DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 3-5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 17, 18, and 85, species (1) (the primary nanostructure is linked to a specificity determining molecule via a nucleic acid linker, see claims 3-5, 7, 12, 15, 17, 18, and 85), species (3) ( the primary nanostructure is adjacently linked to one secondary nanostructure , see claim 5) , and species (6) ( the secondary nanostructures with the same spectral profile amplify the fluorescence signal of the nanostructure complex in comparison to the fluorescence signal of the primary nanostructure alone , see claim 12) in the reply filed on January 7, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 3-5, 7, 8, 12, 15, 17, 18, and 85 will be examined. Specification The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. For example, see paragraphs [0004], [0007] and [0009]. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Claim Objections Claim 7 or 12 or 15 is objected to because of the following informality: “give” should be “gives”. Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalit ies : (1) “ S p (proximal secondary nanostructure) is a secondary nanostructure” should be “ S p is a proximal secondary nanostructure” ; and (2) “( S x -L y )” in line 6 should be “ S x -L y ”. Claim 85 is objected to because of the following informality: “a nanostructure complex of claim 3, or a component thereof ” should be “the nanostructure complex of claim 3 ”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 s 3 -5, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 2 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Mao et al., (US 2017/0108517 A1, published on April 20, 2017). Regarding claims 3 -5, 17, and 18 , Mao et al., teach a nanostructure complex ( ie ., a 7-tile 2D DNA origami nanoassembly ) comprising a primary nucleic acid nanostructure ( ie ., tile B in Figure 1a ) linked to one or more secondary nucleic acid nanostructures ( ie ., tile A and tile C from tiles C to G in Figure 1a ), wherein ( i ) the primary nanostructure is linked ( ie ., is able to link) to a specificity determining molecule ( ie ., PDGF in Figure 1a ) and the secondary nanostructures via a nucleic acid linker wherein the nucleic acid linker is a hybridized at least partially double-stranded linker as recited in claim 3 , the nanostructure complex comprising the general structure: P(-L-S)n, wherein P is the primary nanostructure, L is the hybridized at least partially double-stranded nucleic acid linker, S is one or more adjacently linked secondary nanostructures, and n is an integer greater than zero, and wherein: ( i ) the primary nanostructure comprises n number ( ie ., 2 ) of partially single-stranded nucleic acid linker extensions, (ii) there are n number ( ie ., 2 ) of secondary nanostructures comprising an at least partially single-stranded nucleic acid linker extension, and (iii) at least a portion of the nucleic acid sequence of the single-stranded region of the n number of primary nanostructure nucleic acid linker extensions is at least partially complementary to at least a portion of the nucl e ic acid sequence of the single-stranded region of one of the secondary nucl e ic acid linker extensions sufficient to form a hybridized at least partially double-stranded linker between the primary nanostructure and each of the secondary nanostructures ( ie ., tile A and tile C from tiles C to G in Figure 1a are two secondary nanostructures) , thus linking the primary nanostructure to n number ( ie ., 2) of secondary nanostructures as recited in claim 4, the primary nanostructure is adjacently linked to one secondary nanostructure, and wherein: ( i ) the primary nanostructure comprises an at least partially single-stranded nucleic acid linker extension, (ii) the secondary nanostructure comprises an at least partially single-stranded nucleic acid linker extension, and (iii) at least a portion of the nucleic acid sequence of the single-stranded region of the primary nanostructure nucleic acid linker extension is at least partially complementary to at least a portion of the nucleic acid sequence of the single-stranded region of the secondary nanostructure nucleic acid linker extension sufficient to form a hybridized at least partially double-stranded linker, thus linking the primary nanostructure to the secondary nanostructure as recited in claim 5, the nanostructure complex comprising a primary nucleic acid nanostructure ( ie ., tile B in Figure 1a) adjacently linked to one or more proximal secondary nucleic acid nanostructures ( ie ., tile A and tile C from tiles C to G in Figure 1a), wherein at least one of the proximal secondary nanostructure is further linked to another secondary nanostructure ( ie ., tile D from tiles D to G in Figure 1a), optionally, wherein the primary nanostructure and the one or more proximal secondary nanostructures and/or the one or more proximal secondary nanostructures and the another secondary nanostructure linked to the proximal secondary nanostructure is linked via a hybridized at least partially double-stranded nucleic acid linker as recited in claim 17, and the nanostructure complex comprising the general formula: P-L₁- S p -L₂-( S x -L y )ₙ-Z (see tiles B to G in Figure 1a) , wherein P is the primary nanostructure ( ie ., tile B), L₁ is a linker linking the primary nanostructure to a secondary nanostructure, S p is a proximal secondary nanostructure ( ie ., tile C) adjacently linked to the primary nanostructure, L₂ is a linker linking S p to another secondary nanostructure ( ie ., tile D) , n is zero or a positive integer, S x -L y comprises a secondary nanostructure S x ( ie ., tile D) and linker L y linking S x to an additional secondary nanostructure ( ie ., tile E) , and Z is an additional one or more secondary nanostructures ( ie ., tile E) ; or wherein Z is a terminal secondary nanostructure S T as recited in claim 18 (see paragraphs [0008], [0011], [0013], [0014], and [0021], and Figures 1 and 4). Therefore, Mao et al., teach all limitations recited in claims 3-5, 17, and 18. 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. 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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al., as applied to claim s 3-5, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Li et al., ( Nature Biotechnology, 23, 885-889, 2005). The teachings of Mao et al., have been summarized, supra . Mao et al., do not disclose that the primary nanostructure and/or at least one of the secondary nanostructures comprises one or a combination of fluorophore moieties that give s the nanostructure complex a spectral profile as recited in claim 7, the primary nanostructure and at least one of the linked secondary nanostructures in combination give the nanostructure complex a spectral profile as recited in claim 8 . Regarding claims 7 and 8, since Li et al., teach three linked DNA nanostructures wherein each of the three linked DNA nanostructures has identical fluorescent dyes (see abstract and Figure 1), Li et al., disclose that the primary nanostructure and/or at least one of the secondary nanostructures comprises one or a combination of fluorophore moieties that give s the nanostructure complex a spectral profile ( ie ., two fluorescent signals) as recited in claim 7 and the primary nanostructure and at least one of the linked secondary nanostructures in combination give the nanostructure complex a spectral profile ( ie ., two fluorescent signals) as recited in claim 8. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the nanostructure complexes recited in claims 7 and 8 by labeling the primary nanostructure and at least one of the secondary nanostructures taught by Mao et al., with two fluorescent dyes before forming the nanostructure complex recited in claim 3 in view of the prior arts of Mao et al., and Li et al. . One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li et al. , teach that the primary nanostructure and/or at least one of the secondary nanostructures comprises one or a combination of fluorophore moieties that give s the nanostructure complex a spectral profile ( ie ., two fluorescent signals) as recited in claim 7 and the primary nanostructure and at least one of the linked secondary nanostructures in combination give the nanostructure complex a spectral profile ( ie ., two fluorescent signals) as recited in claim 8. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have a reasonable expectation of success to make the nanostructure complexes recited in claims 7 and 8 by labeling the primary nanostructure and at least one of the secondary nanostructures taught by Mao et al., with two fluorescent dyes before forming the nanostructure complex recited in claim 3 in view of the prior arts of Mao et al., and Li et al. . Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al., as applied to claim s 3-5, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Li et al. . The teachings of Mao et al., have been summarized, supra . Mao et al., do not disclose that the primary nanostructure comprises one or a combination of fluorophore moieties that give s the primary nanostructure a spectral profile and is linked to n number of secondary nanostructures having the same spectral profile, wherein the secondary nanostructures with the same spectral profile amplify the fluorescence signal of the nanostructure complex in comparison to the fluorescence signal of the primary nanostructure alone as recited in claim 12. Regarding claim 12, since Li et al., teach three linked DNA nanostructures wherein each of the three linked DNA nanostructures has identical fluorescent dyes (see abstract and Figure 1), Li et al., disclose that the primary nanostructure comprises one or a combination of fluorophore moieties that give s the primary nanostructure a spectral profile ( ie ., two fluorescent signals) and is linked to n number of secondary nanostructures having the same spectral profile ( ie ., identical two fluorescent signals) wherein the secondary nanostructures with the same spectral profile amplify the fluorescence signal of the nanostructure complex in comparison to the fluorescence signal of the primary nanostructure alone as recited in claim 12. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the nanostructure complex recited in claim 12 by labeling the primary nanostructure taught by Mao et al., with two fluorescent dyes and labeling at least one of the secondary nanostructures taught by Mao et al., with identical two fluorescent dyes before forming the nanostructure complex recited in claim 3 in view of the prior arts of Mao et al., and Li et al. . One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li et al., disclose that the primary nanostructure comprises one or a combination of fluorophore moieties that give s the primary nanostructure a spectral profile ( ie ., two fluorescent signals) and is linked to n number of secondary nanostructures having the same spectral profile ( ie ., identical two fluorescent signals) such that the secondary nanostructures with the same spectral profile amplify the fluorescence signal of the nanostructure complex in comparison to the fluorescence signal of the primary nanostructure alone as recited in claim 12. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have a reasonable expectation of success to make the nanostructure complex recited in claim 12 by labeling the primary nanostructure taught by Mao et al., with two fluorescent dyes and labeling at least one of the secondary nanostructures taught by Mao et al., before forming the nanostructure complex recited in claim 3 in view of the prior arts of Mao et al., and Li et al. , in order to increase the fluorescence signal of the nanostructure complex recited in claim 12. Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al., as applied to claim s 3-5, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Ong et al., (US 2017/0327888 A1, published on November 16, 2017). The teachings of Mao et al., have been summarized, supra . Mao et al., do not disclose that the primary nanostructure comprises one or a combination of fluorophore moieties that give the primary nanostructure a spectral profile and is linked to a secondary nanostructure comprising a different fluorophore moiety or different combination of fluorophore moieties that give the secondary nanostructure and/or the nanostructure complex a spectral profile that is different from the primary nanostructure spectral profile as recited in claim 15. Regarding claim 15, since Ong et al., teach that “[ S ] ome aspects of the present disclosure provide pluralities of nucleic acid nanostructures ( metafluorophores ), each nanostructure comprising a unique set of dye molecules, wherein each set of dye molecules includes at least two photophysically -distinct subsets of dye molecules, wherein the distance between dye molecules of a single photophysically -distinct subset is greater than the distance at which the dye molecules self-quench, and the distance between any pair of dye molecules, one dye molecule from one photophysically -distinct subset and the other dye molecule from another photophysically -distinct subset, is at least the Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) radius of the pair of dye molecules. It should be understood that in the context of a plurality of nucleic acid nanostructures, the phrase ‘ each nanostructure ’ refers to each species of nanostructure (e.g., multiple nanostructures having the same barcode) and not necessarily a single nanostructure. For example, a plurality of nucleic acid nanostructure may contain two (or more) species of nanostructure, whereby one species has a first unique set of dye molecules (e.g., for identifying a first target) and the other species has a second unique set of dye molecules (e.g., for identifying a second target), wherein the first set is different from the second set (as each set is unique). A ‘ unique ’ set of dye molecules refers to a combination of dye molecules (e.g., a combination of number and ‘ color ’ ) that is present only on a single nucleic acid nanostructure, or only on a single species of nucleic acid nanostructure ” (see paragraph [0006]), Ong et al., disclose that the primary nanostructure comprises one or a combination of fluorophore moieties that give the primary nanostructure a spectral profile ( ie ., a fluorescent signal) and is linked to a secondary nanostructure comprising a different fluorophore moiety or different combination of fluorophore moieties that give the secondary nanostructure and/or the nanostructure complex a spectral profile ( ie ., a different another fluorescent signal) that is different from the primary nanostructure spectral profile as recited in claim 15. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the nanostructure complex recited in claim 15 by labeling the primary nanostructure taught by Mao et al., with a first unique set of fluorescent dyes and labeling at least one of the secondary nanostructures taught by Mao et al., with a second unique set of fluorescent dyes before forming the nanostructure complex recited in claim 3 in view of the prior arts of Mao et al., and Ong et al. . One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Ong et al., disclose that the primary nanostructure comprises one or a combination of fluorophore moieties that give the primary nanostructure a spectral profile ( ie ., a fluorescent signal) and is linked to a secondary nanostructure comprising a different fluorophore moiety or different combination of fluorophore moieties that give the secondary nanostructure and/or the nanostructure complex a spectral profile ( ie ., a different another fluorescent signal) that is different from the primary nanostructure spectral profile as recited in claim 15. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have a reasonable expectation of success to make the nanostructure complex recited in claim 15 by make the nanostructure complex recited in claim 15 by labeling the primary nanostructure taught by Mao et al., with a first unique set of fluorescent dyes and labeling at least one of the secondary nanostructures taught by Mao et al., with a second unique set of fluorescent dyes before forming the nanostructure complex recited in claim 3 in view of the prior arts of Mao et al., and Ong et al. , in order to differentiate the primary nanostructure and at least one of the secondary nanostructures in the nanostructure complex recited in claim 15. Claim 85 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al., as applied to claim s 3-5, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of 1988 Stratagene catalog (page 39). The teachings of Mao et al., have been summarized, supra . Mao et al., do not disclose a kit as recited in claim 85. However, Mao et al., teach the nanostructure complex of claim 3, instructions either printed ( ie ., printed instructions in paper) and/or on an electronic storage medium, and buffers as recited in claim 85 (see paragraphs [0008], [0011], [0013], [0014], and [0021], and Figures 1, 4, and 5 e ). 1988 Stratagene catalog teaches a motivation to combine reagents into kit format (page 39). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the kit recited in claim 85 by putting the nanostructure complex , printed instructions , and buffers taught by Mao et al., into a kit format in view of the prior arts of Mao et al., and 1988 Stratagene . One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the Stratagene catalog teaches a motivation for combining reagents of use in an assay into a kit, “[E]ach kit provides two services: 1) a variety of different reagents have been assembled and pre-mixed specifically for a defined set of experiments. 2) The other service provided in a kit is quality control” (page 39, column 1). Conclusion No claim is allowed. Papers related to this application may be submitted to Group 1600 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Group 1600 via the PTO Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform with the notices published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (November 15, 1988), 1156 OG 61 (November 16, 1993), and 1157 OG 94 (December 28, 1993)( See 37 CAR § 1.6(d)). The CM Fax Center number is (571)273-8300. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank Lu, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571)272 0746. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Dr. Anne Gussow, Ph.D., can be reached on (571)272-6047. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /FRANK W LU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1683 March 20, 2026