DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9-12, 14, 16, 19, and 20) in the reply filed on January 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21, 39, 41, 42, 53, 54, 58-61, 63, 65, 69, and 73 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 16, 2026.
Requirement for Information
3. Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
In response to this requirement, please provide answers to each of the following interrogatories eliciting factual information:
(1) Did some or all of the inventors of the instant application present a poster and/or slides at the ARVO Annual Meeting held in May 2021? If so, please provide a copy of said poster and/or slides.
This information is necessary to determine whether said poster and/or slides, if they exist, constitute prior art. As discussed below in the Priority section, not all of the claims under examination have an effective filing date that precedes the date of the 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting. Therefore, based on the attached abstract from this meeting that lists Inventor Bell as the first author, said poster and/or slides may constitute prior art.
The timing fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to the requirement. This waiver extends only to those documents within the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 that are included in the applicant’s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 where appropriate.
The applicant is also reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action.
/GARY BENZION/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1681
Priority
4. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Provisional Application No. 63/065,433, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
More specifically, the ‘433 provisional application fails to provide support for the subject matter of claims 4, 6, 9, and 10. As to claim 4, the ‘433 provisional application fails to provide support because it does not disclose the use of a lambda nuclease and a terminal transferase as required by the claim. Then, since claims 6 and 9 depend directly or indirectly from claim 4, the ‘433 provisional application also fails to provide support for these claims. Lastly, as to claim 10, as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection set forth below, this claim was apparently intended to depend from claim 6 or claim 9. Therefore, claim 10 is also not supported by the ‘433 provisional application. Thus, claims 4, 6, 9, and 10 have an effective filing date of August 12, 2021 (i.e., the filing date of PCT/US2021/045802).
Information Disclosure Statement
5. Applicant’s submission of an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) on February 8, 2023 is acknowledged. All of the references cited on the IDS have been considered.
Drawings
6. The drawings filed on February 8, 2023 are objected to because of the following issues:
(i) much of the text in Figure 3 is blurry and difficult to read,
(ii) the schematic under point 5 in Figure 9 is blurry such that it is difficult to determine what is being depicted,
(iii) the axes in Figure 16A and also the text under the title of the figure are too blurry to read,
(iv) the portion of Figure 16B directly under the title of the figure is too blurry to read,
(v) the portion of Figure 17 that is not part of the bulleted list is too blurry to read,
(vi) the rightmost portion of Figure 18 is too blurry to read, and
(vii) not all of the values in the table in Figure 22 can be read.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
7. REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency - The Incorporation by Reference paragraph required by 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) is missing or incomplete. See item 1) a) or 1) b) above. More specifically, the Incorporation by Reference paragraph gives the file size of the Sequence Listing in kilobytes rather than bytes. See MPEP 2422.03(a).
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation-by-reference paragraph, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Specification
8. The specification is objected to because the Incorporation by Reference paragraph for the Sequence Listing is defective for the reason set forth above (i.e., providing the file size of the Sequence Listing in kilobytes rather than bytes). See also MPEP 2422.03(a).
The specification is also objected to because para. 8 contains a typographical error where “PCT” is recited for “PCR.”
Claim Objections
9. Claim 1 is objected to because “the amplicon” in step (d) should be plural to maintain consistency with step (b). As well, amending step (e) to replace “reaction transcribing the RNA” with “reaction to transcribe the RNA” or “reaction, thereby transcribing the RNA” is suggested.
Claim 19 is objected to because at least one word appears to be missing between “poly(dT) sequence” and “a bead oligonucleotide sequence” in line 2. As well, amending the claim to recite, for example, “wherein the reverse primers used in the first PCR” is suggested to improve the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9-12, 14, 16, 19, and 20 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
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is so broadly written that the steps are not clearly linked to one another or the preamble. As well, the claim is so broadly written that the requirements of multiple steps are not clear.
First, the method steps recited in the body of the claim do not appear to accomplish the objective of “simultaneously analyzing DNA and RNA from a same cell” recited in the preamble. No analysis step is explicitly recited in the claim, and none of the recited steps (i.e., PCR, RNA capture on microparticles, and reverse transcription of RNA) is clearly an analysis step as written. And, even if the amplification steps (i.e., PCR and reverse transcription) are considered to be analysis steps, they do not occur simultaneously since the PCR is performed in the droplet, whereas the reverse transcription is performed after a droplet breaking and microparticle separation step. Thus, it is unclear as to how the recited steps meet the objective set forth in the preamble of “simultaneously analyzing DNA and RNA from a same cell,” and this lack of clarity also raises questions concerning the intended scope of “analyzing.” Is “analyzing” limited to a step that gives some sort of information (e.g., nucleotide sequence, presence of mutations, or expression level), or does it more broadly encompass any step that acts upon RNA or DNA (e.g., capture on a microparticle or amplification)?
Second, steps (b) and (c) in claim 1 are so broadly written that their requirements are unclear. As to step (b), it is not clear as to how the “amplicons comprising a 3’ poly(dA) sequence and a bead oligonucleotide sequence are generated. Are these elements added via the use of a primer(s) with a 5’ tail containing poly(dT) and a bead oligonucleotide sequence, or are they added in some other way (e.g., adapter ligation)? Similarly, regarding step (c), it is not clear whether RNA released from the single cell must hybridize to the bead oligonucleotide on the microparticle or if the step more broadly encompasses merely adsorbing the RNA to the surface of the microparticle. Further, the structural requirements of “a bead oligonucleotide sequence” recited in each of steps (b) and (c) are not clear. The specification does not define this term, and it does not have a fixed meaning in the art that would allow the ordinary artisan to readily identify any particular sequence in an amplicon as “a bead oligonucleotide sequence.” Lastly, it is not clear whether the “bead oligonucleotide sequence” recited in step (b) is the same as the “bead oligonucleotide sequence” recited in step (c), or if these bead oligonucleotides sequences differ from one another.
Third, it is not clear from the language in step (e) as to how the bead oligonucleotide sequence is transcribed during the reverse transcription step. Step (e) states that the reverse transcription step “transcrib[es] the RNA including the bead oligonucleotide sequence.” This language suggests that the bead oligonucleotide sequence is part of the RNA sequence captured on the microparticles, but the preceding steps in the claim never require this. As a result, it is unclear whether the RNA must be ligated to the bead oligonucleotide sequence on the microparticle or if the claim is awkwardly/inaccurately worded and intends to require the reverse transcription reaction to include a template switching step. As well, the language “transcribing the RNA including the bead oligonucleotide sequence” suggests that the bead oligonucleotide sequence is/contains RNA, but it is not clear that Applicant intends to limit the structure of the bead oligonucleotide sequence in this way.
In view of the foregoing, claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 9-12, 14, 16, 19, and 20
Claims 2, 4, 6, 9-12, 14, 16, 19, and 20 are also indefinite since they depend from claim 1 and do not correct all of its indefiniteness issues.
Claims 6 and 9
Claim 6 is further indefinite because its requirements are not entirely clear. First, it is not clear what is meant by “biotinylated second strand synthesis” as recited in line 2 of the claim. This term is not defined by the specification, nor is it a term that is routinely used in the art, especially in the context of further amplification of DNA. Instead, “second strand synthesis” is typically used in the context of cDNA synthesis from an RNA molecule. As a result, it is unclear whether “biotinylated second strand synthesis” in claim 6 requires incorporating biotin into the amplicons generated by the method of claim 4 during a polymerase-mediated process that either uses a biotinylated primer or a biotinylated nucleotide or if this language requires something else altogether.
Claim 9 is further indefinite by way of its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 10
Claim 10 is further indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the enzymatically modified and amplified amplicons.” Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, does not provide antecedent basis for “enzymatically modified and amplified amplicons.” Claim 6 provides the required antecedent basis.
Claims 12 and 14
Claim 12 is further indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the oligonucleotide sequences,” which is recited in lines 1-2. It is not entirely clear that “the oligonucleotide sequences” in claim 12 refers to the “bead oligonucleotide sequence” recited in claim 1, and if it does, whether it refers to the bead oligonucleotide sequence recited in step (b), the bead oligonucleotide sequence recited in step (c), or the bead oligonucleotide sequence recited in each of steps (b) and (c).
Claim 14 is further indefinite by way of its dependency on claim 12.
Claim 16
Claim 16 is further indefinite because it is missing elements and method steps such that its requirements and intended dependency are unclear. This claim depends from claim 1 and states that the method further comprises “mapping sequences of separated transcribed molecules comprising a matching cellular barcode to the same cell.” This language indicates that a sequencing step and a step of incorporating a cellular barcode prior to sequencing is required, but claim 1 requires neither a sequencing step nor a barcode incorporation step. Therefore, it is not clear whether claim 16 was perhaps intended to depend from another claim (e.g., claim 12). Also, the language “separated transcribed molecules” indicates that only transcribed RNA molecules are mapped, but it is not entirely clear that Applicant intends to narrow the claims in this way, particularly since the specification teaches that an advantage of the disclosed methods is the ability to identify DNA and RNA molecules originating from the same cell (see, e.g., paras. 8, 10, and 55).
Claim 19
Claim 19 is further indefinite for the following reason. This claim depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the first PCR reverse primers comprise a poly(dT) sequence a bead oligonucleotide sequence.” At least one word is missing between “poly(dT) sequence” and “a bead sequence.” As a result, it is not clear whether the first PCR reverse primers must contain a bead oligonucleotide sequence in addition to the poly(dT) sequence or if some other requirement concerning the bead oligonucleotide sequence was intended.
Prior Art
11. The instant claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9-12, 14, 16, 19, and 20 are free of the prior art.
They are drawn to a method that comprises performing the following steps: (a) lysing a single cell in a droplet to release nucleic acid; (b) amplifying DNA in the resulting lysate by PCR, wherein the resulting amplicons contain a 3’ poly(dA) sequence and a bead oligonucleotide sequence and wherein the PCR is conducted in the droplet; (c) capturing RNA in the lysate on a microparticle that comprises a bead oligonucleotide, wherein the capturing is conducted in the droplet; (d) breaking the droplet and separating the RNA captured on the microparticle from the amplicons generated in step (b), which are in the solution phase; and (e) reverse transcribing the captured RNA as well as the bead oligonucleotide sequence.
Thus, to summarize, claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9-12, 14, 16, 19, and 20 require RNA capture and PCR amplification of DNA in a droplet followed by breaking the droplet, separating the captured RNA from amplified DNA, and reverse transcribing the separated captured RNA.
The prior art fails to teach or suggest this particular combination of steps.
The following references constitute the closest prior art:
(1) Macosko et al. (Cell 2015; 161: 1202-1214);
(2) Chen et al. (Nature Biotechnology 2019; 37: 1452-1457; “Chen 1” below);
(3) Dey et al. (Nature Biotechnology 2015; 33: 285-289 + Online Methods);
(4) Han et al. (Scientific Reports 2014; 4: 6485);
(5) Macaulay et al. (Nature Methods 2015; 12: 519-522 + Online Methods);
(6) Church et al. (US 2013/0274117 A1);
(7) Weitz et al. (US 2019/0127789 A1)
(8) Chen et al. (US 2019/0360044 A1; “Chen 2” below); and
(9) Dhingra et al. (US 2020/0399686 A1).
Macosko
Macokso discloses a method, Drop-seq, for analyzing mRNA from a single cell that comprises the use of droplets. As can be seen in Figures 1A and 2A, the method of Macosko comprises encapsulating a single cell and a microparticle in a droplet. A plurality of oligonucleotide primers are attached to the microparticle (Fig. 1B). Cell lysis and RNA capture are conducted in the droplet. Then, the droplets are broken, and the steps of reverse transcription, PCR, and sequencing are performed (Fig. 2A).
Macosko differs from the claimed methods at least because the method of Macosko only analyzes RNA, whereas the claimed methods require amplification of DNA released from a droplet-encapsulated single cell in combination with capturing RNA on a microparticle. See claim 1, steps (a)-(c). Macosko, considered alone or in combination with the prior art, fails to teach or suggest these steps required by the instant claims.
Chen 1
Chen 1 describes a method for analyzing DNA from RNA from a single cell that comprises the use of droplets (Fig. 1a). As can be seen in Figure 1a, the method of Chen 1 differs from the instant claims in that nuclei rather than single cells are encapsulated in the droplets. As well, the method of Chen 1 does not comprise PCR amplification of DNA in the droplet as required by step (b) of claim 1. Only DNA and RNA capture is performed in the droplet (Fig. 1a). There is no proper rationale to modify the method of Chen 1 to arrive at the claimed methods.
Dey
Dey discloses a method, DR-seq, for analyzing DNA and RNA from a single cell (Fig. 1a; see also page 285, col. 2 and the “DR-seq” portion of the Online Methods section). Unlike the instant claims, the method of Dey does not use droplets or microparticles to which oligonucleotides are attached. Instead, the method of Dey occurs entirely in solution (Fig. 1a and the “DR-seq” portion of the Online Methods section). There is no rationale other than improper hindsight to modify the method of Dey to arrive at the claimed methods.
Han
Han also discloses a method for analyzing both DNA and RNA from a single cell (abstract). Like Dey and unlike the instant claims, though, the method of Han does not use droplets or microparticles to which oligonucleotides are attached. Instead, the method of Han occurs entirely in solution (see Fig. 1 and page 2, first full paragraph). There is no rationale other than improper hindsight to modify the method of Han to arrive at the claimed methods.
Macaulay
Macaulay also discloses a method for analyzing both DNA and RNA from a single cell (abstract). Unlike the instant claims, though, the method of Macaulay does not include the use of droplets (Fig. 1a; see also the “Cell lysis, cDNA isolation and amplification” and “Genomic DNA precipitation and amplification” sections on pages 1-2 of the Online Methods). Therefore, Macaulay fails to teach or suggest amplifying DNA by PCR and also capturing RNA on a microparticle within a droplet as required by steps (a)-(c) of claim 1. Instead, Macaulay lyses a single cell, captures mRNA, separates captured mRNA from genomic DNA, and prepares libraries from the captured mRNA and separated genomic DNA in parallel processes (Fig. 1a and the two sections of the Online Methods noted above). Thus, the method of Macaulay is fundamentally different from the claimed methods, and there is no proper rationale to modify the method of Macaulay to arrive at the claimed methods.
Church
Church discloses methods that comprise the use of droplets to analyze nucleic acids present in single cells (see, e.g., Figure 2 and paras. 27-30). The droplets may include a microparticle to which oligonucleotide primers are attached (see, e.g., Fig. 2 and para. 29). Church, though, fails to teach or suggest performing the PCR recited in step (b) of claim 1 and also capturing, but not reverse transcribing, RNA on microparticles as required by step (c) of claim 1. Instead, in the methods of Church, reverse transcription and/or amplification occurs at the same time within the droplets (see, e.g., para. 29). There is no proper rationale to modify the method of Church such that the PCR of DNA generates amplicons with a 3’ poly(dA) sequence as required by step (b) in claim 1 or to conduct the PCR and reverse transcription steps separately, with PCR performed in the droplets and reverse transcription performed after breaking the droplets, as also required by claim 1.
Weitz
Weitz discloses methods that include analyzing genomic DNA and RNA from a single cell (abstract). The methods of Weitz also use droplets (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3 and 5). And more specifically, Weitz discloses a method that comprises encapsulating a cell and a microparticle to which oligonucleotides are bound in a droplet, lysing the cell to release nucleic acids, and hybridizing released nucleic acids to the oligonucleotides (paras. 47-52). Released nucleic acids may also be amplified in the droplets (para. 51). As with the other close prior art references, Weitz fails to teach or suggest conducting the PCR recited in step (b) of claim 1, which generates amplicons containing a 3’ poly(dA) sequence. Weitz also fails to teach or suggest amplifying DNA in a droplet in combination with capturing RNA on a microparticle and reverse transcribing the captured RNA after breaking the droplet as also required by claim 1. There is no proper rationale to modify Weitz to arrive at the claimed methods.
Chen 2
Chen 2 discloses a method that comprises analyzing RNA and DNA released from a single cell, wherein the single cell is encapsulated in a droplet (see, e.g., Fig. 3 and the discussion in para. 527). The method of Chen 2 differs from the instant claim 1 in that reverse transcription is conducted in the droplet rather than after breaking the droplet (para. 527 and Fig. 3). As well, the DNA amplification step in Chen 2 does not generate amplicons with a 3’ poly(dA) sequence as also required by claim 1. There is no proper rationale to modify the method of Chen 2 to arrive at the claimed methods.
Dhingra
Dhingra discloses a method for simultaneously analyzing DNA, RNA, and protein, where the DNA, RNA, and protein may be from a single cell (abstract and Figs. 1 & 4). The single cell may be contained in a droplet (abstract and Figs. 1 & 4). The method of Dhingra differs from the instant claim 1 in that reverse transcription is conducted in the droplet rather than after breaking the droplet (see, e.g., Fig. 4). As well, the DNA amplification step in Dhingra does not generate amplicons with a 3’ poly(dA) sequence as also required by claim 1. There is no proper rationale to modify the method of Dhingra to arrive at the claimed methods.
Thus, although the prior art discloses certain elements of the claimed methods (e.g., capturing a single cell and a microparticle to which oligonucleotides are attached in a droplet, lysing the cell in the droplet, and capturing and/or amplifying nucleic acids released during the lysis step), the prior art fails to teach or suggest the particular combination of steps recited in steps (b)-(e) of claim 1. Thus, the instant claims are free of the prior art.
Conclusion
12. No claims are currently allowable.
This Office action has an attached requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105. A complete reply to this Office action must include a complete reply to the attached requirement for information. The time period for reply to the attached requirement coincides with the time period for reply to this Office action.
Choi et al. (Cells 2020; 9: 1130; doi:10.3390/cells9051130) is also cited as a reference of interest. This review article provides a discussion (i) of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) methods (Figs. 1-2, 4, and 5, Tables 1-2, and sections 2-3); (ii) combining scRNA-seq with proteomic analysis (section 4, esp. Table 3 and Fig. 6); and (iii) combining scRNA-seq with DNA analysis (section 5, Table 4, and Fig. 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angela Bertagna whose telephone number is (571)272-8291. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-F.
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, Gary Benzion can be reached at 571-272-0782. 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.
/ANGELA M. BERTAGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681
Prosecution Insights