DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of the reply filed 5/15/2026, in response to the non-final office action mailed 12/22/2025.
Claims 1-20 and 28-38 are pending. Claims 21-25 have been cancelled. Claims 28-38 are newly added. Claims 10-20 and 28-37 are withdrawn from further consideration for the reasons set forth herein. New claims 28-37 depend from withdrawn claims.
Claims 1-9 and 38 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
In response to this office action, the status identifiers of claims 28-37 should be revised to reflect withdrawn claim status.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
The subject matter of the elected zinc finger protein domain in F1-F6 order: SEQ ID NOs:89, 143, 253, 145, 259, and 176 appears to be free of the closest prior art.
Upon searching the elected species, an additional species was found e.g. ZFP ID 71389 and 71393.
ZFP ID 71389:
PNG
media_image1.png
44
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ZFP ID 71393:
PNG
media_image2.png
31
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, for purposes of compact prosecution, the election of species is modified only to the extent of examining this additional species. Otherwise the election of species requirement is still retained.
Election was made without traverse in the reply 9/11/2025. Withdrawn claims remain withdrawn from further consideration for the reasons previously made of record.
Drawings- withdrawn in part
The objection to the drawings as related to color drawings is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 5/15/2026- wherein figures legends were amended to remove reference to color indicators.
Claim Objections- withdrawn
The objection of claims 5 and 7-9 is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 5/15/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112- withdrawn
The rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph (written description), is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 5/15/2026.
The rejection of claims 4 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 5/15/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102- withdrawn in part
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ledeboer et al. (U.S. 2018/0153921 - cited in IDS filed 4/22/2024), is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 5/15/2026.
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. 2023/0270774; earliest effective filing date 12/01/2016; hereinafter referred to as “‘774”- previously cited), is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 5/15/2026.
Double Patenting- withdrawn in part
The rejection of claims 1-5 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 11504389 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘389 patent”), is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 5/15/2026.
The rejection of claims 1-4 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 15-25 of copending Application No. 18046327 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘327 application”), is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 5/15/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment filed 5/15/2026 with respect to the above objections and rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the maintained rejections.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of objection is made in view of the amendment filed 5/15/2026.
New Objection
Claim Objections- New objection
Claims 1, 7, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be amended to recite:
“and wherein the ZFP domain comprises in N-terminal to C-terminal arrangement of finger domain order,
in F1 to F6 order, the of SEQ ID NOs: …(vi) F6 – SEQ ID NO: 175;[[,]]
in F1 to F6 order, the of SEQ ID NOs: … …(vi) F6 – SEQ ID NO: 176;[[,]] or
in F1 to F5 order, the of SEQ ID NOs: ….
Remove reference to “the following”.
Claim 7 should be amended to recite: “wherein the ZFP domain comprises DNA-binding recognition helix sequences of denoted SEQ ID NOs shown in a single row, arranged in N-terminal to C-terminal [[in]] finger domain F1 to F6 order
Claim 9 needs a period “.” at the end of the sentence. The period was struck-through in the amendment filed 5/15/2026.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 and 38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Maintained Objections/ Rejections
Sequence compliance – Specification
This application is objected to because the sequences at least at Figs 1 and 5B are not associated with a sequence identifier (a SEQ ID NO). Examiner notes that additional sequences in the specification may also need a SEQ ID NO: as this is not a comprehensive list of the entire specification. All sequences longer than ten nucleotides or four amino acids referenced in the specification must include a SEQ ID NO and must be included in the Sequence Listing. See MPEP § 2421-2422. Applicant must amend the specification in response to this office action and must confirm that all sequences in the specification are included in the sequence listing. Examiner requests that Applicants review the specification to confirm that all sequences, as required, comply with MPEP § 2421-2422.
Applicant amended the specification 5/15/2026 to remove SEQ ID NOs from the figure legends. Per MPEP guidelines, SEQ ID NOs are still required.
Drawings- maintained in part
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons.
At least Figs 1 and 5B contain sequences that are not associated with a SEQ ID NO. Applicant amended the specification 5/15/2026 to remove reference to SEQ ID NOs. however, the corresponding figures 1 and 5B still contain sequences that require SEQ ID NOs. As noted above, sequences comprising 4 or more amino acids, or 10 or more nucleotides must include a SEQ ID NO: can be included in the sequence listing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to arguments
Applicant traversed the objection at pp. 19-21 of the reply filed 5/15/2026. Applicant asserts that the drawings include illustrative sequences (e.g., Fig 1). Applicant asserts that removing the SEQ ID NOs from the figure legends overcomes the objection to the drawings.
This is incorrect. The fact that the drawings include sequences (4 or amino acids; 10 or more nucleotides)- regardless of whether or not they are “illustrative”- requires that the sequences be associated with SEQ ID NOs and be included in a sequence listing. See MPEP § 2421-2422.
Specification
Please note, the specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible error. Applicant's cooperation is required in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Sequence Interpretation/Claim Interpretation
The Office interprets claims comprising SEQ ID NOs: in the following manner: “comprising an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires only a dipeptide or more within SEQ ID NO: 1, “comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 with or without additional amino acids at any N-/C-terminal ends or additional nucleotides at 5' /3' ends, “consisting of an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” would encompass any sequence of two or more consecutive amino acids (dipeptide or more) fully contained within SEQ ID NO: 1, and “consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” would be limited to the sequence of the amino acids as specified by SEQ ID NO: 1, and nothing more or less; "an amino acid selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2 and 3” is any sequence of two or more consecutive amino acids (dipeptide or more) fully contained within SEQ ID NO: 1, 2 or 3; and “the amino acid selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, and 3” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, or 3 and the same length as SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, or 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7-9 remain/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ledeboer et al. (U.S. 2018/0153921 – previously cited). This is the PBPUB of Patent 11504389- cited in the ODP below. The rejection is maintained from the rejection mailed 12/22/2025, but has been amended to reflect claims filed 5/15/2026.
Regarding claim 7, Ledeboer et al. teach genetic modulators [fusion protein] comprising a zinc finger protein (ZFP) domain and a transcription repressor domain, wherein the ZFP domain binds to a target site of at least 12 nucleotides in the MAPT gene (e.g., paras [0018], [0095]-[0097], claims 1-3, Examples 1-2, Tables 1-3). Specific ZFP domain comprising DNA binding recognition helix sequences in F1-F6 order include the following (Table 1 of Ledeboer et al):
PNG
media_image3.png
169
587
media_image3.png
Greyscale
SBS#57930 of Ledeboer et al. correlates with ZFP ID 71389, claim 7 at p. 10, row 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
44
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
SBS#57947 of Ledeboer et al. correlates with ZFP ID 71393, claim 7 at p. 10, row 5:
PNG
media_image2.png
31
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Accordingly, the limitations of claim 7 are satisfied.
Regarding claim 8, the target region is within 1.5 kb of a transcription start site (TSS), within 1000 bps upstream of a TSS, and/or within 500 bps downstream of the MAPT gene (Table 1 and 3, Example 1, Fig 1A).
Regarding claim 9, the fusion protein represses gene expression by about 50%, 75%, 90%, 95% or greater (e.g., paras. [0028], [0036]-[0037], Example 8- indicating that the ZFP-TFs, e.g. 57930 and 57947 reduced expression by >80%- paras [0224]-[0225]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that amended claim 1 recites species not disclosed in the cited reference (reply at pp. 24-25). Applicant asserts that Ledeboer et al. do not disclose any of the cited ZFP domain configurations, and does not anticipate the instant claims. Id.
Examiner has reviewed and considered Applicant’s arguments, but is not persuaded. Applicant amended claim 7 to be an independent claim reciting a large Markush grouping of ZFP domain sequences .
As set forth herein, Ledeboer et al. teach two fusion proteins recited in instant claim 7. The rejection is maintained for at least the reasons set forth herein.
Claim(s) 7-9 remain/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. 2023/0270774; earliest effective filing date 12/01/2016; hereinafter referred to as “‘774”- previously cited). This is the PBPUB of Appl. No. 18/046327 - cited in the ODP below. The rejection is maintained from the rejection mailed 12/22/2025, but has been amended to reflect claims filed 5/15/2026.
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 7, ‘774 teaches genetic modulators [fusion protein] comprising a zinc finger protein (ZFP) domain and a transcription repressor domain, wherein the ZFP domain binds to a target site of at least 12 nucleotides in the MAPT gene (e.g., paras [0018], [0082], [0090]-[0097], claims 1-3, Examples 1-2, Tables 1-3). Specific ZFP domain comprising DNA binding recognition helix sequences in F1-F6 order include the following (Table 1 of ‘774):
PNG
media_image3.png
169
587
media_image3.png
Greyscale
SBS#57930 of ‘774 correlates with ZFP ID 71389, claim 7 at p. 10, row 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
44
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
SBS#57947 of ‘774 correlates with ZFP ID 71393, claim 7 at p. 10, row 5:
PNG
media_image2.png
31
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Accordingly, the limitations of claim 7 are satisfied.
Regarding claim 8, the target region is within 1.5 kb of a transcription start site (TSS), within 1000 bps upstream of a TSS, and/or within 500 bps downstream of the MAPT gene (Table 1 and 3, Example 1, Fig 1A).
Regarding claim 9, the fusion protein represses gene expression by about 50%, 75%, 90%, 95% or greater (e.g., paras. [0028], [0036]-[0037], Example 8- indicating that the ZFP-TFs, e.g. 57930 and 57947 reduced expression by >80%- paras [0224]-[0225]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that amended claim 1 recites species not disclosed in the cited reference (reply at p. 25). Applicant asserts the amended claims removed all ZFP species corresponding to overlapping ZFP IDs. Id.
Examiner has reviewed and considered Applicant’s arguments, but is not persuaded. Applicant amended claim 7 to be an independent claim reciting a large Markush grouping of ZFP domain sequences .
As set forth herein, ‘774 teach two fusion proteins recited in instant claim 7. The rejection is maintained for at least the reasons set forth herein.
Double Patenting
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 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 7-9 remain/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 11504389 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘389 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons. The rejection is maintained from the rejection mailed 12/22/2025, but has been amended to reflect claims filed 5/15/2026.
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 of the ‘389 protein recites a genetic modulator of a human or mouse microtubule associated protein tau (MAPT) gene, the modulator comprising a zinc finger protein (ZFP) DNA-binding domain that binds to a target site of at least 12 nucleotides within the MAPT gene, wherein the ZFP DNA-binding domain comprises four, five or six zinc finger domains, each zinc finger domain comprising a recognition helix region, and wherein the ZFP DNA-binding domain comprises the recognition helix regions ordered as F1 to F4, F1 to F5, or F1 to F6 shown in a single row of the recited table, and a transcription regulatory domain or a nucleus domain [reads on fusion protein]. Claim 2 of the ‘389 patent recites that the transcriptional regulatory domain comprises a repression domain [reads on transcription repressor domain]. Claim 1 of the ‘389 patent discloses a table comprising zinc finger domains:
PNG
media_image4.png
147
440
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(col 76). Table 1 of the ‘389 patent refers to these ZFP F1-F6 domains as SBS#57930 and SBS#57947, respectively. See also claims 12, 22, and 26 of the ‘389 patent. The ZFP domains correspond with instant claim 7, at p. 10, rows 3 and 5:
PNG
media_image1.png
44
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
PNG
media_image2.png
31
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 8-9, Table 1 of the ‘389 patent discloses the target binding sites/sequences for ZFP numbers SBS#57930 and SBS#57947. “[The specification] may be used to learn the meaning of terms and interpreting the coverage of a claim." In re Basell Poliolefine Italia S.P.A., 89 USPQ2d 1030, 1036 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Claim 30 of the ‘389 patent recites wherein the ZFP DNA-binding domain binds to a target site within a human MAPT gene. The ‘389 specification indicates the exact same binding specificity and shown in as-filed Figure 14. The fusion protein represses gene expression by about 50%, 75%, 90%, 95% or greater (e.g., specification at Col. 8; Example 8- indicating that the ZFP-TFs, e.g. 57930 and 57947 reduced expression by >80%).
M.P.E.P. § 2112.01 recites, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, the ‘389 patent teaches fusion proteins of instant claim 7 and their corresponding binding sites in the MAPT gene, and functional properties, e.g., percentage by which MAPT gene expression is reduced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant traversed the rejection at pp. 25-26 of the reply filed 5/15/2026. Applicant asserts “any overlap in ZFPs has been removed from the pending claims”.
Examiner has reviewed and considered applicants arguments but is not persuaded.
Applicant amended claim 7 to be an independent claim reciting a grouping of ZFP domain sequences . As set forth herein, the claims of the ‘389 patent teach two fusion proteins recited in instant claim 7. The rejection is maintained for at least the reasons set forth herein.
Claim 7-9 remain/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 15-25 of copending Application No. 18046327 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘327 application”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons. The ‘327 application is a child of the ‘389 patent set forth above. The rejection is maintained from the rejection mailed 12/22/2025, but has been amended to reflect claims filed 5/15/2026.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 of the ‘327 application recites a genetic modulator of a MAPT gene, the modulator comprising a DNA-binding domain that binds to target site that includes SEQ ID NOs:44 and 45; and a transcriptional regulatory domain or a nucleus domain. Claims 2 and 3 of the ‘327 application recite that the DNA-binding domain is a zinc finger protein, and that the transcriptional regulatory domain comprises a repression domain. Claim 12 recites DNA-binding recognition helix sequences SEQ ID NOs. Claim 19 at p. 5 recites specific ZFP domains:
PNG
media_image5.png
64
542
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
61
544
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Table 1 of the ‘327 application discloses the target binding sites/sequences for ZFP numbers SBS#57930 and SBS#57947. “[The specification] may be used to learn the meaning of terms and interpreting the coverage of a claim." In re Basell Poliolefine Italia S.P.A., 89 USPQ2d 1030, 1036 (Fed. Cir. 2008). ZFP of SBS#57930 binds to SEQ ID NO:44 of the MAPT gene. ZFP of SBS#57947 binds to SEQ ID NO:45 of the MAPT gene.
PNG
media_image7.png
176
589
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. These sequences correlate with instant claim 7, at p. 10, rows 3 and 5:
PNG
media_image1.png
44
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
PNG
media_image2.png
31
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 8, claim 20 of the ‘327 application recites wherein the target site is within 300 base pairs downstream or within 100 base pairs upstream of a transcription start site (TSS) in the MAPT gene.
Regarding claim 9, claim 22 of the ‘327 application recites that MAPT expression is reduced by 20-80% after administration of the genetic modulator. Claim 24 of the ‘327 application recites gene expression is reduced by 40-90%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant traversed the rejection at p. 26 of the reply filed 5/15/2026. Applicant asserts the instant claims are patently distinct from the claims of the ‘327 application.
Examiner has reviewed and considered applicants arguments but is not persuaded.
Applicant amended claim 7 to be an independent claim reciting a grouping of ZFP domain sequences. As set forth herein, the claims of the ‘327 application teach two fusion proteins recited in instant claim 7. The rejection is maintained for at least the reasons set forth herein.
Relevant Art not Relied Upon
Instant SEQ ID NO:292 has 84.3% identity with amino acid positions 1-296 of SEQ ID NO:69 of Zhang et al (U.S. 2006/0079475- previously cited). See SCORE.
Instant claim 1 recites three ZFP domains:
F1-F6 arranged as SEQ ID NOs: 89-146-253-145-259-176
F1-F6 arranged as SEQ ID NOs: 108-138-258-174-263-175; and
F1-F5 arranged as SEQ ID NOs: 113-145-161-176-264
The closest prior art to claims 1-6 and 38 is Ledeboer et al. (U.S. 2018/0153921 – previously cited). The teachings of Ledeboer et al. are set forth above.
Ledeboer et al. do not teach or suggest the ZFP domain SEQ ID NOs recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, instant claims 1-6 and 38 are free of the closest prior art. Examiner notes that claim 1 is objected to herein.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Claims 1-20 and 28-38 are pending. Claims 10-20 and 28-37 are withdrawn.
Claims 7-9 are rejected. Claims 1-7, 9, and 38 are objected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 KRISTINA M HELLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:30 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, LIANKO GARYU can be reached at 571-270-7367. 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.
/KRISTINA M HELLMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1654
/JULIE HA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1654
Prosecution Insights