al. (US20190241954) (cited in applicant's IDS submitted 5/6/2022) in view of Lee et al. (US20190218547)(cited in applicant's IDS submitted 5/6/2022).
Applicant contends: claim 1 has been amended.
In view of applicant’s amendments, the rejection is withdrawn.
4. (previous rejection, withdrawn) Claims 14, 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
being unpatentable over Doudna et al. in view of Lee et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 7-13, 16
above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN111549177A; previously cited)(See also the WIPO
English translation of CN111549177A; previously cited).
In view of the withdrawal of the rejection over Doudna et al. in view of Lee et al. on which the instant rejection depends, the instant rejection is also withdrawn.
Double Patenting
5. (previous rejection, withdrawn) Claims 1, 4, 7, 11 were provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, 10, 16, 19, 20, 30-32 of copending Application No. 17/928400 in view of Lee et al. (cited above).
Applicant contends: claim 1 has been amended.
In view of applicant’s amendments, the rejection is withdrawn.
6. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-18 are allowable as to the elected species. Claims 22, 24, 26, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, contain all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement as to inventions I and II and species, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 6/18/2025, is hereby withdrawn and claims 22, 24, 26 and additional species are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. (new rejection) Claims 22, 24, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
See claims 22, 24, 26 as submitted 7/21/2026.
Claim 22 recites “substantially complementary” as well as “substantially complementary … such that…” . It is unclear what the metes and bounds of “substantially” and thus its relation to the rest of the claim language are. Further, the claim recites “preferentially binds”. It is not clear if the subsequent language is actually a limitation or not.
Conclusion
8. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-18 are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M FRANCO G SALVOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4468. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Thomas Visone can be reached at 571-270-0684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M FRANCO G SALVOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1672
Prosecution Insights