a 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. Drawings New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because: The lettering is not of proper size, uniform density, and well-defined in Figure(s) 1 and 2. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1) – (5) and 37 CFR 1.84(l). (“Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm (1/8 inch) in height.”) The margins are not of proper size in Figure(s) 1 – 6G. See 37 CFR 1.84(g). In Figure(s) 1 – 3H and 5 – 6B the reference characters, sheet numbers, and view numbers are not all oriented in the same direction so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1). The numbering of the sheets of drawings bearing FIG(s). 1 – 6G is not in compliance with all aspects of 37 CFR 1.84(t). Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance. INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES Replacement Drawing Sheets Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. 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). A replacement sheet must 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 the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified. Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin. Annotated Drawing Sheets A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, are required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. Timing of Corrections Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application. If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The use of the term TWEEN 20, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term . Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. See paragraphs [0012], [0030], [00223], [00227], [00228], [00233], [00260], [00261], [00294], [00318], and [00348]. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation Attention is directed to MPEP 904.01 [R-08.2012] . The breadth of the claims in the application should always be carefully noted; that is, the examiner should be fully aware of what the claims do not call for, as well as what they do require. During patent examination, the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Morris , 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2111 - § 2116.01 for case law pertinent to claim analysis. It is noted with particularity that narrowing limitations found in the specification cannot be inferred in the claims where the elements not set forth in the claims are linchpin of patentability. In re Philips Industries v. State Stove & Mfg. Co, Inc ., 186 USPQ 458 (CA6 1975). While the claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification, it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims. On the contrary, claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. See Ex parte Oetiker , 23 USPQ2d 1641 (BPAI, 1992). In added support of this position, attenti on is directed to MPEP 2111 [R-11.2013 ], where, citing In re Prater , 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969), is stated: The court explained that “reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.” The court found that applicant was advocating the latter, i.e., the impermissible importation of subject matter from the specification into the claim. Additionally, attention is directed to MPEP 2111.01 [R-01.2024 ], wherein is stated: II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE S PECIFICATION “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the w ritten description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc. , 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Attention is also directed to MPEP 2111.02 II [R-07.2022]. As stated herein: II. PREAMBLE STATEMENTS RECITING PURPOSE OR INTENDED USE The claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim " as drafted without importing "'extraneous' limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC , 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co ., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror , 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation ") … (Emphasis added) Attention is directed to MPEP 2111 [R-10.2019]. As stated therein: During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp ., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the " broadest reasonable interpretation " standard: The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr ., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). (Emphasis added). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, (b) / Second Paragraph 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. Standard for Definiteness. Attention is directed to MPEP 2171 [R-11.2013]: Two separate requirements are set forth in 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, namely that: (A) the claims must set forth the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention; and (B) the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant. The first requirement is a subjective one because it is dependent on what the inventor or a joint inventor for a patent regards as his or her invention. Note that although pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, uses the phrase "which applicant regards as his invention," pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(a) provides that a patent is applied for in the name or names of the actual inventor or inventors. The second requirement is an objective one because it is not dependent on the views of the inventor or any particular individual, but is evaluated in the context of whether the claim is definite — i.e., whether the scope of the claim is clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. Attention is directed to MPEP 2173.02 I [R-07.2022]: During prosecution, applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude. See, e.g., Johnson & Johnston Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co ., 285 F.3d 1046, 1052, 62 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ( en banc). As the Federal Circuit stated in Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC , 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008): “We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.” *** During examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected. Packard , 751 F.3d at 1310 (“[W]hen the USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention, and thereafter the applicant fails to provide a satisfactory response, the USPTO can properly reject the claim as failing to meet the statutory requirements of § 112(b).”); Zletz , 893 F.2d at 322, 13 USPQ2d at 1322. Attention is also directed to MPEP 2173.02 III B, which states in part: To comply with 35 U.S.C. 112( b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , second paragraph, applicants are required to make the terms that are used to define the invention clear and precise, so that the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant can be ascertained . See MPEP § 2173.05(a) , subsection I. It is important that a person of ordinary skill in the art be able to interpret the metes and bounds of the claims so as to understand how to avoid infringement of the patent that ultimately issues from the application being examined. See MPEP § 2173.02 , subsection II (citing Morton Int ’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1993)); see also Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1249, 85 USPQ2d at 1658 (“Otherwise, competitors cannot avoid infringement, defeating the public notice function of patent claims.”). Examiners should bear in mind that “[a]n essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process .” Zletz , 893 F.2d at 322, 13 USPQ2d at 1322 [Fed. Cir. 1989]. (Emphasis added) Attention is also directed to MPEP 2173.04 [R-10.2019], which states in part: A broad claim is not indefinite merely because it encompasses a wide scope of subject matter provided the scope is clearly defined. But a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. For example, a genus claim that covers multiple species is broad, but is not indefinite because of its breadth, which is otherwise clear. But a genus claim that could be interpreted in such a way that it is not clear which species are covered would be indefinite (e.g., because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the claim). (Emphasis added) Holding and Rationale Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 19-22, 25, 27, and 28 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 is indefinite with respect to what constitutes the metes and bounds of “a biological sample” and “a unique target binding domain”. Claim 1 is indefinite with respect to what each of the “two species of ISH probes” binds. While it is clear that “at least one species of ISH… binds to one of the at least two target analytes”, it is unclear as to wh ich analytes, from which source(s) is/are encompassed by the claim. Additionally, it is unclear as to what the other “ species of ISH probe” binds. Claim 1 is confusing as to how one has “ in situ hybridization” when, as seen in dependent claim 3, “the at last two target analytes are target proteins” and “the target binding domain comprises a protein…” Given such, it would seem that there would not be any in situ hybridization occurring in this embodiment. Claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 19-22, 25, 27-30 and 32 , which depend from claim 1, fail to overcome these issues and are similarly rejected. The term "about" in claim s 8, 10, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27 -30 and 32 is a relative term which renders the claim (s) indefinite. The term "about” is not defined by the claim (s) , the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Attention is directed to MPEP 2173.05(b) III A, which states in part: In determining the range encompassed by the term "about", one must consider the context of the term as it is used in the specification and claims of the application. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd ., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326, 81 USPQ2d 1427, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In< W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. , 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), the court held that a limitation defining the stretch rate of a plastic as “exceeding about 10% per second” is definite because infringement could clearly be assessed through the use of a stopwatch. However, the court held that claims reciting “at least about” were invalid for indefiniteness where there was close prior art and there was nothing in the specification, prosecution history, or the prior art to provide any indication as to what range of specific activity is covered by the term “about.” Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. , 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991). "The use of the word 'about,' avoids a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter." Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995)); see also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[U]se of the term 'about' shows that the applicants did not intend to limit the claimed ranges to their exact end-points."). However, "the word 'about' does not have a universal meaning in patent claims[ ;]" rather, "the meaning depends on the technological facts of the particular case." Pall Corp., 66 F.3d at 1217; see also Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("The meaning of the word 'about' is dependent on the facts of a case, the nature of the invention, and the knowledge imparted by the totality of the.. , disclosure to those skilled in the art."). Thus, in evaluating the scope of the "about," it is appropriate to look how the Specification and other claims use the term, as well as considering the effects of varying the parameter described by the term. Pall Corp., 66 F.3d at 1217. The term “ complementary ” in claim s 2 and 32 is a relative term which renders the claim s indefinite. The term “ complementary ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 3 is indefinite with respect to just which type(s) of antibodies and antigen-binding fragments of same are encompassed by the claim. In support of this position attention to US 6,300,093 B1 ( Kindsvogel et al .) , which teaches at column 22, last paragraph: Antibodies of the present invention may be produced by immunizing an animal, a wide variety of warm-blooded animals such as horses, cows, goats, sheep, dogs, chickens, rabbits, mice, and rats can be used, with a recombinant or synthetic islet cell antigen polypeptide or a selected portion thereof ( e.g ., a peptide). Attention is also directed to US 2003/0092624 A1 (Wang et al.). As disclosed at paragraph [0194]: [0194] According to yet an additional aspect of the present invention there is provided an antibody, either polyclonal or monoclonal antibody , recognizing at least one epitope of the polypeptide described herein. The present invention can utilize serum immunoglobulins, polyclonal antibodies or fragments thereof, (i.e., immunoreactive derivative of an antibody), or monoclonal antibodies or fragments thereof. Monoclonal antibodies or purified fragments of the monoclonal antibodies having at least a portion of an antigen binding region, including, such as, Fv , F(ab1)2, Fab fragments (Harlow and Lane, 1988 Antibody, Cold Spring Harbor), single chain antibodies (U.S. Pat. No. 4,946,778), chimeric or humanized antibodies and complementarily determining regions (CDR)… Antibodies of the IgG class are made up of four polypeptide chains linked together by disulfide bonds. The four chains of intact IgG molecules are two identical heavy chains referred to as H-chains and two identical light chains referred to as L-chains. Additional classes includes IgD , IgE , IgA, IgM and related proteins. (Emphasis added) Attention is also directed to US 2013/0338038 A1 ( DuBridge et al.), which teaches the following at paragraph [0061]: [0061] Examples of suitable sources for immunoglobulin genes include, but are not limited to, humans, primates, rodents (e.g., rat, mouse, hamster, guinea pig, etc.), non-rodents such as sheep, donkey, goat, horse, cow, pig, chicken, llama, camel, dog, cat, rabbit, fish, and birds . In addition to immunoglobulins obtained from various organisms, variant forms of known antibodies can be used, including humanized, chimeric, and monoclonal antibodies. Further, the immunoglobulin molecules or antibodies of the invention can be of any type (e.g., IgG, IgE , IgM, IgD , IgA, and IgY ), class (e.g., IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4, IgA1, and IgA2), or subclass of immunoglobulin molecule . (Emphasis added) Claim 32 is indefinite with respect to what constitutes the metes and bounds of both “D-DNA” and “L-DNA”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 , 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. Standard for Written Description . Attention is directed to MPEP 2163.02 Standard for Determining Compliance With the Written Description Requirement [R- 07-2022 ]: An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, "does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli , 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar , 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention , and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed. (Emphasis added) Attention is also set directed to MPEP 2161.01 I [R- 07-2022 ], wherein is stated: For instance, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. Ariad , 598 F.3d at 1349-50, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention’s boundaries.") (citing Eli Lilly , 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1405-06); Enzo Biochem , Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc ., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed); Fiers v. Revel , 984 F.2d 1164, 1170, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that "only similar language in the specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement"). As set forth in Fiers v. Revel 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1604-5 (CAFC, January 1993): We thus determined that, irrespective of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation employed, conception of a DNA, like conception of any chemical substance, requires a definition of that substance other than by its functional utility. Fiers' attempt to distinguish Amgen therefore is incorrect. We also reject Fiers' argument that the existence of a workable method for preparing a DNA establishes conception of that material . (Emphasis added) Conception of a substance claimed per se without reference to a process requires conception of its structure, name, formula, or definitive chemical or physical properties... The difficulty that would arise if we were to hold that a conception occurs when one has only an idea of a compound, defining it by its hoped-for function, is that would-be inventors would file patent applications before they had made their inventions and before they could describe them. That is not consistent with the statute or the policy behind the statute, which is to promote disclosure of inventions. Attention is also directed to MPEP 2163 Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, “Written Description” Requirement [R-01-2024] , at part II ii): The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i )(A) above), reduction to drawings (see i )(B) above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e ., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus (see i )(C) above). See Eli Lilly , 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. See Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., 10 F.4th 1330, 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ( " [T]he written description must lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the inventor possessed the entire scope of the claimed invention. Ariad , 598 F.3d at 1353–54 ('[T] he 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.' (internal quotation marks omitted).") (Emphasis added) Acknowledgement is made of the fact that the claims are to a method and not to a product. However, it is well settled that in order to satisfy the written description for a method, one must also disclose the molecules required to perform the method. In support of this position attention is directed to University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co . 68 USPQ2D 1424 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) at 1433 (affirmed; University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co . 69 USPQ2d 1886 (Fed. Cir. 2004)): Plaintiff also argues that the requirements for written descriptions of claims to chemical compounds are irrelevant to this case because the '850 patent does not claim a compound, but a method of treatment by targeting PGHS-2 activity over PGHS-1 activity. Virtually any compound claim could be transformed into a method claim, however, simply by means of wording the claim in terms of a method of using the compound. With respect to the issue before the Court, then, this is little more than a semantic distinction without a difference. The claimed method depends upon finding a compound that selectively inhibits PGHS-2 activity. Without such a compound, it is impossible to practice the claimed method of treatment. It means little to “invent” a method if one does not have possession of a substance that is essential to practicing that method. Without that substance, the claimed invention is more theoretical than real; it is, as defendants argue, akin to “inventing” a cure for cancer by utilizing a substance that attacks and destroys cancer cells while leaving healthy cells alone. Without possession of such a substance, such a “cure” is illusory, and there is no meaningful possession of the method. *** What the inventors did not do, however, is succeed in taking the last, critical step of actually isolating such a compound, or at least of developing a process through which one skilled in the art would be directly led to such a compound. Absent that step, their discoveries, valuable though they might have been, did not blossom into a full-fledged, complete invention. Scientific discoveries, and theories based on those discoveries, frequently lay the groundwork for later inventions, but that does not make the discoverer the inventor as well. Attention is also directed to the decision in Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (Fed. Cir. 2010) 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1175, which teaches: In accordance with Rochester, the ?516 patent must adequately describe the claimed methods for reducing NF -?B activity, including adequate description of the molecules that Ariad admits are necessary to perform the methods . (Emphasis added) Holding and Rationale Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 19-22, 25, 27-30, and 32 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. Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, and 32 are deemed to be representative and, for convenience, are reproduced below. A review of the disclosure fails to locate any Sequence Listing. Given such, the disclosure has not been found to provide the nucleotide sequence for any “target nucleic acid molecules”, much less “nucleic acid probe” which, as seen in claim 32, “the target binding domain is about 35 to about 40 nucleoti d es in length” and “the attachment sequences is [ sic ] about 14 nucleotides in length”. Likewise, the disclosure has also not been found to disclose the amino acid sequence of any protein, much less any epitope on same. Such nondisclosure by applicant has not been found to support the position that applicant was in possession of the full genus of nucleic acid probes , nucleic acid and protein targets , as well as the full genus of antibodies and antibody fragments. The genus of antibodies and antibody fragments has been construed as encompassing that disclosed in US 2003/0092624 A1 (Wang et al.). As disclosed at paragraph [0194]: [0194] According to yet an additional aspect of the present invention there is provided an antibody, either polyclonal or monoclonal antibody , recognizing at least one epitope of the polypeptide described herein. The present invention can utilize serum immunoglobulins, polyclonal antibodies or fragments thereof, (i.e., immunoreactive derivative of an antibody), or monoclonal antibodies or fragments thereof. Monoclonal antibodies or purified fragments of the monoclonal antibodies having at least a portion of an antigen binding region, including, such as, Fv , F(ab1)2, Fab fragments (Harlow and Lane, 1988 Antibody, Cold Spring Harbor), single chain antibodies (U.S. Pat. No. 4,946,778), chimeric or humanized antibodies and complementarily determining regions (CDR)… Antibodies of the IgG class are made up of four polypeptide chains linked together by disulfide bonds. The four chains of intact IgG molecules are two identical heavy chains referred to as H-chains and two identical light chains referred to as L-chains. Additional classes includes IgD , IgE , IgA, IgM and related proteins. (Emphasis added) Said genus of antibodies has also ben construed as encompassing that disclosed in US 2013/0338038 A1 ( DuBridge et al.), which teaches the following at paragraph [0061]: [0061] Examples of suitable sources for immunoglobulin genes include, but are not limited to, humans, primates, rodents (e.g., rat, mouse, hamster, guinea pig, etc.), non-rodents such as sheep, donkey, goat, horse, cow, pig, chicken, llama, camel, dog, cat, rabbit, fish, and birds . In addition to immunoglobulins obtained from various organisms, variant forms of known antibodies can be used, including humanized, chimeric, and monoclonal antibodies. Further, the immunoglobulin molecules or antibodies of the invention can be of any type (e.g., IgG, IgE , IgM, IgD , IgA, and IgY ), class (e.g., IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4, IgA1, and IgA2), or subclass of immunoglobulin molecule . (Emphasis added) In view of the above analysis and in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 19-22, 25, 27-30, and 32 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. 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 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/010,873 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the method of the instant application and the method of the 18/010,873 application result in determining the spatial profile of at least two target analytes. For convenience claim 1 of the 18/010,873 application is provided below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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. 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. Standard for Obviousness . The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 . Attention is directed to In re Jung , 98 USPQ2d 1174, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2011) wherein is stated: There has never been a requirement for an examiner to make an on-the-record claim construction of every term in every rejected claim and to explain every possible difference between the prior art and the claimed invention in order to make out a prima facie rejection. This court declines to create such a burdensome and unnecessary requirement. “[Section 132] does not mandate that in order to establish prima facie anticipation, the PTO must explicitly preempt every possible response to a section 102 rejection. Section 132 merely ensures that an applicant at least be informed of the broad statutory basis for the rejection of his claims, so that he may determine what the issues are on which he can or should produce evidence.” Chester, 906 F.2d at 1578 (internal citation omitted). As discussed above, all that is required of the office to meet its prima facie burden of production is to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection and the reference or references relied upon in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of § 132. As the statute itself instructs, the examiner must “notify the applicant,” “stating the reasons for such rejection,” “together with such information and references as may be useful in judging the propriety of continuing prosecution of his application.” 35 U.S.C. § 132. Attention is directed to the decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007): When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. It is further noted that prior art is not limited to the four corners of the documentary prior art being applied. Prior art includes both the specialized understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the common understanding of the layman. It includes “background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. . . [A] court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR at 1396. Suggestion, teaching or motivation does not have to be explicit and “may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole or the nature of the problem itself’” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex , Inc. 480 F.3d 1348, 82 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2007) citing Dystar Textilfarben GMBH v. C. H. Patrick Co. , 464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Holding and Rationale Claim (s) 1-3, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0277664 A1 ( Frenz ) in view of US 5,443,791 ( Cathcart et al. ). Frenz , at paragraphs [0006], [0011], [0038], [0058], [0121], [0390], [0399], and [0400] teaches the following. [0006] Provided herein are methods for determining a location of a biological analyte within a biological sample that include: (a) providing a substrate (e.g., any of the ememplary arrays described herein) including a plurality of capture probes immobilized on the substrate, wherein a capture probe comprises a spatial barcode and a capture domain; (b) contacting the biological sample with the substrate; (c) permeabilizing the biological sample under conditions sufficient to allow a biological analyte within the biological sample to bind to a capture probe ; (d) amplifying the biological analyte bound to the capture probe to generate an amplicon, where the amplicon includes a molecular tag barcode associated with the biological analyte bound to the capture probe and the spatial barcode from the capture probe ; and (e) analyzing the amplicon by sequential hybridization and detection with a plurality of labelled probes , thereby determining the location of the biological analyte within the biological sample. [0011] Provided herein are methods for determining a location of a biological analyte within a biological sample that include: (a) providing a substrate comprising a plurality of capture probes immobilized on the substrate, wherein a capture probe comprises a spatial barcode and a capture domain; (b) contacting the biological sample with the substrate; (c) permeabilizing the biological sample under conditions sufficient to allow a biological analyte within the biological sample to bind to a capture probe ; (d) amplifying the biological analyte bound to the capture probe to generate an amplicon, wherein the amplicon comprises a molecular tag barcode associated with the biological analyte bound to the capture probe and the spatial barcode from the capture probe ; and (e) analyzing the amplicon by sequential hybridization and detection with a plurality of labelled probes , thereby determining the location of the biological analyte within the biological sample. [0038] In some embodiments of any of the methods described herein, step (a) comprises contacting the biological sample with an array comprising two or more capture probes , where each of the two or more capture probes comprises a spatial barcode and a capture domain that is capable of specifically binding to a different analyte; step (c) comprises allowing the analyte(s) to specifically bind to the capture domains; and step (d) determining ( i ) all or a part of the sequence of the analyte(s) specifically bound to the capture domain(s), or a complement(s) thereof, and (ii) all or a part of the sequence of the spatial barcode(s ), or a complement(s) thereof, and using the determined sequences of ( i ) and (ii) to identify the location(s ) of the analyte(s) in the biological sample. In some embodiments of any of the methods described herein, step (d) comprises hybridizing a DNA and a RNA present in the biological sample to the capture domains. [0058] Also provided herein are methods for determining a location of an analyte in a biological sample, the method comprising: (a) contacting the biological sample with an array, wherein the array comprises a capture probe , wherein the capture probe comprises a spatial barcode and a capture domain that binds specifically to the analyte; (b) generating an amplification product from the captured analyte using isothermal amplification; and (c) determining ( i ) the sequence of all or a portion of the analyte, or a complement thereof, using the amplification product, and (ii) the sequence of all or a portion of the spatial barcode , or a complement thereof, using the amplification product, and using the determined sequences of ( i ) and (ii) to identify the location of the analyte in the biological sample. [0121] Current spatial analysis methodologies provide a vast amount of analyte level and/or expression data for a variety of multiple analytes within a sample at high spatial resolution, e.g., while retaining the native spatial context. Spatial analysis methods include, e.g., the use of a capture probe including a spatial barcode (e.g., a nucleic acid sequence that provides information as to the position of the capture probe within a cell or a tissue sample (e.g., mammalian cell or a mammalian tissue sample) and a capture domain that is capable of binding to an analyte (e.g., a protein and/or nucleic acid) produced by and/or present in a cell. As described herein, the spatial barcode can be a nucleic acid that has a unique sequence, a unique fluorophore or a unique combination of fluorophores, a unique amino acid sequence, a unique heavy metal or a unique combination of heavy metals, or any other unique detectable agent. The capture domain can be any agent that is capable of binding to an analyte produced by and/or present in a cell (e.g., a nucleic acid that is capable of hybridizing to a nucleic acid from a cell (e.g., an mRNA, genomic DNA, mitochondrial DNA, or miRNA), a substrate including an analyte, a binding partner of an analyte, or an antibody that binds specifically to an analyte). A capture probe can also include a nucleic acid sequence that is complementary to a sequence of a universal forward and/or universal reverse primer. A capture probe can also include a cleavage site (e.g., a cleavage recognition site of a restriction endonuclease), a photolabile bond, a thermosensitive bond, or a chemical-sensitive bond. [0390] As discussed above, the capture probe can include one or more spatial barcodes (e.g., two or more, three or more, four or more, five or more) spatial barcodes . A “spatial barcode” is a contiguous nucleic acid segment or two or more non-contiguous nucleic acid segments that function as a label or identifier that conveys or is capable of conveying spatial information. In some embodiments, a capture probe includes a spatial barcode that possesses a spatial aspect, where the barcode is associated with a particular location within an array or a particular location on a substrate. [0399] The plurality of capture probes can include spatial barcode sequences (e.g., nucleic acid barcode sequences) that are associated with specific locations on a spatial array. For example, a first plurality of capture probes can be associated with a first region, based on a spatial barcode sequence common to the capture probes within the first region, and a second plurality of capture probes can be associated with a second region, based on a spatial barcode sequence common to the capture probes within the second region. The second region may or may not be associated with the first region. Additional pluralities of capture probes can be associated with spatial barcode sequences common to the capture probes within other regions. In some embodiments, the spatial barcode