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. Claims 1-26 are currently pending and under examination. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements filed June 30, 2023; September 01, 2023; and August 08, 2025 have been considered. 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 16 and 25-26 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 16 , is considered vague and indefinite for the following reasons: In line 2 of the claim, the term “substantially” is unclear and confusing. The term “substantially” is not defined in the specification, so one would not be able to tell when the signal data corresponding to each of the two primer extensions is obtained; Is the signal data acquired at the same time? Or can the signal data be obtained at separate times? If so how much time? Claim 25, is considered vague and indefinite for the following reasons: In claim 25, line 4, the term “substantially” is unclear and confusing. The term “substantially” is not defined in the specification, so one would not be able to tell when the signal data corresponding to each of the two primer extensions is obtained; Is the signal data acquired at the same time? Or can the signal data be obtained at separate times? If so how much time? Claim 26, is considered vague and indefinite for the following reasons: In claim 26, line 3, the term “substantially” is unclear and confusing. The term “substantially” is not defined in the specification, so one would not be able to tell when the exciting unique labels on labeled nucleotide bases should occur; Are the unique labels excited at the same time? Or can they be excited at separate times? If so how much time may separate the excitation? Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1- 8 , 12-14, 16-20, 22 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Brennan et al. (United States Patent No.: US 6,632,641 B1, published October 14, 2003 ). Regarding claim 1 , Brennan teaches a method for determining the sequence of at least one nucleic acid (Column 4, Lines 21-24 and Column 9, Lines 25-28). Brennan teaches performing primer extensions on a same strand of nucleic acid of the at least one nucleic acid at each of at least two primers hybridi z ed to the same strand of nucleic acid in the presence of labeled nucleotide bases to result in two primer extensions ( Column 9, Lines 25-28, Column 28, Lines 14-19, Column 29, Lines 49-67 and Figs. 5A-5D ). Brennan teaches obtaining signal data corresponding to at least one labeled nucleotide base incorporated at each of the two primer extensions ( Column 1, Liens 55-61, Column 28, Lines 14-19, Column 29, Lines 49-67, Column 40, Line 64—Column 41, Line 26, Example 10, and Fig. 17 and Fig. 20 ) . Brennan teaches determining from said signal data the identity of the nucleotide bases and allocating said bases to an extension read to determine the sequence of the at least one nucleic acid (Column 55, Line 66—Column 56, Line 14 and Figs 17 and 20 (CCD camera to detect signal data and the computer to process the data ) ) . Regarding claim 2 , Brennan teaches the method comprises contacting the at least one nucleic acid with an enzyme in the presence of the at least two primers and four labelled nucleotide analogues selected from dGTP , dCTP , dTTP, dUTP , and dATP ( C olumn 29, Line 4 9 —Column 30, Line 22) . Regarding claim 3 , Brennan teaches each of the four labelled nucleotide analogues have a unique label which is different from the unique labels of the other three labelled nucleotide analogues (Column 29, Line 40—Column 30, Line 22, Column 40, Line 64—Column 41, Line 26 and Fig. 17) . Regarding claim 4 , Brennan teaches the unique label comprises a dye, a fluorophore, a chromophore, a combinatorial fluorescence energy transfer tag, a mass tag, or an electrophore (Column 40, Line 64—Column 41, Line 26, and Column 30, Lines 23-32) . Regarding claim 5 , Brennan teaches removing unbound labelled nucleotide analogues (Column 33, Lines 58-59 and Column 39, Lines 20-23, ) . Regarding claim 6 , Brennan teaches the four labelled nucleotide analogues each comprises a single reversibly terminating nucleotide analogue or reversible terminator analogue (Column 30, Lines 1-32) . Regarding claim 7 , Brennan teaches the enzyme comprises a polymerase or ligase (Column 26, Lines 60-64, Column 28, Lines 10-19, Column 42, Lines 12-15) . Regarding claim 8 , Brennan teaches the same set of four labelled nucleotide analogues are used for each extension read (Column 29, Line 49—Column 30, Line 32) . Regarding claim 12 , Brennan teaches the at least one nucleic acid is bound to a support comprising a chip or a bead (Column 3, Lines 55-63, column 41, Lines 6-14) . Regarding claim 13 , Brennan teaches the least two primers have overlapping sequences (Column 5, Lines 42-45, Column 29, Line 49—Column 30, line 22 and Column 38, Line 65—Column 39, Line 8) . Regarding claim 14 , Brennan teaches the at least two primers differ by a single base addition (Column 2, Lines 52-61) . Regarding claim 16 , Brennan teaches the signal data corresponding to each of the two primer extensions is obtained substantially simultaneously (Column 4, Lines 18-19, Column 12, Lines 51-61, Column 31, Lines 15-24, Column 56, Lines 26-32 and Example 11) . Regarding claim 17 , Brennan teaches the step of determining the identity of the nucleotide bases comprises analyzing a signal intensity profile corresponding to unique labels detected at each of the extension reads (Column 31, Lines 45-49, Column 39, Lines 45-55, Column 39, Line 61—Column 40, Line 49, Column 53, Lines 29-38, Column 58, Lines 21-26 and Fig. 19) . Regarding claim 18 , Brennan teaches the signal data comprises one or more images (Column 55, Line 66—Column 56, Line 12 and Figs. 20-21) . Regarding claim 19 , Brennan teaches the signal data is detected as color signals corresponding to a plurality of nucleotide analogues incorporated at the primer extensions and wherein each color signal corresponds to a different nucleotide analogue or combination of nucleotide analogues (Column 32, Lines 17-19 and Column 40, Line 64—Column 41, Line 26) . Regarding claim 2 0 , Brennan teaches comprising a step of signal processing comprising one or more of signal deconvolution, signal refinement and signal selection (Column 39, Line 26—Column 40, Line 63) . Regarding claim 2 2 , Brennan teaches the step of allocating the bases to an extension read comprises determining the position of the nucleotide bases (Column 21, Lines 60-63, Column 28, Lines 3-33, Column 29, Lines 6-11, Column 53, Lines 29-38, Column 55, Line 66—Column 56, Line14) . Regarding claim 25 , Brennan teaches a method for determining the sequence of at least one nucleic acid (Column 4, Lines 21-24 and Column 9, Lines 25-28). Brennan teaches exciting fluorescence from the at least one nucleic acid (Column 55, Lines 23-43 and Example 13). Brennan teaches substan tially simultaneously , obtaining signal data corresponding to labeled nucleotide bases incorporated at each of two primer extensions on a same strand of nucleic acid of the at least one nucleic acid (Column 1, Liens 55-61, Column 4, Lines 18-19, Column 9, Lines 25-28, Column 12, Lines 51-61, Column 28, Lines 14-19, Column 29, Lines 49-67, Column 31, Lines 15-24, Column 40, Line 64—Column 41, Line 26, Column 56, Lines 26-32, Examples 10-11 and Figs. 5A-5D, 17 and 20) . Brennan teaches determining from said signal data the identity of the nucleotide bases and allocating said bases to an extension read to determine the sequence of the at least one nucleic acid (Column 55, Line 66—Column 56, Line 14 and Figs 17 and 20 (CCD camera to detect signal data and the computer to process the data)) . Regarding claim 26 , Brennan teaches a method for determining the sequence of at least one nucleic acid (Column 4, Lines 21-24 and Column 9, Lines 25-28). Brennan teaches substantially simultaneously exciting unique labels on labeled nucleotide bases incorporated at each of two primer extensions on a same strand of nucleic acid of the at least one nucleic acid (Column 1, Liens 55-61, Column 4, Lines 18-19, Column 9, Lines 25-28, Column 12, Lines 51-61, Column 28, Lines 14-19, Column 29, Lines 49-67, Column 31, Lines 15-24, Column 40, Line 64—Column 41, Line 26, Column 56, Lines 26-32, Examples 10-13 and Figs. 5A-5D, 17 and 20). Brennan teaches obtaining signal data from said excitation (Examples 12 and 13). Brennan teaches determining from said signal data the identity of the nucleotide bases and allocating said bases to an extension read to determine the sequence of the at least one nucleic acid (Column 55, Line 66— Column 56, Line 14 and Figs 17 and 20 (CCD camera to detect signal data and the computer to process the data)) . Brennan teaches each and every claim limitation of claims 1-8, 12-14, 16-20, 22 and 25-26, therefore Brennan anticipates claims 1-8, 12-14, 16-20, 22 and 25-26. 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. Claims 9-11, 15, 21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan et al. (United States Patent No.: US 6,632,641 B1, published October 14, 2003), as applied to claims 1-8, 12-14, 16-20, 22 and 25-26 above, in view of Leamon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2006/0040297 A1, published February 23, 2006). Regarding claims 9-10 , Brennan teaches the at least two primers as discussed above. Regarding claim 11 , Brennan teaches the signal intensity as discussed above. Regarding claim 15 , Brennan teaches allocat ing the bases to the extension read as discussed above . Regarding claims 2 1 and 23-24 , Brennan teaches the method of claim as discussed above. Brennan does not teach or suggest at least two primers comprise blocked and unblocked primers to differentiate between each extension read. Brennan does not teach or suggest the at least two primers comprise a first unblocked primer having a first nucleotide sequence and a second mixture of unblocked and blocked primers having a second nucleotide sequence. Brennan does not teach or suggest determining the identity of the nucleotides bases comprises determining the signal intensity of newly added labeled nucleotide bases from the first unblocked primer and the second mixture of blocked and unblocked primers . Brennan does not teach or suggest bioinformatics information is used to allocate the bases to the extension read. Brennan does not teach or suggest multiple base calls are made at each hybridization cycle. Brennan does not teach or suggest the step of allocating the bases to an extension read comprises providing a preliminary base call and a final base call for each extension read. Brennan does not teach or suggest the final base call is provided by comparison of the preliminary base call data with a reference genome. Leamon teaches a method for determining the sequence of at least one nucleic acid (Page 2, [0020] and Page 3, [0024]). Leamon teaches performing primer extensions on a same strand of nucleic acid of the at least one nucleic acid at each of at least two primers hybridized to the same strand of nucleic acid (Page 3, [0024], Page 6, [ 0043 ] and Fig. 25). Leamon teaches obtaining and determining signal data from nucleotides (Pages 5-6, [0041]-[0042], Page 7, [0066] and Figs. 45 and 52). Leamon teaches using fluorescence (Page 7, [0066], Page 27, [0284] and Page 51, [0664]). Leamon teaches at least two primers comprise blocked and unblocked primers to differentiate between each extension read (Page 3, [0024], Page 6, [0043] and Page 35, [0349]) . Leamon teaches the at least two primers comprise a first unblocked primer having a first nucleotide sequence and a second mixture of unblocked and blocked primers having a second nucleotide sequence (Page 3, [0024], Page 6, [0043] and Page 35, [0349]) . Leamon teaches determining the identity of the nucleotides bases comprises determining the signal intensity of newly added labeled nucleotide bases from the first unblocked primer and the second mixture of blocked and unblocked primers (Page 8, [0096], Page 64, [0801], Page 66, [0814], Page 74, [0907], Pages 75-76, [0916]-[0917] and Page 77, [0924]) . Leamon teaches bioinformatics information is used to allocate the bases to the extension read (Pages 64-66, [0801]-[0810] and Pages 75-76, [0917]-[0922]) . Leamon teaches multiple base calls are made at each hybridization cycle (Pages 17-18, [0191], Pages 64-66, [0801]-[0810] and Pages 75-76, [0917]-[0922]) . Leamon teaches the step of allocating the bases to an extension read comprises providing a preliminary base call and a final base call for each extension read as well as the final base call is provided by comparison of the preliminary base call data with a reference genome (Pages 64-66, [0801]-[0810] and Pages 75-76, [0917]-[0922]) . Leamon teaches using these methods supports a massively parallel approach to sequencing whole genomes containing up to hundreds of millions of bases as well as t he simplicity of the disclosed method would drastically reduce costs for sequencing (Page 60, [0761]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Brennan with the teachings of Leamon, to use blocked and unblocked primers as wells as base callings to allocate the bases to an extension read. Using these methods supports a massively parallel approach to sequencing whole genomes containing up to hundreds of millions of bases as well as t he simplicity of the disclosed method would drastically reduce costs for sequencing as taught by Leamon (Page 60, [0761]). Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-24 and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 -25 of U.S. Patent No. 1 1 , 555 , 218 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the preambles are almost identical, it appears that the steps of the claims are identical, so it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a method for determining the sequence of a nucleic acid or determine the sequence of at least one nucleic acid using those same steps. Therefore, the claims are not deemed to be patentably distinct. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JESSICA DANIELLE PARISI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8025 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Friday 7:30-5:00 Eastern with alternate Fridays off . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heather Calamita can be reached at 571-272-2876 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JESSICA D PARISI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1684 /HEATHER CALAMITA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1684