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. Priority This application i s a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/648,336 ( 20220119 ) , filed 1/19/2022 , which claims priority to US provisional-application US 63270034 filed 1/19/2021. 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 applications, fail 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. The prior-filed applications fail to provide support for the elected limitation s of claim 1 “ wherein the 5'-end RdRp binding site has a polyribonucleotide sequence of 5'- UGUGCUA-3'; and the 3'-end RdRp binding site has a polyribonucleotide sequence of 5'-UAGCACA-3'. ”. Accordingly, instant application has an effective filing date of 01/19/2023 , w hich is the instant filing date. Status of Claims Accordingly, c laims 1, 4 – 6, 9 – 10, and 16 – 17 are under consideration. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) because: FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information " \* MERGEFORMAT i) the view numbers for the sole Figure is preceded by the word "Figure" instead of the abbreviation "FIG." Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification Abstract A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). In addition, Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In the instant case : 1) the invention is drawn to FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT synthetic ribonucleic acid (RNA) fragment of a particular sequence, which sequence is essential for a method of producing an amplified RNA product in vitro comprising amplifying the synthetic RNA fragment via an RNA cycling reaction (RCR) . The abstract does not state any of this. 2) the first sentence is a long run-on sentence. Specification in para [0031] states: Figure is a schematic diagram of an exemplary synthetic RNA fragment 1 according to one embodiment of the present disclosure. This does not make sense. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: FILLIN "Enter appropriate explanation" \* MERGEFORMAT The claim ends in two periods. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The RNA fragment of claim 1 and dependent claims is being interpreted as per [00 38 ] of the instant specification to encompass RNA only ; i.e., a sequence to serve as a template in an amplification protocol involving a recombinase in an RNA-mediated RNA cycling r eaction (RCR) . Thus, the claim has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the teachings of the specification ( In re Hyatt , 211 F.3d1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (see MPEP 2111). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to FILLIN "Identify whether the claim(s) are directed to a law of nature; a natural phenomenon; or an abstract idea." \* MERGEFORMAT a product of nature without significantly more. C laim 1 recites: A synthetic ribonucleic acid (RNA) fragment, comprising: an RNA template flanked by a 5'-end RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) binding site and a 3'-end RdRp binding site, wherein the 5'-end RdRp binding site has a polyribonucleotide sequence of 5'- UGUGCUA-3'; and the 3'-end RdRp binding site has a polyribonucleotide sequence of 5'-UAGCACA-3' . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim read s on sequences of naturally occurring nucleotides. The polyribonucleotide sequence of 5'- UGUGCUA-3' and 5'-UAGCACA-3' blast to: Betacoronavirus gene (NC 045512.2) . See MPEP 2106.04(b): viii. single-stranded DNA fragments known as primers”, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp., 774 F.3d 755, 761, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2014). With respect to instant claim , the claimed characteristics are not markedly different from the product’s naturally occurring counterpart in the natural state. Neither t he claim nor dependent claim (s) include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and because the claims do not provide a modified form of the oligonucleotide that is markedly different from its naturally occurring counterpart. These sequences read on fragments of Betacoronavirus gene (NC 045512.2) found in nature. The preamble “ a synthetic RNA fragment ” does not change the structure of the oligonucleotide from reading on a fragment of the gene found in nature. See a section of NC 045512.2 with the recited sequences boxed: In conclusion, t he claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. 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 FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 9 - 10 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. Regarding claims 9 and 10 , “deriv ed from ” in claims 9 and 10 render the claims indefinite because t he specification does not provide any understanding of the term deriv ed . O ne of ordinary skill in the art would not know the length of the RNA template comprising a sequence that encodes an antigen that is derived from Betacoronavirus or the S protein to be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. FILLIN "Insert an explanation of what is in the claim and why it does not constitute a further limitation." Claim 4 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 encompasses an RNA sequence. However, claim 4 recites : wherein the RNA template comprises … a hybrid of polyribonucleotide and polydeoxyribonucleotide sequence ; i.e., the recitation encompasses both RNA and DNA sequences. Thus, claim 4 is broader than the claim it depends from. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Applicant may consider the amendment : wherein the RNA template further comprises either a polyribonucleotide sequence or a hybrid of polyribonucleotide and polydeoxyribonucleotide sequence … Written Description The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 9 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The purpose of the written description requirement is to ‘ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co ., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quoting Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co ., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar , 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also MPEP 2163.04. For a claim to a genus, a generic statement that defines a genus of substances by only their functional activity does not provide an adequate written description of the genus. Reagents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly , 43 USPQ2d 1398 (CAFC 1997). To provide adequate written description and evidence of possession of a claimed genus, the specification must provide sufficient distinguishing identifying characteristics of the genus. The factors to be considered include a disclosure of a representative number of species to describe the complete structure of the claimed genus and/or disclosure of a complete or partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics, structure/function correlation, and any combination thereof. Scope of the Invention In the instant case, the genera are : 1. viral antigen derived from the species Betacoronavirus (claim 9) 2. viral antigen is derived from a spike protein of the Betacoronavirus (claim 10) The specification, lists various examples of antigen derived from… but makes no mention of what it means for an antigen to be deriv ed from another entity or how to perform the act of deriving an antigen . The broadest reasonable interpretation of the scope of th e s e gen era is any amino acid that is immunogenic and is /was part of the Betacoronavirus or spike protein of the Betacoronavirus . Disclosure of a Complete or Partial structure Applicant s claim a synthetic RNA template. The template is bounded by specific sequences (claimed) at each terminus. These are the 5’ and 3’ RdRp-binding site sequences. The sequences are designed in silico. The specification at para 0076 discloses: the sequences are derived from SARS-CoV-2 or HCV viruses by computer screening. The specification at para 0083 discloses: cDNA templates were subjected to (PCR) to incorporate the present 5’-end and 3’-end RdRp binding sites onto the cDNA templates. The cDNA templates correspond to messenger RNAs of viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp), and precursor miRNA-302 or S protein of SARS-CoV- 2 (para 0078). Following such incorporation, the present synthetic RNA fragment is ready for in vitro transcription (para 0082) and further RNA-dependent RNA cycling reaction (RCR, para 0084). No results are shown. Structure/Function Correlation Regarding the template further comprising sequences encoding specific elements such as antigen deriv ed from Betacoronavirus (claim 9) or a viral antigen derived from the spike protein (claim 10 ) , as discussed above, Applicant’s claims encompass any amino acid derived from the S protein , while only the cDNA for the full-length S protein is described in the instant specification. The breadth of the claimed sequence encoding antigen derived from S protein for e.g., is enormously broad with an unfathomable number of structurally divergent amino acids. Knowledge from the Art Applicant is directed to the art of Blanco (Blanco J. et al., Influenza Other Respir Viruses . 2025 Jan 28;19(1):e70076. ). Blanco evidences structural information regarding SARS Co-V2 S protein that may act as immunogen is still not known (2 nd to the last para on pg. 5) . Applicant ’ s claim is even broader than the examples taught by Blanco because Applicant’s claim also encompasses other species in the genus Betacoronavirus , discovered and yet undiscovered. As such, the breadth of the claimed amino acids is enormously broad with a n unfathomable number of structurally divergent and diverse amino acids, most of which will fail to provide the full function of an immunogen as the claim requires. Conclusion of Written Description Rejection Therefore, the examiner concludes there is insufficient written description support for the instantly claimed genus of antigen derived from Betacoronavirus (claim 9) or viral antigen derived from the spike protein (claim 10) . Specifically, there is no support for deriv ing a specific antigen other than full-length S protein from SARS-CoV-2 . The specification solely describes one species example of S protein amplification and IVT . One species example is not representative of the complete structure of the diverse genus as “ antigen s derived … .” Because the breadth of the claim encompasses any amino acid , and the specification has not provided sufficient structur e -function relationship between the breadth of the claimed derivatives and the template with incorporat ed such derivatives , a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot envision derivatives from the instant disclosure. Accordingly, the derivatives meant to be encoded in the RNA template have not been described in sufficient detail, and Applicant has not shown possession of the claimed invention at the time of effective filing. The examiner concludes that there is insufficient written description of the instantly claimed genus. Only a template encoding full-length S protein from SARS-CoV-2 , and not the full breadth of the claims, is supported by Applicant’s disclosure. 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. Claim 1 is 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) as being anticipated by McSwiggen ( US 2007/0270360 ). Claim 1 is being interpreted as an RNA strand of any length, wherein the 5’-end comprises UGUGCUA and the 3’-end comprises UAGCACA ; i.e., the sequences at the two ends are palindromic as confirmed by the following alignment of the two recited sequences wherein Qy = recited 5’-end and Db = recited 3’-end , as per claim recitation: Qy 1 UGUGCUA 7 :|:||:| Db 7 TGTGCTA 1 Regarding claim 1, McSwiggen teaches RNA templates wherein the 5’-end comprises f irst (upper) strand and the 3’-end comprises second (lower) strand. See Figure 1: The complementary pairing of the sense and antisense strands allows for RdRp binding to further RNA synthesis. See Fig. 3 below: The upper sequence is also referred to as the sense strand, whereas the lower sequence is also referred to as the antisense strand (legend under Table II, pg. 99) . One embodiment of the synthetic RNA template comprises at the 5 ’ end : UGUGCUA and 3 ’ end : UAGCACA . See position 7401 in Table II below, where SEQ ID NO: 412 and 2063 comprise the 5’ end and 3’ end sequences respectively (bold and underlined ). TABLE II- continued SARS siNA and Target Sequences SARS CoV NC 004718 P o s Seq Seq ID UPos Upper seq Seq ID LPos Lower seq Seq ID 7401 GACUUGCAUGA UGUGCUA U 412 7401 GACUUGCAUGAUGUGCUAU 412 7419 A UAGCACA UCAUGCAAGUC 2063 The two ends are palindromes of each other and part of a single template. See Figure 14B below: Thus, McSwiggen ’s recited sequences that match instant recited sequences are RdRp binding sites flanking an RNA template. Thus, McSwiggen anticipates instant claim 1. 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. 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. Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 4 – 6, 9 – 10, and 16 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" McSwiggen ( US 2007/0270360 ) in view of Bloom (Bloom et al., Gene Therapy (2021) 28:117–129 ). Claims 9 and 10 are being interpreted according to MeSH (see MESH entry in PTO-892) wherein the recited Betacoronavirus is a genus encompassing CoViD 19 and SARS CoV 2. McSwiggen teaches an RNA template as discussed supra for claim 1. Further, McSwiggen teaches the template comprises sequences (complementary to) coding or non-coding RNA ([0208] …. The polynucleotide can include both coding and non-coding DNA and RNA ) . McSwiggen provides methods to test the RNA templates for efficacy (in vitro, [0388]; in vivo [0391]). McSwiggen teaches the template RNA is part of a transcriptional unit and expressed from any vector ( [0290] ). McSwiggen does not teach the template comprises a coding RNA , as recited for claim 4, wherein the coding messenger RNA encodes an antigen , as recited for claim 5 , wherein the antigen is a viral antigen , as recited for claim 6, wherein the viral antigen is derived from Betacoronavirus , as recited for claim 9, is a spike protein derived from of Betacoronavirus , as recited for claim 10, wherein the RNA template comprises a polyribonucleotide sequence encoding a transcript of a nonstructural protein , as recited for claim 16, wherein the nonstructural protein is an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) , as recited for claim 17 . Bloom teaches self-amplifying RNAs with these missing limitations. See Fig. 1B with Examiner’s annotation shown below: -310896 103632 mRNA encoding an antigen (claim s 4 - 5) antigen is a viral antigen (claims 6, 9 - 10) RNA template encoding a transcript of a nonstructural protein (claim 16) wherein the nonstructural protein is RdRp (claim 17) 0 0 mRNA encoding an antigen (claim s 4 - 5) antigen is a viral antigen (claims 6, 9 - 10) RNA template encoding a transcript of a nonstructural protein (claim 16) wherein the nonstructural protein is RdRp (claim 17) Bloom extolls the virtues of self-amplifying RNAs (saRNA) as vaccine candidates for infectious diseases and how such RNAs are an improvement over mRNA vaccines (whole paper). saRNA vaccines, are genetically engineered replicons derived from self-replicating single-stranded RNA viruses such as p ositive-sense alphavirus genomes ( pg. 118, paras below legend) . The alphavirus replicase genes encode an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) complex which amplifies synthetic transcripts in situ. S ynthetic saRNA vaccines are essentially produced in the same manner as conventional mRN A vaccines: an mRNA expression plasmid (pDNA) encoding a n RNA polymerase promoter and the RNA vaccine candidate is designed as a template for in vitro transcription ( pg. 1 20 , last para, left column) . Regarding claim s 4 – 6, Bloom teaches viral antigens are encoded into saRNAs because of the ability of the saRNA to express these sequences at high levels ( antigenic or therapeutic sequence is expressed at high levels as a separate entity and further proteolytic processing of the immunogen is not required , pg. 118, last lines , Fig. 1 and legend ) . Regarding claim s 9 – 10, Bloom teaches spike protein is the encoded immunogen (Table 1). See two rows copied below: Row 2: Middle row: Regarding claim s 16 – 17, Bloom teaches the nsP1-4 genes are the nonstructural genes that transcribe to form the RdRp complex (pg. 120, last lines on left column; Fig. 1 and legend). It would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have acted upon the advantage of using saRNA viruses as vaccine candidates as disclosed by Bloom and replaced the endogenous RdRP binding sites in the alphaviral genome with McSwiggen ’s taught sequences of RdRP binding sites . Bloom had taught that RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) binding sites are essential for the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) to bind to carry out amplification of the synthetic transcripts in situ . In making such a substitution, one of skill in the art would have arrived at a synthetic RNA fragment comprising RdRP binding sites as recited. One of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and combining them would have resulted in no change in their original function. See MPEP 2144 II and 2143 I B . Thus, McSwiggen in view of Bloom make obvious instant claims 1 , 4 – 6, 9 – 10, and 16 – 17 . Therefore the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. 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 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, and insert the claim number(s) of the U.S. Patent." 1 of U.S. Patent No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the patent." 17 / 648336 (reference) and over claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, and insert the claim number(s) of the U.S. Patent." 1 of U.S. Patent No. 17/930,292 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : the instant application (claim 1 ) is anticipated by the cited application in view of the genus ( 5'-end RdRp binding site and 3'-end RdRp binding site ) claimed in the reference application s (claim 1) . T herefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. It is noted that the preamble of instant claim 1 (a composition) differs from the preamble of claim 1 of reference application (a method) , but the steps of the reference application claims require instant composition , and therefore comprise overlapping subject matter . Specifically, the recitation in reference application claim 1 part ( a ): 5'-end RdRp binding site and at least a 3'-end RdRp binding site wherein said 5'-end RdRp binding site is SEQ ID NO: 2 and said 3'-end RdRp binding site is homologous to any one of SEQ ID NO: 8, 10, or 11 …is analogous to 5'-end RdRp binding site and 3'-end RdRp binding site s as recited in instant claim 1 . For instance, instant unelected 5'-end RdRp binding site : U C U C CUA is a 100% match to ref applications SEQ ID NO: 2 (also recited as a 5'-end RdRp binding site ): Query Match 100.0%; Score 5.8; DB 1; Length 7; Best Local Similarity 57.1%; Matches 4; Conservative 3; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0; Qy 1 UCWCYWA 7 ||:|::| Db 1 UCUCCUA 7 A nd instant unelected 3'-end RdRp binding site : UAGGAGA is a 100% match to ref applications SEQ ID NO: 11 (also recited as a 3 '-end RdRp binding site ): Query Match 100.0%; Score 7; DB 1; Length 7; Best Local Similarity 100.0%; Matches 7; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0; Qy 1 UAGGAGA 7 ||||||| Db 1 UAGGAGA 7 Claims 1, 4 – 6, 9 – 10, and 16 – 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, and insert the claim number(s) of the U.S. Patent." s 1 - 2, 4, 6 - 7, 9 - 21 of U.S. Patent No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the patent." 17 / 648336 (reference) in view of G Ö tte ( FILLIN "Insert the secondary reference." WO 2019/056090 ) and over claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, and insert the claim number(s) of the U.S. Patent." s 1 - 21 of U.S. Patent No. 17/930,292 (reference) in view of G Ö tte ( FILLIN "Insert the secondary reference." WO 2019/056090 ) because : The overlapping subject matter between instant application claim 1 and reference application claim 1 ; i.e., 5'-end RdRp binding site and 3'-end RdRp binding site , was discussed above. Regarding the limitation of the rest of the template in dependent claim s , the teachings of G Ö tte apply : G Ö tte teaches an expression construct comprising a nucleotide sequence encoding a viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) for expression of said RdRp in recombinant cells comprising a construct (p. 24, In 29-32 "recombinant expression vectors comprising nucleotide sequences encoding RdRp polypeptide of the present disclosure ... host cells genetically modified with a nucleic acid or a recombinant expression vector"; p. 1, In 31 top. 2, In 3 "the recombinant monomeric RdRp is from a negative sense ss-RNA virus (e.g., SINV Hanta virus, CCHV, or LASV) or from a positive sense ss-RNA virus (e.g., HCV or Zika virus)"; p. 13, in 21-28 "drives expression of the RdRp polypeptide gene to make messenger RNA, which in turn makes protein in the recombinant virus infected cell"), for use in a reaction composition with a substrate of said RdRp (p. 1, In 22-30 "a reaction mixture comprising: (i) the recombinant the RdRp complex or the recombinant monomeric RdRp; (ii) a RNA substrate"; p. 23, In 10-23}. Since instant application teaches the composition comprises a construct that can be used to express both miRs and mRNAs encoding enzymes (para [0091), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included an mRNA sequence encoding a desired viral RdRp that recognizes and transcribes the miR or pre-miR in the composition in a given cell, in order to allow for RdRp mediated expression of the miRs and pre-miRs in different cell types. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use instant RdRp binding site sequences of instant application in the method taught by GÖtte , and arrive at the reference application Per MPEP 804 II B1, “To avoid improperly treating what is disclosed in a reference patent or copending application as if it were prior art in the context of a nonstatutory double patenting analysis, the examiner must first properly construe the scope of the reference claims. The portion of the specification of the reference that describes subject matter that falls within the scope of a reference claim may be relied upon to properly construe the scope of that claim. In particular, when ascertaining the scope of the reference’s claim(s) to a compound, the examiner should consider the reference’s specification, including all of the compound’s uses that are disclosed. In construing the claims of the reference patent or application, a determination is made as to whether a portion of the specification, including the drawings and claims, is directed to subject matter that is within the scope of a reference claim. For example, assume that the claim in a reference patent is directed to a genus of compounds, and the application being examined is directed to a species within the reference patent genus. If the reference patent discloses several species within the scope of the reference genus claim, that portion of the disclosure should be analyzed to properly construe the reference patent claim and determine whether it anticipates or renders obvious the claim in the application being examined. Because that portion of the disclosure of the reference patent is an embodiment of the reference patent claim, it may be helpful in determining the full scope and obvious variations of the reference patent claim. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SHABANA MEYERING, Ph.D. whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4603 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M - F: 9am to 5pm EST . 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 Ram Shukla can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-0735 . 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 SHABANA S. MEYERING, Ph.D. Examiner Art Unit 1635 /SHABANA S MEYERING/ Examiner, Art Unit 1635 /RAM R SHUKLA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1635