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 with traverse of Group Il: claims 16-18 in the reply filed on 11/07/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious burden is upon the Office to examine all of the claims together. This is not found persuasive because the restriction is based on a lack of unity, and burden is not an element to be considered. The Remarks do not contest the teaching of the reference cited to establish a lack of unity. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. C laims 1-15 are cancelled . New claims 19-35 included in the claim set filed on 11/07/2025 have been entered . . Claims 16-35 are pending and under examination on the merits. Priority This application 1 8/012,607 filed on 12/22/2022 is a 371 national phase of PCT/EP2021/068977 filed on 07/08/2021 , and claims the benefit of provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 63/049,218 , filed on 07/08/2020 . The priority date of independent claims 16 and 17 and their dependent claims is determined to be 07/08/2020 , the filing date of provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 63/049,218 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 12/22/2022 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) dated 12/22/2022 does not appear to be the appropriate IDS for instant application 1 8/012,607 . Prior art included with the application does not appear on the IDS, and the references listed on the IDS are not included with the application. Further , the first named inventor listed on the IDS is not a named inventor of the instant application. For these reasons the references listed on the information disclosure statement have not been considered, as indicated by the strike-out lines on the attached document. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a). Specification The use of terms which are trade names or marks used in commerce (including IIlumina® and MinION TM among others), has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Claim Objections Claim s 16-18 and 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. For instance, “a.” could be revised as “a)” or “(a)” Claims 26 and 3 5 are objected to for grammar . The claims recite the limitation “ spheres fewer than 10 micrometers in diameter “. It is suggested to change the limitation to “ spheres less than 10 micrometers in diameter ”. The size of the possible spheres is a continuous numeric amount rather than discrete countable numbers. Claim Interpretation Claims 1 and 17 recite the limitation “ a capture molecule capable of selectively binding the capture moiety ”. For the purposes of examination any molecule that can bind the capture moiety is interpreted as meeting the requirement . Claim 18 recites the limitation “ a sequence capable of hybridizing to the subcode oligonucleotide ”. For the purposes of examination any sequence that can bind to the subcode oligonucleotide is interpreted as meeting the requirement . Claim 22 recites the limitation “ a third oligonucleotide capable of attachment to the surface of the cells “. For the purposes of examination any sequence that can attach to the surface of cells is interpreted as meeting the requirement . Claim 22 recites the limitation “ a moiety capable of attaching to the surface of the cells ”. For the purposes of examination any sequence that can attach to the surface of cells is interpreted as meeting the requirement . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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. Claim s 16-35 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. Claim 1 6 recites the limitation “ contacting a tissue sample with one or more unique binding agents, wherein the agents include –“ in lines 3-4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for th e limitation “the agents” in the claim. It is assumed that the limitation intends to refer to the “one or more unique binding agents”. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. Claim 16 recites the limitation “ ii. annealing the subcode oligonucleotide adjacently to the subcode oligonucleotide from a previous round via an annealing region ” in lines 18-19. Claims should clearly delineate all active steps required for performing the claimed methods. Claims 18-30 are similarly indefinite because they directly or indirectly depend from claim 16. Claim 17 recites the limitation “ contacting a tissue sample with one or more unique binding agents, wherein the agents include ---” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for th e limitation “the agents” in the claim. It is assumed that the limitation intends to refer to the “one or more unique binding agents”. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. Claim 17 recites the limitation “ ii. annealing the subcode oligonucleotide adjacently to the subcode oligonucleotide from a previous round via an annealing region ” in lines 18-19. Claims should clearly delineate all active steps required for performing the claimed methods. Claims 31-35 are similarly indefinite because they directly or indirectly depend from claim 17. Claim 22 recites the limitation s " a third oligonucleotide " in lines 2 and 4 and “ a fourth oligonucleotide ” in line 4 . As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because claim 16, which claim 22 depends from, does not recite a first or second oligonucleotide. 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. Claims 16-17 and 19-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frenz et al. (WO2020123316) in view of Nolan ( WO2016100976 ). Regarding claim 16 , Frenz teaches methods for determining the presence and location of a biological analyte within a biological sample , including m ethods for performing multiplexed assays to analyze two or more different analytes (p. 47, lines13-14) . Regarding steps (a) and (c) , the method compris es contacting a biological sample that is a tissue sample (p. 49, line 7 and Fig. 24) with capture probes (p. 5, line s 20-23; p. 6, lines 1-3; p. 6, lines 28-30) or cell labelling agents (p. 6, lines 9-11) (i.e. unique binding agents) . Frenz teaches the use of multiple capture probes that comprise one or more of capture domains (p. 89, lines 1-5), functional domains (p. 99, lines 25-27), spatial barcodes (p . 100, lines 9-16) and unique molecular identifier s (UMI s) (p. 103, lines 13-18). Frenz teaches UMIs are nucleic acid segments that function as a label or identifier for a particular analyte (i.e. a target-identifying nucleic acid ) (p. 103, lines 16-17) . Frenz teaches spatial barcodes are nucleic acid segment s that convey spatial information (i.e. location-identifying nucleic acids ) (p. 100, line 13) . Frenz further teaches affinity groups (i.e. capture moieties) such as biotin (p. 39, lines 11-12 ) and the use of biotinylated probes (p. 144, lines 24-25) . Thus , Frenz teaches all of the elements of step s (a) and (c) . Regarding steps (b) and (d), Frenz teaches a bead can be a particle (p. 149, line 11) and beads can be arranged as a layer (p. 154, line 24). Frenz further teaches the method comprising the capture of biotinylated probes by streptavidin (p. 144, lines 23-24) using, for example, streptavidin beads (p. 252 lines 29-31 through p. 253, line 1). Frenz teaches removing the tissue sample (Fig. 4 for example) or separating barcode bearing beads (Fig. 17C) and partitioning particles with microfluidics (i.e. in liquid) (Fig. 16). Regarding step s (f) and (g) , Frenz teaches d etermining the sequence of a molecular tag barcode associated with the biological analyte bound to the capture probe and the spatial barcode of the capture probe, thereby determining the location (and presence) of the biological analyte (target) within the biological sample (p. 7, lines 22-25) . Frenz teaches the use of bead-specific barcode s (p . 260, lines 13-17) and teaches that a barcode can include two or more sub-barcodes that together function as a single barcode (p. 31, lines 8-9) . Frenz also teaches making oligonucleotides using a “split-pool” method (p. 32, lines 9-10). However, Frenz does not teac h the specific limitations of step ( e ) . Nolan teaches a method for identifying multiple epitopes in sup-populations of cells, the method comprising the use of unique binding agents (UBA) to detect target molecules of interest, epitope specific barcodes (target-identifying nucleic acids) to encode the identities of the target molecules recognized by the UBA, and assayable polymer subunits (subcodes) to create unique cell origination barcodes ( particle-specific codes ) (para 83). Nolan teaches performing one or more rounds of split pool synthesis comprising splitting the cell sample into a plurality of aliquots, incubating each aliquot with a different APS (comprising a different SC) to allow annealing of complementary sequences between the APS and the growing UBA-ESB-APS chain, ligation (in the case of oligonucleotide ESB and APS), rinsing, and pooling of the aliquots (para 122). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Frenz and Nolan to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The modification would have entailed adding the capture probes of Frenz comprising biotinylated nucleic acids with unique sequences for the target analyte, and location (sample barcode) ; adding streptavidin beads to capture the capture probes and partitioning the beads by microfluidics. The modification would further have entailed using the method of Nolan to generate particle-specific codes by multiple rounds of split-pool synthesis on both the UMI comprising and the spatial barcode comprising probes. One would have been motivated to use the split-pool and sub code barcoding method of Nolan for the advantages provided by split-pool barcoding, including a simple method for combinatorial addition of barcodes at large scale. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are widely known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the prior art. Regarding claim 17 , Frenz teaches methods for determining the presence and location of a biological analyte within a biological sample, including methods for performing multiplexed assays to analyze two or more different analytes (p. 47, lines13-14). Regarding step (a), the method comprises contacting a biological sample that is a tissue sample (p. 49, line 7 and Fig. 24) with capture probes (p. 5, lines 20-23; p. 6, lines 1-3; p. 6, lines 28-30) or cell labelling agents (p. 6, lines 9-11) (i.e. unique binding agents). Frenz teaches the use of multiple capture probes that comprise one or more of capture domains (p. 89, lines 1-5), functional domains (p. 99, lines 25-27), spatial barcodes ( p . 100, lines 9-16) and unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) (p. 103, lines 13-18). Frenz teaches UMIs are nucleic acid segments that function as a label or identifier for a particular analyte (i.e. a target-identifying nucleic acid) (p. 103, lines 16-17). Frenz teaches spatial barcodes are nucleic acid segments that convey spatial information (i.e. location-identifying nucleic acids) (p. 100, line 13). Frenz further teaches affinity groups (i.e. capture moieties) such as biotin (p. 39, lines 11-12) and the use of biotinylated probes (p. 144, lines 24-25). Thus , Frenz teaches all of the elements of steps (a) and (c). Regarding steps (b) and (c), Frenz teaches a bead can be a particle (p. 149, line 11) and beads can be arranged as a layer (p. 154, line 24). Frenz further teaches the method comprising the capture of biotinylated probes by streptavidin (p. 144, lines 23-24) using, for example, streptavidin beads (p. 252 lines 29-31 through p. 253, line 1). Frenz teaches removing the tissue sample (Fig. 4 for example) or separating barcode bearing beads (Fig. 17C) and partitioning particles with microfluidics (i.e. in liquid) (Fig. 16). Regarding steps (e) and (f), Frenz teaches determining the sequence of a molecular tag barcode associated with the biological analyte bound to the capture probe and the spatial barcode of the capture probe, thereby determining the location (and presence) of the biological analyte (target) within the biological sample (p. 7, lines 22-25). Frenz teaches the use of bead-specific barcode s (p. 260, lines 13-17) and teaches that a barcode can include two or more sub-barcodes that together function as a single barcode (p. 31, lines 8-9). Frenz also teaches making oligonucleotides using a “split-pool” method (p. 32, lines 9-10). However, Frenz does not teach the specific limitations of step (e). Nolan teaches a method for identifying multiple epitopes in sup-populations of cells, the method comprising the use of unique binding agents (UBA) to detect target molecules of interest, epitope specific barcodes (target-identifying nucleic acids) to encode the identities of the target molecules recognized by the UBA, and assayable polymer subunits (subcodes) to create unique cell origination barcodes ( particle-specific codes ) (para 83). Nolan teaches performing one or more rounds of split pool synthesis comprising splitting the cell sample into a plurality of aliquots, incubating each aliquot with a different APS (comprising a different SC) to allow annealing of complementary sequences between the APS and the growing UBA-ESB-APS chain, ligation (in the case of oligonucleotide ESB and APS), rinsing, and pooling of the aliquots (para 122). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Frenz and Nolan to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The modification would have entailed adding the capture probes of Frenz comprising biotinylated nucleic acids with unique sequences for the target analyte, and location (sample barcode); adding streptavidin beads to capture the capture probes and partitioning the beads by microfluidics. The modification would further have entailed using the method of Nolan to generate particle-specific codes by multiple rounds of split-pool synthesis on both the UMI comprising and the spatial barcode comprising probes. One would have been motivated to use the split-pool and sub code barcoding method of Nolan for the advantages provided by split-pool barcoding, including a simple method for combinatorial addition of barcodes at large scale. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are widely known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the prior art. Regarding claim 19 , Frenz teaches the capture probe can be an oligonucleotide - antibody conjugate (p. 88, lines 6-7 and Fig. 9). Regarding claim 20 , Frenz teaches in some embodiments, the capture probe is nucleic acid. (p. 105, line 22). Regarding claim 21 , Frenz teaches capture probes which include UMIs , nucleic acid segments that function as a label or identifier for a particular analyte (i.e. a target-identifying nucleic acid) (p. 103, lines 16-17) , which satisfies the requirement of a first oligonucleotide. Frenz teaches capture probes comprising multiple oligonucleotides hybridized to each other (Fig. 10). Frenz further teaches biotinylated probes (p. 144, lines 23-24) and capture probes comprising functional domains (p. 99, lines 25-27) . Functional domains include a functional nucleotide sequence for a downstream analytical step, (p. 99, lines 25-27) and read on an annealing region for attaching subcodes . Thus, Frenz teaches all of the elements which satisfy the requirement of a second oligonucleotide. Regarding claim 22 , Frenz teaches capture probes that comprises two oligonucleotides (i.e. a third and fourth) capable of binding together (i.e. hybridizing). Regarding the third oligonucleotide, Frenz teaches c apture probes that an analyte capture agent (p. 120, lines 21-29 and Fig. 10). Analyte capture agents comprise an analyte binding moiety (p. 111, line15-16), which can bind to cell surface receptor binding molecules (p. 111, lines 27-29). Regarding the fourth oligonucleotide, Frenz teaches capture probes comprising multiple oligonucleotides hybridized to each other (Fig. 10). Frenz further teaches biotinylated probes (p. 144, lines 23-24) and capture probes comprising functional domains (p. 99, lines 25-27) . Functional domains include a functional nucleotide sequence for a downstream analytical step, (p. 99, lines 25-27) and read on an annealing region for attaching subcodes . Thus, Frenz teaches all of the elements which satisfy the requirement of a fourth oligonucleotide. Regarding claim 23 , Frenz teaches contacting the sample with an analyte capture agent (p. 87, lines 5-6). Frenz teaches a nalyte capture agents comprise an analyte binding moiety (p. 111, line15-16), which can bind to cell surface receptor binding molecules (p. 111, lines 27-29). Frenz teaches a capture probe associated with an analyte capturing agent (p. 102, lines 5-8), and further teaches capture probes comprising unique molecular identifier s (UMI s) (p. 103, lines 13-18), which satisfy the requirement of sample-identifying oligonucleotides. Regarding claim 24 , Frenz teaches biotin as an affinity group which binds to streptavidin. (p. 39, lines 12-13). Frenz further teaches biotinylated probes can be captured by streptavidin (p. 144, lines 23-24), and biotinylated oligonucleotides with sequence complementary analytes of interest can be selected using biotinylation-strepavidin affinity using, for example, streptavidin beads) (p. 252 lines 29-31 through p. 253, line 1). Regarding claim 25 , Frenz teaches a magnetic bead can be used (p. 253, lines 3-4). Regarding claim 26 , Frenz teaches beads that are at least about 1 micrometer (μm), 2 μm,3 μm, 4 μm, 5 μm, 6 μm, 7 μm, 8 μm, or 9 μm (p. 156, lines 4-6). Regarding claim 27 , Frenz teaches washing the sample with protease or detergents (p. 217, lines 23-26). Regarding claim 28 , Frenz teaches the use of arrayed capture probes comprising spatial barcodes with addresses (p. 104, line 24 to p.105, line 4). Regarding claim 29 , Frenz teaches using a formamide solution can be used to destabilize the interaction between nucleic acid molecules to release the extended capture probe from the array feature (particle) (p. 111, 4-6). Regarding claim 30 , Frenz teaches contacting the sample with capture probes comprising unique molecular identifier s (UMI s) (p. 103, lines 13-18), which satisfy the requirement of sample-identifying oligonucleotides. Frenz further teaches using microfluidics to collect droplets comprising a plurality of particles in a reservoir (i.e. pooling in a liquid sample) (p. 263, lines 11-24). Frenz teaches pooling features together before analysis such as sequencing (p. 284, lines 12-15). Regarding claim 31 , Frenz teaches the capture probe can be an oligonucleotide-antibody conjugate (p. 88, lines 6-7 and Fig. 9). Regarding claim 32 , Frenz teaches in some embodiments, the capture probe is nucleic acid. (p. 105, line 22). Regarding claim 33 , Frenz teaches biotin as an affinity group which binds to streptavidin. (p. 39, lines 12-13). Frenz further teaches biotinylated probes can be captured by streptavidin (p. 144, lines 23-24), and biotinylated oligonucleotides with sequence complementary analytes of interest can be selected using biotinylation-strepavidin affinity using, for example, streptavidin beads). (p. 252 lines 29-31 through p. 253, line 1). Regarding claim 34 , Frenz teaches a magnetic bead can be used (p. 253, lines 3-4). Regarding claim 35 , Frenz teaches beads that are at least about 1 micrometer (μm), 2 μm,3 μm, 4 μm, 5 μm, 6 μm, 7 μm, 8 μm, or 9 μm (p. 156, lines 4-6). Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frenz et al. (WO2020123316) in view of Nolan ( WO2016100976 ) as applied to clai ms 16-17 and 19-35 above, and further in view of Dahl et al. ( US20170016065 ) . Regarding claim 18 , n either Frenz nor Nolan teach removing excess subcode oligonucleotides from a reaction mixture using the hairpin probe of claim 18. Dahl teaches probes that can capture target nucleic acids, including a double hairpin probe with a single-stranded region between the 5’ and 3’ hairpin ends, wherein the single stranded region hybridizes (anneals) to a target fragment (e.g. excess subcode oligonucleotides) (Fig. 4). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang and Nolan with Dahl to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The modification would have entailed adding the probes of Dahl during the split-pool synthesis rounds of Wang . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the known issue of unincorporated primers or other unincorporated oligonucleotides interferences in downstream amplification or other molecular methods. One would have been motivated to add a simple probe that cold capture unincorporated subcode oligonucleotides. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are widely known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the prior art. 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. Claim s 16-17 and 19-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over , in the alternative, claim s 1- 1 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11 , 214 , 794 , over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,144,950 in view of Frenz et al. (WO2020123316) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims substantially anticipate the identified claims of this applicatio n. Each of patents ‘794 and ‘950 require a version of unique binding agents, epitope specific barcode (ESB) (targe-identifying nucleic acids) mixtures, and the addition of assayable polymer subunit (APS) sets (subcode oligonucleotides) through split-pool synthesis to form cell originating barcodes (COBs) (particle-specific barcodes) from the plurality of APSs sets by a method comprising (i) splitting the mixture into two or more samples; (ii) adding one APS from an APS set specific for the round per sample to the two or more samples from step (i), where a complex is formed with the least one target molecule, the UBA, the ESB, and a first APS; (iii) pooling the two or more samples from step (i) into one sample; (iv) splitting the sample from step (iii) into two or more samples; (v) adding one APS from an APS set specific for the round per sample to the two or more samples from step (iv), where a complex is formed with the least one target molecule, the UBA, the ESB, the first APS, and the second APS; and optionally, repeating steps (iii) through (v) one or more times; wherein APSs comprise an annealing region and the annealing region of an added APS is complementary to an available annealing region of an APS from a previous round and wherein APSs sets in each round comprise a round-specific subcode so that the synthesized COB comprises a unique label code associated with the target molecule and the cell in the mixture. The teachings of Frenz as they relate to these claims are given previously in this office action and are fully incorporated here. Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over , in the alternative, claim s 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11 , 214 , 794 , over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,144,950 , in view of Frenz et al. (WO2020123316), further in view of Dahl et al. (US20170016065) . Neither Patent ‘794 not ‘950 teach removing excess subcode oligonucleotides from a reaction mixture using the hairpin probe of claim 18. The teachings of Dahl as they relate to these claims are given previously in this office action and are fully incorporated here. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JESSICA GRAY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0116 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8-5 with second Fridays off . 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 WINSTON SHEN can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3157 . 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. /JESSICA GRAY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1682 /WU CHENG W SHEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1682