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. DETAILED ACTION Status of the Application Claims 28-47 are pending and are currently under examination. Information Disclosure Statement The submission of the Information Disclosure Statement on 09/29/2023 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. The information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner and signed copies have been placed in the file. Claim Objections Clai ms 28 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claim s recite: “… administering the nucleic acid encoding a NeuroD1 polypeptide to glial cells in hippocampus region of the subject, so that the glial cells express the NeuroD1 polypeptide and are converted into GABAergic neurons, or administering the NeuroD1 polypeptide into the interior of glial cells in hippocampus region of the subject, so that the glial cells are converted into GABAergic neurons ” and would be clearer if the sentence read : “ … administering the nucleic acid encoding a NeuroD1 polypeptide to glial cells in the hippocampus region of the subject, so that the glial cells express the NeuroD1 polypeptide and are converted into GABAergic neurons, or administering the NeuroD1 polypeptide into the interior of glial cells in the hippocampus region of the subject, so that the glial cells are converted into GABAergic neurons . Appropriate correction is required . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 2 8 -47 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 28 and 38 recite the limitation “the nucleic acid” and lacks antecedent basis because “a nucleic acid” is not recited previously in the claims. Claims 29-37 are indefinite because they lack antecedent basis as they depend from claim 1 that has been canceled. In trying to determine if these claims are meant to depend from claim 28, the previous claim set was reviewed to see if new claim 28 was in the scope of previous claim 1. Claim 1 of the previous claim set was drawn to manufacture of a medicament and is different than methods of treatment. These claims will not be further examined on the merits because it cannot be ascertained, without assumption, what further limitations are encompassed in the claims. Claims 39-47 are indefinite because they lack antecedent basis as they depend from claim 1 1 that has been canceled. In trying to determine if these claims are meant to depend from claim 3 8, the previous claim set was reviewed to see if new claim 3 8 was in the scope of previous claim 11 . Claim 1 1 of the previous claim set was a dependent claim that depended from anyone of claims 28-37 however these claims were not even recited in the previous claim set . These claims will not be further examined on the merits because it cannot be ascertained, without assumption, what further limitations are encompassed in the claims. 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 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 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. Claims 28 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al . ( US 2017/0239373 ) and Fedele et al. ( "Neurogenesis in the R6/2 mouse model of Huntington's disease is impaired at the level of NeuroD1." Neuroscience 173 (2011): 76-81 ) . Chen et al. teach generating GABAergic neurons in brains from treatment of Huntington’s disease which is found to be decreased in brain tissue of subjects (see 0008). Chen et al. teach administering nucleic acid encoding a NeuroD1 polypeptide and nucleic acid encoding a Dlx2 polypeptide (or a NeuroD1 polypeptide and a Dlx2 polypeptide) to glial cells within the striatum, wherein the NeuroD1 polypeptide and the Dlx2 polypeptide are expressed by the glial cells, and wherein the glial cells form or are converted into GABAergic neurons within the striatum [0009]. Chen does not specifically teach administering to glial cells in the hippocampus. Fedele et al. teach NueroD1 is decreased in the hippocampus of the brain (see Fig.2H1 and page 79). Fedele et al. teach subjects with Huntington’s disease suffer from deficient spatial memory and found that decreased hippocampus neurogenesis due to decreased NeuroD1 leads to impaired spatial learning (see page 79 discussion). Fedele et al. shows a direct link between NeuroD1 and Htt protein and suggests this might be relevant to understand the role of hippocampal dysfunction in cognitive decline in HD patients (see page 79 discussion). It would have been obvious to try using the methods of Chen et al. to target the hippocampus region in methods of treating Huntington’s disease given the findings of Fedele et al. Because Fedele et al. found that decreased hippocampus neurogenesis , due to decreased NeuroD1 , leads to impaired spatial learning and it was known that subjects with Huntington’s disease suffer from deficient spatial memory , it would have been obvious to use the methods of Chen et al. to treat this aspect of the disease. Chen et al. has demonstrated administration of the NeuroD1 polypeptide to the brain stratum region and one of skill in the art would have expected to be capable of targeting the hippocampus region of the brain. Furthermore, KSR states an obvious to try rationale may be proper when the possible options for solving a problem are known, finite, and predictable, with a reasonable expectation of success . KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Also, see MPEP § 2143. Thus in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Kimberly Chong at FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3111 . The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday between M-F 8:00am-4:30pm . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful please contact the SPE for 1636 Neil Hammell at 571-272-5919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO’s PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. For all other customer support, please call the USPTO Call Center (UCC) at 800-786-9199. /KIMBERLY CHONG/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1636