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. Election/Restrictions This action is in response to the papers filed on 02/26/2026. Claims 1-19, and 22-24 are currently pending as per claims filed on 06/01/2023. Applicant’s election of Group I , which include claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 19, and 22-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement for restriction between Groups I-V is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Therefore, claims 1-18 are subject to examination to which the following grounds of rejection are applicable. Priority The instant application a 371 of PCT/GB2021/053169 filed 12/03/2021 , which claims priority to UNITED KINGDOM 2019084.9 filed 12/03/2020 . Thus, the earliest possible priority for the instant application is 12/03/2020 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/01/2023 was filed before the mailing date of the FILLIN "Enter either --final Office action-- or --Notice of Allowance-- or --Ex Parte Quayle action--" \* MERGEFORMAT non-final office action . The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim 10 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. Claim 10 is indefinite for the recitation of “such as” because a broad range or limitation is together with a narrow range of limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “a nuclear export signal”, and the claim also recites specific types of nuclear export signals which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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. Claim(s) 1 -5, 9, and 1 1 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Vink et al. ( WO 2015/056014 Al , IDS filed 0 6 / 01 /202 3 ) as evidenced by Chameettachal et al. ( Chameettachal A et al., J Mol Biol . 2023). Regarding Claims 1 and 12-13 , Vink et al. teaches a retroviral vector comprising, a long terminal repeat and an RNA packaging sequence , wherein the RNA packaging sequence is located 3' of the long terminal repeat and no long terminal repeat is located 3' of the RNA packaging sequence such that reverse transcription initiated at the primer binding site does not lead to reverse transcription of the RNA packaging sequence into vector DNA in a target cell ( Abstract ). The retroviral vector can be an RNA vector in that HIV-1 retroviral vectors may be used (for instant claims 12-13) ( Pg. 6, 2 nd full paragraph ). Vink et al. teaches specific embodiments of the vector in which it would be arranged in a manner reading on claim one, for example: 5’ -> a promoter -> primer binding site (PBS) -> expressible transgene -> LTR -> PBS -> RNA packaging sequence -> 3’ and other relevant examples ( Pg. 12, Line 15 through Pg. 13 Line 4 ). The retroviral vector possesses within its genome the 5’ RNA cap and therefore it would inherently be present as evidenced by Chameettachal et al. in Figure 2. Regarding Claim 2, Vink et al. teaches embodiments of their vector that do not include an LTR positioned at the 5’ end , e.g., “ 5' - promoter - PBS - expressible trans gene - LTR - PBS - RNA packaging sequence - 3'. ” ( Pg. 12, Line 15 through Pg. 13 Line 4 ; claims 16-17 ). Regarding Claims 3-4 , Vink et al. teaches elements for the HIV vector to include RNA packaging signal and RRE ( Pg. 8, Line 24 – Pg. 9, 1 st Paragraph ). Moreover, Vink et al. teaches “In HIV-1, a portion of the gag gene has found to be involved in RNA packaging” ( Pg. 8, Line 34 – Pg. 9, 1 st Paragraph ) Regarding Claim 5, Vink et al. teaches the vector of their invention may be ordered in such a way that the RNA packaging sequence is located 3' of the 3' LTR. For example , 5' - promoter - PBS - expressible transgene - LTR - PBS - RNA packaging sequence - 3'; or 5' - promoter - LTR - PBS - expressible transgene - LTR - RNA packaging sequence - 3' ( claim 16 of Vink et al. ). Regarding Claim 7, Vink et al. teaches preparation of the vector may include the use of a strong heterologous intron to replace the HIV MSD and that “ The use of the strong heterologous intron from pCI offers advantages over the inclusion of the MSD given that no flanking splice enhancers are required and it also includes a splice acceptor which facilitates its removal from viral RNA in producer cells. ” ( Pg. 23, Line 17-24 ) . Regarding Claim 9, Vink et al. teaches the vector of their invention may comprise a PRE ( Claim 11 of Vink et al. ). Regarding Claim 10, Vink et al. teaches the vector of their invention may contain the Rev Response Element (RRE) ( Claim 7 of Vink et al. ), which functions to promote RNA export from the nucleus ( Pg. 2, Lines 1-12 ) Regarding Claim 11, Vink et al. teaches the vector may contain LTR’s that are self-inactivating (Pg. 7, Line 24 ). Regarding Claim 14 , Vink et al. teaches the vector may contain a polyA at the 3’ end. ( Pg. 11, final paragraph ). Regarding Claim 15, Vink et al. teaches nucleotide sequences encoding a vector genome because it expressly disclosers promoter- driven vector constructs have a defined 5’-3’ sequences ordering, including 5' - promoter - PBS - expressible transgene - LTR - PBS - RNA packaging sequence - 3'; or 5' - promoter - LTR - PBS - expressible transgene - LTR - RNA packaging sequence - 3' (claim 16). A list of construct sequences is also listed at Pg. 29. Please note that the recited result “ such that, following transcription and capping of the vector genome, translation is initiated at the 5' is merely an intended use or functional statement of the claimed product and does not further limit the structure of the claimed product. Therefore, the limitation does not distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2111.02 and 2114. Regarding Claim 16 , Vink et al. teaches the vector may contain a polyA at the 3’ end. ( Pg. 11, final paragraph ). Regarding Claim s 17- 18 , Vink et al. teaches the following with respect to their invention “… a host cell , a virion , a pharmaceutical composi t ion, a method and uses including or involving the vector described above. Further, a cell or transgenic animal produced by using the vector is also described ( Abstract ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against th e later invention. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vink et al. ( WO 2015/056014 Al , IDS filed 0 6 / 01 /202 3 ) as evidenced by Chameettachal et al. ( Chameettachal A et al., J Mol Biol . 2023) as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Mock et al. ( Mock U et al. , Sci Rep. 2014 ) and in view of Galla et al . (Galla M et al. , Mol Cell . 2004 ) . Regarding claim 1, Vink et al. r enders obvious the claimed vector , as iterated above in the 102 rejection the content of which is incorporated herein, in its entirety. Regarding Claim 6 , Vink et. al teaches that one purpose of their invention is to produce a vector where “…reverse transcription initiated at the primer binding site does not lead to reverse transcription of the RNA packaging sequence into vector DNA in a target cell.” ( Abstract ) . Therefore, Vink et al. does contemplate the production of a retroviral vector where reverse transcription of the RNA packaging sequence into vector DNA is prevented. However, Vink et al. does not specifically teach the removal of the primer binding site (PBS) in their vector to prevent reverse transcription. Mock et al. also teaches a vector design to prevent reverse transcription and that the genetically inactivated reverse transcriptase provided viral particles with a gene product transferred as mRNA ( Abstract; Discussion, 3 rd Paragraph ) . This produced successful transduction of cells with transient transgene expression. Mock et al. also contemplates that combining th eir method with strategies such as mutating PBS or incorporating defective integrases ( Discussion, 4 th Paragraph ). Galla et al. teaches that mutating or removing the PBS from a retroviral vector allows for target gene expression mediated by Psuedotransduction and the avoidance of toxic side effects (Figure 2.) Galla et al. further teaches “When using mutants aPBS (PBS mutant) or dPBS (PBS removed) , in which the initiation of RT is severely disabled, retroviral pseudotransduction must be dependent on “early translation” of the retroviral mRNA, and/or on passive transfer of proteins in retroviral particles (Supplemental Figure S4). However, retroviral particles are not expected to uptake major nonretroviral protein cargo except that specific domains are present which direct an interaction with gag proteins or proviral RNA .”( Discussion, 3 rd Paragraph ). Moreover Galla et al. teaches “the major advantage of the method is the potential to avoid DNA transfer while still introducing specific mRNA” ( Discussion, Paragraph 6 ). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant application to have combined the teachings of Vink et al. and Mock et al. who together demonstrate success at inhibiting the reverse transcriptase of retroviral vectors allowing for transduction of the gene of interest as a single strand product and thus reducing the production of potentially harmful viral components and to further incorporate the teachings of Galla et al. which demonstrate that mutating or removing the PBS in a retroviral vector produces a vector capable of successful transduction with harmful effects due to reduced production of viral products requiring reverse transcription. Indeed Mock et al. contemplates that combining strategies of inhibiting reverse transcription with targeted disruption of PBS would likely enhance the vector. There would have been reasonable expectations of success in combining these teachings as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to combine known elements in the same field to give predictable results. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vink et al. ( WO 2015/056014 Al , IDS filed 0 6 / 01 /202 3 ) as evidenced by Chameettachal et al. ( Chameettachal A et al., J Mol Biol . 2023) as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Hernández et al. ( Hernández G et al. , Trends Biochem Sci . , 2019 ) Regarding claim 1, Vink et al. r enders obvious the claimed vector , as iterated above in the 102 rejection the content of which is incorporated herein, in its entirety. Regarding Claim 8, Vink et al. does not expressly teach the inclusion of a Kozak sequence in their viral vectors. However, Kozak sequences were well known in the art prior to the instant application. Hernández et al. describes the Kozak sequence (Kozak motif) as follows: “Selection of the translation initiation site (TIS) is a crucial step during transla tion. In the 1980s Marylin Kozak performed key studies on vertebrate mRNAs to characterize the optimal TIS consensus sequence, the Kozak motif. ” ( Abstract ) and further teaches “ Ever since its characterization the Kozak motif has been regarded as the optimal sequence to initiate translation in all eukaryotes.” Hernández et al. further teaches optimal, strong, moderate, and weak Kozak sequences have also been well documented ( Abstract ). It would have be en prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant application to have incorporated a Kozak sequence within the vector of Vink et al. Vink et al. teaches production of a vector such that RNA packaging sequence into vector DNA in a target cell does not occur as the reverse transcription of the retroviral vector is prevented. This would allow for a vector to produce an expressible transgene with minimal effects from viral products. To further enhance the production of the expressible (single stranded) transgene of interest (and therefore the vector), one of ordinary skill in the art would consider adding a Kozak sequence to optimize the initiation of translation of the expressible transgene, resulting in a superior vector. There would have been reasonable expectations of success in combining these teachings as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to combine known elements in the prior art to give predictable results. Conclusion Claims 1- 18 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KODYE LEE ABBOTT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1111 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-5 . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Maria G. Leavitt can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1085 . 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. /KODYE LEE ABBOTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1634 /MARIA G LEAVITT/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1634