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. Priority This application is a 371 of PCT/CA2022/050113 (filed on 01/27/2022), which claims priority benefit of US provisional application 63/142,097 (filed on 01/27/2021). Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III in reply filed on 02/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-14,16,18,20-23 read on the elected group. Claim Status Claims 1-2,4,6,8-14,16,18,20-25,27-31,33-35, and 37-38 are pending. Claims 1-2,4,6,8-10,24-25,27-31,33-35, and 37-38 are withdrawn per election without traverse. Claims 11-14,16,18,20-23 have been examined on the merits. 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. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 11-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Byrd et al (US 2003/0176644 A1) . Byrd et al discloses a n invention that provides polynucleotides, termination sequences, and nucleic acid binding proteins that bind to the termination sequences then u se the interaction of the two to halt replication (See, abstract and ¶ 0001-0005) . Regarding claims 11-14,16, and 18 : Byrd et al disclosed a method for enhancing the stability of a linear nucleic acid molecule, such that the nucleic acid molecule comprising Ter-sites at one or both termini . The method is achieved by contacting the nucleic acid with a Ter-binding protein to form a stable nucleic acid-protein complex, and transfecting the stable nucleic acid-protein complex into a host cell (See, ¶0024). Byrd et al discloses that one of the proteins that bind s to the Ter-sites is a Tus protein and a replication terminator protein (RTP) (See, ¶0085 ). The Ter-site-Tus protein complex (See,¶0024) are functional nucleic acid molecule. Byrd et al discloses that Ter-binding proteins for Ter sites provides a protection to a particular portion of nucleic acid molecule from exonuclease digestion (See, ¶0130). This reads on the limitations of claim 11 and 18, a method of protecting linear DNA molecule, adding one or more Ter sites at 5’ terminus and one or more Ter sites at 3’ terminus of DNA molecule, and binding a Tus protein to each Ter site of claim 1 and specifically for claim 18 the method of Byrd et al describes a DNA molecule with 0 base pairs in the buffer region . This also reads on the limitations of claim 12, wherein the DNA molecule is double stranded DNA molecule . This reads on the limitation of claim 13, wherein the exonuclease is a bacterial exonuclease . Exonuclease being from bacteria does not change the scope of the protection provided by the method from exonuclease digestion/degradation. This reads on the limitation of claim 14, wherein the DNA molecule includes a functional DNA molecule . Byrd et al disclosed embodiments where the nucleic acid molecule may comprise one or more detectable atoms such as, fluorophores (See, ¶0009). The nucleic acid molecule comprising of the Ter-sites and the detectable atoms is being interpreted as the nucleic acid molecule that encodes a detectable atom because nucleic acid molecules primarily transmit or express genetic information for the direction of protein synthesis. This reads on the limitation of claim 16 and 18, wherein DNA molecule includes a coding sequence for encoding an expression product , since the coding sequence for the fluorophores would be within the buffer region and can be between 0-300 base pairs. Therefore, claims 11-14,16, and 18 are rejected as being anticipated by Byrd et al. 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. Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Byrd et al (US 2003/0176644 A1) as applied to claim s FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 11-14,16, and 18 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Scully et al (US 2016/0160291 A1) . The teachings of Byrd et al are set forth above. Byrd et al discloses that one aspect of the invention one of the proteins that bind to the Ter-sites is a Tus protein and a replication terminator protein (RTP) (See, ¶0085). It is further disclosed that the RTP from E.coli is a protein designated Tus that binds Ter-sites as a monomer (See, ¶0085). Byrd et al does not teach that the Tus is provided a s a Tus-expressing bacterial strain or that it is under control of an endogenous bacterial RNA polymerase. Scully et al discloses a method of generating site-specific recombination at a genomic locus or stie-specific genome editing by inhibiting replication at the genomic locus, that involves contacting the locus with polypeptides that specifically bind target sequences at the genomic locus (See, Abstract). Scully et al teaches in example 3 a site specific gene targeting by blocking replication by taking advantage of the Tus/Ter mechanism to block replication forks and induce homologous recombination (HR) (See, ¶0128). In example 3, Scully et al tested the Tus/Ter stalled fork can recombine with the donor plasmid, to correct the endogenous copy of GFP to wild type and convert the cell to GFP + (See, ¶0129) (See, Figures 23 ) . The vector exemplified in Scully et al include, myc epitope-tagged, nuclear localized, codon optimized wild type Tus (pCMV beta myc-NLS-Tus) (See, ¶0133) and pcDNA3β-mycNLS-Tus (See, ¶0137). The vectors exemplified are derived from E.Coli plasmid, a bacterial strain and m yc is well known in the art to be a constitutive promoter recognized by RNA polymerase II (Pol II). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute Tus protein provided in the method of Byrd et al with a vector expressing Tus protein under the control of an endogenous bacterial RNA polymerase as taught by Scully et al for a similar purpose. Both Byrd et al and Scully et al teach methods of stopping replication through Tus/Ter interactions with a DNA molecule. The use of the of the bacterial vector expressing Tus protein with an endogenous RNA polymerase in place of Tus protein of Byrd et al to achieve success is a predictable result evidenced in the examples of Scully et al. This rationale aligns with the principle of KSR for simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, see MPEP 2143. Therefore, claims 20-21 are rejected as being obvious over Byrd et al in view of Scully et al. Claims FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Byrd et al (US 2003/0176644 A1) as applied to claims FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 11-14,16, and 18 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Coskun-Ari and Hill (The Journal of biological chemistry, 1997) . The teachings of Byrd et al are set forth above. Byrd et al teaches various sequences for Ter-sites but they are not a 100% alignment because they are 23 nucleotides long and the instant application has 24 nucleotides (See Table 1 and ¶0078). Byrd et al does not teach the use of instant app SEQ ID NO: 1-3 for the Ter sites in the DNA molecule of the method. Coskun-Ari and Hill teach that DNA replication in E.coli is mediated by specific interactions between the Tus protein and terminator (Ter) sequences (See, Abstract). Figure 1 of Coskun-Ari and Hill teach that there are synthetic oligonucleotides used to generate mutations in Ter site (See, p26450). Coskun-Ari and Hill further teach that there are 11 base pair core that is highly conserved in known Ter-sites (See, Fig 1 p26450). The position of nucleotides in the Ter site are numbered 1-2 0 , and 1-24 (5’ strand) is 100% match for SEQ ID NO : 1 and 2 and 1-24 (3’ strand) is 100% match for SEQ ID NO: 3, alignment in the Appendix (See, Fig 1 p26450). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Byrd et al such that the Ter-sites of the nucleic acid molecule have sequence that align with S EQ ID NO: 1,2, and/or 3 of the instant application as taught by Coskun-Ari and Hill. One would be motivated to make this modification because it would be advantageous to use a sequence that is well known in the art. Therefore, the method of claim 11, wherein at least one or more Ter sites comprises SEQ ID NO:1 or at least one Ter site at 5’ terminus comprises SEQ ID NO:2 and… Ter site at 3’ comprises SEQ ID NO: 3 is obvious in light of Byrd et al in view of Coskun-Ari and Hill because it is advantageous to use a sequence known in the art. Further, one would have a reasonable expectation of success because Coskun-Ari and Hill teach that the core section of Ter sites is highly conserved and essential for Ter-Tus binding. Therefore, claims 22-23 is rejected as being rendered obvious over Byrd et al in view of Coskun-Ari and Hill. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4262 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:00 to 3:00pm M-F . 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 Christopher Babic can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-8507 . 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. /CAROLINE M LARA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1633 /ALLISON M FOX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1633 APPENDIX SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT Query, Qy (SEQ ID NO: 1) vs Database, ‘Db’ (Coskun-Ari and Hill Figure1 : 5’ 1-24) Query, Qy (SEQ ID NO: 2) vs Database, ‘Db’ (Coskun-Ari and Hill Figure1 : 5’ 1-24) Query, Qy (SEQ ID NO: 3) vs Database, ‘Db’ (Coskun-Ari and Hill Figure1 : 3’ 1-24)