DETAILED ACTION 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 Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 16, 20-21, 28-29, 33, 37-38, 42, 45, 52, 53, 73, and 74, in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 46, 59-60, and 75-79 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/2025. Applicant’s election of the species of TnsB , TnsC , and TniQ and a eukaryotic cell in the reply filed on 10/27/ 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 2, 9, 73 and 74 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/2025. Status of the Claims Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 16, 20-21, 28-29, 33, 37-38, 42, 45-46, 52, 53, 59-60, 73, and 74-79 are currently pending. Claims 9, 11, 46, and 60 are amended. Claims 46, 59-60, and 75-79 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 2, 9, 73, and 74 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim s 5-6, 8, 10, 12-15, 17-19, 22-27, 30-32 , 34-36, 39-41, 47-51, 54-58, and 61-72 are cancelled. Claim(s) 1 , 3- 4, 7, 11, 16, 20-21, 28-29, 33, 37-38, 42, 45, 52, and 53 have been considered on the merits. Note to Applicant The claims considered withdrawn will require their status identifier’s be amended to “withdrawn”. Drawings The specification makes reference to Color in the drawings in at least the following paragraphs: [0043] and [0071]. Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO p atent e lectronic f iling s ystem or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO p atent e lectronic f iling s ystem , and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification: The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee. Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2). Information Disclosure Statement The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Claim Objections Claims 1, 3, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims present lists notated by letters followed by a period, for example “a.”. Only one period may be in a claim, therefore the claims should be amended to “a)” or similar. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1, 3-4, 7, 11, 16, 20, 21, 28, 37, 38, 42, 46, and 52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 14-18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11384344 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of ‘713. Claim 1 of the instant application details an engineered system for insertion of donor polynucleotides comprising one or more CRISPR-associated transposase proteins, a Cas protein, and a guide molecule which guides Cas to a target sequence, which is fully encompassed by claim 1 of ‘344. Dependent claim 3 is fully encompassed by claims 3 of ‘344. Dependent claim 4 is fully encompassed by claim 5 of ‘344. Dependent claim 7 is fully encompassed by claim 1 of ‘344. Dependent claim 11 is fully encompassed by claim 1. Dependent claim 16 is fully encompassed by claim 8 of ‘344. Dependent claim 20 is fully encompassed by claim 11 of ‘344. Dependent claim 21 is fully encompassed by claim 14 of ‘344. Dependent claim 28 is fully encompassed by claim 16 of ‘344. Dependent claim 37 is fully encompassed by claim 15 of ‘344. Dependent claim 38 is fully encompassed by claims 16 and 17 of ‘344. Dependent claim 42 is fully encompassed by claim 18 of ‘344. Dependent claims 46 and 52 are fully encompassed by claim 20 of ‘344. Claim s 1, 7, 11, and 42 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 11, and 16 of copending Application No. 19/287,917 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of ‘917 . That is, c laim 1 of the instant application details an engineered system for insertion of donor polynucleotides comprising one or more CRISPR-associated transposase proteins, a Cas protein, and a guide molecule which guides Cas to a target sequence, which is fully encompassed by claim 1 of ‘917. Dependent claim 7 of the instant application is also fully encompassed by claim 1 of ‘917. Dependent c laim 11 of the instant application limits wherein the system further comprises a donor polynucleotide, which is encompassed by claim 16 of ‘917. Dependent c laim 42 of the instant application limited wherein the target nucleic acid contains a PAM, which is fully encompassed by claim 11 of ‘917. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 19/016,260 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in claim 12 of ‘260 . That is, c laim 1 of the instant application details an engineered system for insertion of donor polynucleotides comprising one or more CRISPR-associated transposase proteins, a Cas protein, and a guide molecule which guides Cas to a target sequence, which is fully encompassed by claim 12 of ‘260. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim s 1, 3-4, 7, 11, 16, and 53 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 8, 27, and 41-42 of copending Application No. 19/043,619 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of ‘619. That is, claim 1 of the instant application details an engineered system for insertion of donor polynucleotides comprising one or more CRISPR-associated transposase proteins, a Cas protein, and a guide molecule which guides Cas to a target sequence, which is fully encompassed by claim 1 of ‘619. Dependent claim 3 and 4 of the instant application are fully encompassed by claim 8 of ‘619. Dependent claim 7 is fully encompassed by claim 1 of ‘619. Dependent claim 11 is fully encompassed by claim 27 of ‘619. Claim 16 is fully encompassed by claim 41 of ‘619. Dependent claim 53 is fully encompassed by claim 42 of ‘619. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim s 1, 7, 11, and 42 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 13, and 34- 35 of copending Application No. 18/269,813 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of ‘813. Claim 1 of the instant application details an engineered system for insertion of donor polynucleotides comprising one or more CRISPR-associated transposase proteins, a Cas protein, and a guide molecule which guides Cas to a target sequence, which is fully encompassed by claim 1 or 34 of ‘813. Dependent claim 7 of the instant application is fully encompassed by claim 1 or 34 of ‘813. Dependent claim 11 of the instant application is fully encompassed by claim 19 or 35 of ‘813. Dependent claim 42 is fully encompassed by claim 13 of ‘813. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim s 1, 11, 16, 21, and 52-53 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 9, 16, 19, 27 and 30 of copending Application No. 18/270,854 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in claim 9 of ‘854 . Claim 1 of the instant application details an engineered system for insertion of donor polynucleotides comprising one or more CRISPR-associated transposase proteins, a Cas protein, and a guide molecule which guides Cas to a target sequence, which is fully encompassed by claim 9 of ‘854. Dependent claim 11 is fully encompassed by claim 16 of ‘854. Dependent claim 16 is fully encompassed by claim 19 of ‘854. Dependent claim 21 is fully encompassed by claim 9 of ‘854. Dependent claim 52 is fully encompassed by claims 9 and 27 of ‘854. Dependent claim 53 is fully encompassed by claims 9 and 30 of ‘854. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1, 11, 16, and 37 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-9, and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/248,252 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 or 19 of ‘252. Claim 1 of the instant application details an engineered system for insertion of donor polynucleotides comprising one or more CRISPR-associated transposase proteins, a Cas protein, and a guide molecule which guides Cas to a target sequence, which is fully encompassed by claim 1 or 19 of ‘252. Dependent claims 11 and 16 are fully encompassed by claim 9 of ‘252. Dependent claim 11 is also fully encompassed by claim 20 of ‘252. Dependent claim 37 is fully encompassed by claim 8 of ‘252. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim s 1, 7, 11, 16, 37, 42, and 52-53 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 17-18, 24, 34, 41, and 46 of copending Application No. 17/773,104 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of ‘104. Claim 1 of the instant application details an engineered system for insertion of donor polynucleotides comprising one or more CRISPR-associated transposase proteins, a Cas protein, and a guide molecule which guides Cas to a target sequence, which is fully encompassed by claim 1 or 34 of ‘104. Dependent claim 7 is fully encompassed by claim 1 or 34 of ‘104. Dependent claims 11 and 16 are fully encompassed by claim 18 of ‘104. Dependent claim 37 is fully encompassed by claim 17 of ‘104. Dependent claim 42 is fully encompassed by claim 24 of ‘104. Dependent claim 52 is fully encompassed by claim 41 of ‘104. Dependent claim 53 is fully encompassed by claim 46 of ‘104. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim s 1, 11, 16, 37, and 52-53 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 5, 7, 9, 15-16, 20, and 23 of copending Application No. 17/638,335 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of ‘335. Claim 1 of the instant application details an engineered system for insertion of donor polynucleotides comprising one or more CRISPR-associated transposase proteins, a Cas protein, and a guide molecule which guides Cas to a target sequence, which is fully encompassed by claim 1 or 15 of ‘335. Dependent claim 11 is fully encompassed by claim 7 or 16 of ‘335. Dependent claim 16 is fully encompassed by claim 9 of ‘335. Dependent claim 37 is fully encompassed by claim 5 of ‘335. Dependent claim 52 is fully encompassed by claim 20 of ‘335. Dependent claim 53 is fully encompassed by claim 23 of ‘335. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1, 52, and 53 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21, 26, and 29 of copending Application No. 17/612,245 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in claim 21 of ‘245. Claim 1 of the instant application details an engineered system for insertion of donor polynucleotides comprising one or more CRISPR-associated transposase proteins, a Cas protein, and a guide molecule which guides Cas to a target sequence, which is fully encompassed by claim 21 of ‘245. Dependent claim 52 is fully encompassed by claim 26 of ‘245. Dependent claim 53 is fully encompassed by claim 29 of ‘245. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 4, 21 and 45 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. Claims 4, 21, and 45 all refer to tables which are located in the specification, which is indefinite. The tables list various sequences. Additionally, claim 21 also refers to FIG. 2A and 2B, which depicts the taxonomy of V-U5 effector proteins ([0030]). The MPEP states that reference to figures or tables in the claims “ is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience. ” MPEP 2173.05(s). In this case, the sequences and / or taxonomy of the claimed tables/figures can be incorporated into the claims using words. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 11, 16, 20-21, 29, 33, 37-38, 42, 45, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Strecker et al (Science, July 5, 2019) . Claim Interpretation : Claim 45 refers to Table 27 in the specification and is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite. Claim 45 is being interpreted to be met by any guide RNA in the art. Regarding claim 1, Strecker teaches an engineered nucleic acid targeting system for insertion of donor polynucleotides comprising one or more CRISPR-associated transposase proteins (Fig. 1 A and 1D), a Cas protein (Fig. 1A and 1D ),, and a guide molecule capable of complexing with the Cas protein and directing sequence-specific binding of the guide-Cas protein complex to a target sequence of a target polynucleotide (Fig. 5, see sgRNA). Regarding claims 3, 4, and 7, Strecker teaches that the one or more CRISPR-associated transposase proteins are TnsB , TnsC , and TniQ (Fig. 1A and 1D), which are Tn7 transposases (pg. 1, col. 2, para 2). Regarding claim 11, Strecker teaches that the system further comprises a donor polynucleotide (pg. 2, col. 2, para 1). Regarding claim 16, Strecker teaches wherein the donor polynucleotide inserts a gene or gene fragment at one or both alleles of a target polynucleotide (Fig. 1D). Regarding claim 20, Strecker teaches wherein the system further comprises a trans-activating CRISPR ( tracr ) sequence (Fig. 1D, see “ tracrRNA ”). Regarding claim 21, Strecker teaches that the Cas protein is a type V Cas, more specifically a Cas12k (Fig. 1A). Regarding claims 29 and 33, Strecker teaches the system employing both a Type I Cas protein (pg. 1, Col. 2, para 2; and Col. 3, para 3) and a Type II Cas protein (pg. 4, col. 1, para 2). Regarding claim 37, Strecker teaches wherein the Cas lacks nuclease activity (pg. 4, col. 1, para 2). Regarding claim 38, Strecker teaches wherein the CRISPR-Cas system comprises a DNA-binding domain (Fig. 1A and 1D). Regarding claim 42, Strecker teaches wherein the target nucleic acid has a PAM (Fig. 5, se “PAM”). Regarding claim 45, Strecker teaches a guide RNA molecule (Fig. 5, see “sgRNA”) Regarding claim 52, Strecker teaches a vector comprising the components of claim 1 (Fig. 1D). Therefore, Strecker anticipates the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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 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. 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. Claim s 1, 28, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strecker et al (Science, July 5, 2019), in view of Strecker et al (Nature Communications, January 22, 2019), referred to as “Strecker 2” . Regarding claims 28 and 53, the limitations of the independent claim 1 are taught above. Strecker does not teach the employment of the system of claim 1 in a eukaryotic cell, however, Strecker states “[t] his work identifies a function for CRISPR-Cas systems beyond adaptive immunity that does not require Cas nuclease activity and pro-vides a strategy for targeted insertion of DNA without engaging homologous recombination pathways, with a particularly exciting potential for genome editing in eukaryotic cells (pg. 6, col. 2, para 1). Strecker does not teach wherein the Cas protein comprises an activation mutation as required by claim 28. Strecker does not teach wherein the cell is a eukaryotic cell as required by claim 53. However, Strecker 2 teaches a CRISPR-Cas system employing bhCas12b in which gain-of-function mutations allow for robust genome editing in human cell lines and in primary human T cells (abstract). Regarding claim 28, Strecker 2 teaches a CRISPR-Cas system using bhCas12b which has gain-of-function mutations, which is being interpreted to meet the limitation of “activation mutation” because the Cas protein exhibits increased robustness in genome editing following the mutations (abstract). Regarding claim 53, Strecker 2 teaches the use of the CRISPR-Cas system in eukaryotic cells, which are taught to be human cells (pg. 5, col. 1, para 1; abstract). One of ordinary skill in the would find it obvious at the effective filling date of the instant invention to combine the CRISPR-Cas system of Strecker with the mutated Cas protein of Strecker 2 to arrive at the instant invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this combination because Strecker teaches that their CRISPR-Cas system is “ particularly exciting potential for genome editing in eukaryotic cells (pg. 6, col. 2, para 1) and Strecker 2 teaches a CRISPR-Cas system employing bhCas12b in which gain-of-function mutations allow for robust genome editing in human cell lines and in primary human T cells (abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when combining Strecker with Strecker 2 because both teach the necessary information for employing the CRISPR-Cas systems in cells. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing of the inventio n , especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CONSTANTINA E STAVROU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9899 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:00-5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Peter Paras can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-4517 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT CONSTANTINA E. STAVROU Examiner Art Unit 1632 /DAVID A MONTANARI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1632