DETAILED ACTION Status of the Claims Claims 14-27 are currently pending and are the subject of this Office Action. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2023 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 U.S.C. 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 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. Kim et al. Claims 14, 16-17, and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Kim et al. ( Angew. Chem. Int. Ed . , 2012, 51 : 3578 –3581 ) . Regarding claim 1 4 , Kim discloses a genomic analysis method (e.g., optical mapping as per the Abstract) , comprising: labeling a polynucleotide at a target sequence by contacting the polynucleotide with a labeling agent to form a labeled polynucleotide, the labeling agent comprising: a binding structure that binds to the target sequence (e.g., the DNA methyltransferase M.BeCl as per Fig. 1-2 and ) ; and a label comprising a detectable moiety that covalently binds to the polynucleotide within or adjacent to the target sequence (e.g., covalently attaches the aziridine cofactor 6Baz to the polynucleotide, which comprises QDs as per Fig. 1) ; linearizing the labeled polynucleotide to provide a linearized sequence-specific labeled polynucleotide (e.g., as per Fig. 1) ; detecting the label on the linearized sequence-specific labeled polynucleotide (e.g., as per Fig. 1) ; and determining a relative position of the target sequence based on the detected label (e.g., as per Fig. 1) . Regarding claim 16 , Kim discloses the above method, wherein the labeling agent further comprises a reactive group that covalently binds the label to the polynucleotide (e.g., an aziridine group as per Fig. 1) . Regarding claim 1 7 , Kim discloses the above method , wherein the binding structure comprises the reactive group, wherein the reactive group covalently binds the label after the binding structure binds to the target sequence (e.g., an aziridine group as per Fig. 1) . Regarding claim s 19-20 , Kim discloses the above method , wherein the reactive group is an aziridine (e.g., 6ABz as per Fig. 1). Regarding claim 2 1 , Kim discloses the above method , wherein the reactive group and the label are bioorthogonal in reactivity (e.g., aziridine and biotin as per Fig. 1) . Regarding claim 22 , Kim discloses the above method , wherein the label is selected from a fluorophore, a quantum dot, a dendrimer, a nanowire, a bead, a hapten, a streptavidin, an avidin, a neutravidin, a biotin, a reactive group, a peptide, a protein, a magnetic bead, a radiolabel, a non-optical label, or a combination thereof (e.g., quantum dots as per Fig. 1) . Regarding claim 23 , Kim discloses the above method , wherein linearizing the labeled polynucleotide comprises linearizing the labeled polynucleotide in a fluidic channel, on a surface, or through a nanopore (e.g., on a surface as per Fig. 1) . Regarding claim 24 , Kim discloses the above method , wherein labeling a polynucleotide comprises contacting the polynucleotide with a plurality of labeling agents wherein the binding structure in each labeling agent of the plurality of labeling agents binds to a different target sequence in the polynucleotide to provide a multi-labeled polynucleotide (e.g., as per Fig. 1) Regarding claim s 25-26 , Kim discloses the above method , wherein the polynucleotide is genomic DNA (e.g., T7 genomic DNA as per Fig. 1) . Regarding claim 2 7 , Kim discloses the above method , further comprising detecting a relative distance between the labels on the multi-labeled polynucleotide to provide a barcode of the polynucleotide (e.g., as per Fig. 1) . Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 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. 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. 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 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 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. Kim et al. and Pfannschmidt et al. Claims 14-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. ( Angew. Chem. Int. Ed . , 2012, 51 : 3578 –3581 ) in view of Pfannschmidt et al. ( Nucleic Acids Research , 1996, 24(9):1702-1709 , cited in the IDS of 10/11/2023 ). Kim is relied on as above, however, the reference is silent regarding the binding structure is a binding sequence having a nucleotide sequence complementary to the target sequence , as set forth in claim 15 , and wherein the binding structure is selected from benzimidazole dimers, benzimidazole oligomers, pyrrole oligomers, flavones, pyrrole-imidazole oligoamides, synthetic oligodeoxynucleotides (ODN), triple-helix forming oligonucleotides, or a combination thereof , as set forth in claim 18 . Pfannschmidt discloses methods of covalently labeling DNA by triple-helix formation in a sequence-specific manner (e.g., as per the Abstract) and further discloses the use of triple-helix forming oligonucleotides with a nucleotide sequence complementary to the target sequence (e.g., as per Fig. 2). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to label the target sequence by psoralen-crosslinking a biotinylated oligonucleotide as per Pfannschmidt in the optical mapping method of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since I n accordance with MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR) , 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385,1395 (2007), "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results ”, and as per MPEP 2143(I)(A), t he rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of or dinary skill in the art. In the present case, all of the elements of the claimed invention w ere well known in the art, as per Pfannschmidt and Kim, the mere combining of the individual elements in one embodiment in the manner of the claimed invention results in no change in the elements respective functi ons, and the combination yields nothing more than predictable results . Given the teachings of the prior art and the level of the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of the application’s effective filing date, it must be considered, absent evidence to the contrary, that said skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in practicing the claimed invention. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JEREMY FLINDERS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1022 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 10-6:00 EST . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Heather Calamita can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /JEREMY C FLINDERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 16 84