Status of the claims Claims 1-3, 6- 7, 9-10, 1 3 -16, 20-22, and 24-29 are pending and examined herein. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim s FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 7, 9, 22, 24, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 7, 9, and 27 each recite the final limitation as “both the UMI sequences and the BC sequences are or are added by a method of claim 1.” Claim 22 recites “the method of amplification and/or sequencing and/or of the obtained polynucleotide sequences” in both (d)( i ) and (d)(ii). Claim 24 references “the first and/or second cut-offs determined in claim 22 step (c)” when this should say “claim 24 step (c)”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim s FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 3, 7, 9, 20 -21 , 24, and 27 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 FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 3 recites the limitation " FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT the subarrays " in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT 3(b)( i ) . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This may be rectified by removing reference to “the subarrays” or providing prior antecedent basis in the instant claim or in a claim it is dependent on. Other solutions are possible. Claim 7 is directed to both a product (“array of polynucleotides”) and process (“method”). According to MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using an apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).” For the purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as being directed towards the process, as it is believed that is what the applicant intended. This rejection may be rectified by removing reference to either the product or the process. Claims 9 and 27 recite several optional limitations (“optionally wherei n [limitation X] , further optionally wherein [limitation Y] ”) followed by a limitation recited as “and wherein [limitation Z] ” . It is unclear whether [limitation Z] is subsumed under one of the optional limitations and is therefore optional itself, or if it is intended to be non-optional. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as being non-optional. This rejection may be overcome by specifically citing whether [limitation Z] is optional or non-optional. Other solutions are possible. Claim 20 recites the limitation “the polynucleotides of a sample” in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. This rejection can be rectified by removing the word “the” preceding the limitation. Other solutions are possible Claim 20 recites the limitation “…to produce a library of polynucleotides amplified from or tagging analytes in the sample …” in part (c). The limitation of “tagging” is indefinite because it is grammatically unclear. As the limitation is modified by the conjunction “or”, it will be disregarded for the purpose of examination. To overcome this rejection, the claim may be rephrased to make the action of “tagging” clear, or the limitation may be excluded altogether. Claim 20 also lists several method steps ((a), (b), (c)) without a conjunction to indicate whether all, one, or a subset of these steps are required. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting: (a), (b), and (c), optionally (d). To overcome this rejection, add a conjunction such as “and”, “or”, or “and/or”. Other solutions are possible. Claim 21 is rejected as it is dependent on indefinite claim 20. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 24 recites the limitations " FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT the library ", “the BC”, and “the UMI” in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT the preamble and in 24(a) . There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there are no references to any of these in the claims upon which the instant claim is dependent (1 and 22). This rejection can be rectified by removing these limitations or providing proper antecedent basis for them. 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. Wang et al. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1, 3, 7, 10, 13-16, 20-22, 24 , 26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Wang et al. (WO 2016/010856, cited in IDS of 2/14/24) . Regarding claim 1 , Wang discloses a method (Fig. 1) of adding an identifier sequence (“semi-random barcodes”) to polynucleotides (p. 5, lines 19-21), comprising adding each nucleotide block (“ Xmer ”) by elongating the polynucleotides using a mixed pool of pre-synthesized nucleotide blocks (p. 5, lines 15-21). Wang also discloses that different nucleotide blocks differ from each other by at least two nucleotide substitutions (p. 6, lines 14-17) and that the identifier sequences are added to at least 100 different polynucleotides (p. 6, lines 10-11). Regarding claim 3 , Wang discloses that the identifier sequence is added to the polynucleotides using degenerate polynucleotide synthesis (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 7 , Wang further discloses that the identifier sequence is a unique molecular identifier sequence (UMI) (p. 4, lines 7-8). Regarding claim 10 , Wang further discloses that each polynucleotide (Fig. 6A) further comprises a PCR handle sequence (p. 46, lines 25-26: “3 rd sequence”). Regarding claim 13 , Wang further discloses that the identifier sequence is 4-9 blocks in length (p. 5, lines 6-8). Regarding claim s 20 and 21 , Wang further discloses producing a library of polynucleotides (p. 51, lines 12-14) that include a UMI (p. 51, line 13: “semi-random barcode”) and a barcode (p. 51, lines 16-19: “2 nd sequence”) by capturing analytes in the sample on an array of polynucleotides synthesized by the method of claim 1 (Fig. 5B; p. 51, lines 19-24), generating copies of the array and sample polynucleotides and amplifying the copies (p. 51, lines 19-24). Regarding claim 22 , Wang further discloses determining the accuracy of amplifying and/or sequencing polynucleotides (p. 53-54, lines 24-8) comprising obtaining sequencing data (p. 53, lines 2-5), determining percentage of identifier sequences that are correctly sequenced (p. 59, lines 11-13), and using the percentage to determine the accuracy and error correct sequences that were incorrectly sequenced ( p. 24-25). Regarding claim 24 , Wang further discloses using the percentage to determine a first cut-off for discarding sequences and collapsing sequenced polynucleotides into groups based on sequence identity (p. 54, lines 4-6). Regarding claim 14 , Wang discloses an array of at least 100 (p. 6, lines 10-13) polynucleotides (p. 46, lines 18-20: “a plurality of sets of ss oligonucleotides”) that comprise identifier sequences (p. 46, line 19) made up of a consecutive series of at least 3 nucleotide blocks (p. 5, lines 6-8), wherein the nucleotide blocks were selected from a pool of up to 36 blocks (p. 6, lines 6-9), and each block differs from the others by at least two nucleotide substitutions (p. 6, lines 14-17). Regarding claims 15 and 16 , Wang further discloses that each polynucleotide of the array (Fig. 6A) has both barcode (p. 46, lines 21-25: “2 nd sequence”) and UMI (p. 46, line 19: “semi-random barcode”) sequences, wherein the barcode sequence of essentially each polynucleotide of the array is the same (p. 46, lines 21-25). Additionally, Wang further discloses a surface comprising a plurality of discrete pre-determined positions associated with arrays of the polynucleotides (p. 47, lines 5-9). Regarding claim 26 , Wang further discloses that the identifier sequence of each polynucleotide is a UMI (p. 4, lines 7-8). Regarding claim 28 , Wang further discloses that each polynucleotide further comprises a PCR handle sequence (p. 46, lines 25-26). Regarding claim 29 , Wang further discloses that the identifier sequence is up to 14 nucleotide blocks in length (p. 5, lines 6-8). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . 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. Wang et al. and Gaytán et al. Claim FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Wang et al. in view of Gayt á n et al. ( Nuc . Acid. Res. (2009), 37(18): e125) . As discussed previously, Wang discloses all limitations of claim 1. However, Wang does not disclose that the nucleotide blocks are phosphoramidites , as Wang does not teach a specific coupling chemistry for synthesizing the polynucleotides . Gaytán discloses phosphoramidite nucleotide blocks (Figure 1), which were well known in the art as evidenced by Damha et al . (WO 2012/024776) (p. 5, lines 3-14) . Therefore, all limitations of claim 2 are disclosed by Wang and Gaytán , excepting the actual combination of these elements. Furthermore, in combination all elements would merely perform the same function as they do separately: the method of Wang performs the function of synthesizing polynucleotides from nucleotide blocks and the phosphoramidite nucleotide blocks of Gaytán perform the function of being building blocks for the synthesized polynucleotide. As the use of phosphoramidite nucleotide blocks was well known, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the time of the effective filing date to combine the elements of Wang and Gaytán , yielding the predictable result of a method of synthesizing polynucleotides using phosphoramidite nucleotide blocks. Wang et al. and Efcavitch et al. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 6 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Wang et al. in view of Efcavitch et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0344239) . As discussed previously, Wang discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 14. Additionally, Wang discloses selecting subsets of possible nucleotide blocks to use in the pool of nucleotide blocks for synthesis (p. 5, lines 22-27). However, Wang does not specifically disclose selecting nucleotide blocks that consist of two or more of the same nucleotide. Efcavitch discloses synthesis of homopolymer tracts of repeated nucleotides (Fig. 12; p. 1, ¶ [0005]). Additionally, Efcavitch teaches that homopolymer tracts are advantageous because they have “the ability to tolerate errors in sequencing readout technologies” (p. 3, ¶ [0047]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in synthesizing the homopolymer tracts of Efcavitch by the method of Wang because it would simply require selecting a specific subset of nucleotide blocks to use in the pool of nucleotide blocks, which Wang anticipates as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to synthesize the homopolymer tracts of Efcavitch using the method of Wang, necessitating the use of nucleotide blocks that consist of two or more of the same nucleotide, based on the motivation to create a sequence with the ability to tolerate errors as provided by Efcavitch . Wang et al. and Macosko et al. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 9 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Wang et al. in view of Macosko et al. (Cell (2015), 161: 1202-1214; cited in IDS of 2/14/24) . As discussed previously, Wang discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 14. Additionally, Wang discloses that the polynucleotide array (“sets of ss oligonucleotides”) is divided into a plurality of sub-arrays (“a plurality of sets of ss oligonucleotides”; p. 46, lines 18-20), where each polynucleotide comprises a barcode sequence (p. 46, lines 21-22: “2 nd sequence”) that is the same as the barcode sequences of other polynucleotides of the same sub-array, but different from the barcode sequence of polynucleotides of other sub-arrays (p. 46, lines 21-25). However, Wang does not disclose that the barcode sequence is an identifier sequence added to each polynucleotide by the method of claim 1. Macosko discloses an array of polynucleotides (“primers”) that is divided into a plurality of sub-arrays (“primers on the surface of any one bead”), where each polynucleotide comprises a barcode sequence that is the same as the barcode sequences of other polynucleotides of the same sub-array, but different from the barcode sequence of polynucleotides of other sub-arrays (p. 1203, A Split-Pool Synthesis Approach… ; Figure 1B ). Additionally, Macosko discloses that the barcode sequence is synthesized by the same building blocks used to construct the identifier sequence (“UMI”; p. 1203, col. 2, lines 3-14) and that the barcode sequence is added before the UMI (Figure 1B) . Furthermore, Wang teaches that constructing identifier sequences using nucleotide blocks to create semi-random barcodes is advantageous over random barcodes (such as those of Macosko ) because they “allow corrections to errors in the barcodes arising from library preparation, amplification, and sequencing” (p. 4, lines 13-15). The distinctions between the methods of Wang and Macosko are ultimately that Wang does not explicitly disclose that the barcode sequence is synthesized in the same way as the UMI, and Macosko uses mononucleotides as opposed to nucleotide blocks to build the polynucleotide. Outside of these differences, however, they are largely compatible, indicating that substitution of elements between the two methods would yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to combine the barcode synthesis method of Macosko with the polynucleotide synthesis method of Wang to yield the predictable result of a barcode sequence constructed by the method of claim 1, based on the motivation of allowing error correction of the barcode sequencing results provided by Wang. 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 . Application 18/853,764 Claims FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." 1, 3, 6, 9-10, 14, 16, 20-21, 25, and 27-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) of the copending application.." 42, 43-45, 47, 49-52, 54, and 57-61 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference copending application." 18/853,764 in view of FILLIN "Insert the secondary reference." Macosko et al. . Regarding claim 1 , claims 42 , 49 , and 58 of the reference application each disclose a method of adding an identifier sequence (“first identifier sequence”) to an array of polynucleotides (“capture polynucleotides”) wherein the identifier sequence comprises a series of discrete nucleotide blocks that are added from a mixed pool of nucleotide blocks, wherein each nucleotide block sequence in the pool differs from each other nucleotide block in the pool by at least two nucleotide substitutions (42/49 (iii) ; 58(ii) ). However, the reference application does not explicitly disclose adding a different identifier sequence to each of at least 100 different polynucleotides. Macosko discloses adding a different identifier sequence to each of 4 8 different polynucleotides (Fig. 1D). This is a conventional and routine number of identifier sequences used in high-throughput sequencing applications, indicating that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to add a different identifier sequence to each of at least 100 polynucleotides, rendering claim 1 obvious. Regarding claim 3 , claims 43 and 50 of the reference application further disclose adding an identifier sequence to the polynucleotides using degenerate polynucleotide synthesis (43/50 (c)). Regarding claim 14 , all common limitations with claim 1 are obvious as discussed above. Furthermore, claims 43, 50, and 59 also disclose that the nucleotide block sequences are homodimers or homotrimers (43/50/59 (b)) . This would limit the pool of nucleotide blocks to 4 -5 sequences (AA, TT , (UU) , CC, and GG; or AAA, TTT , (UUU) , CCC, and GGG), which fulfills the limitation of “a pool of up to 36 nucleotide block sequences” of claim 14, rendering it obvious as well. Regarding claims 6 and 25 , as the reference application discloses homodimer/homotrimer nucleotide block sequences as discussed above, this also fulfills the limitation of each nucleotide block consisting of two or more of the same nucleotide. Regarding claim s 9 and 27 , claims 45, 47, 52, 54, and 61 of the reference application each further disclose that the polynucleotide array is divided into a plurality of sub-arrays (44/47/51/54/61: “micro-particles”) and that the identifier sequence of the polynucleotides is a barcode sequence that is the same for all polynucleotides of the same sub-array, but different from those of the different sub-arrays (45/47/52/54/61). Regarding claims 10 and 28 , claims 42, 49, and 58 each disclose that the polynucleotides comprise an analyte capture region (“RNA capture region”) and a PCR handle sequence (42/49 ( i ); 58(ii)). Regarding claim 16 , the reference application discloses a plurality of micro-particles (“one or more micro-particles”) where the polynucleotides of the micro-particles have barcodes unique to each micro-particle as discussed in regards to claims 9 and 27 above. Regarding claim 20 , claims 42 and 49 of the reference application each disclose a method of producing a library comprising capturing analytes on an array of polynucleotides (42/49 ( i ): “capturing RNA molecules of the sample on a set of capture polynucleotides”), generating copies of the polynucleotides including the barcode sequence (42/49 (ii): “performing reverse transcription of captured sample RNA molecules… primed using the capture polynucleotides”), and amplifying the copies to produce a library of polynucleotides including the barcode sequence (42/49 (iv): “amplifying the cDNA… to generate a library of amplified cDNA flanked by the first and second identifier sequences”). Regarding claim 21 , claim 57 of the reference application discloses a library produced by the disclosed method. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Conclusion No claims are allowed . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Alexandra Olson whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7519 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9-5pm . 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 Heather Calamita can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-2878 . 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. /ALEXANDRA OLSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1684 /JEREMY C FLINDERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684