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. 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. Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination. Claim Objections Claim s 6-9 and 15-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: The recitations of FLAG, HPC, GSK, HIS-Tag , and Strep II, should be accompanied by the unabbreviated form s. 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. Claim s 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 10 recite the limitation of “ using plates affixed with an array of pegs interact with the wells of a well plate ” is unclear to the metes and bounds of whether the plates affixing the array of pegs are the well plates because well plates are array of wells . Therefore, it is unclear whether there are two different types of plates interacting with the pegs or the claims are reciting one type of plates for the pegs. Currently, there is no structural differences in the recited plate. Claims 2-9 and 11-20 are rejected as being dependent on claims 1 and 10. Additionally, claim 10 recites a method for purifying an engineered biological moiety , but the claim does not clearly recite active steps for performing the purification method. Rather, the claim recites a wherein clause of “wherein the method comprises the step of incubating the pegs , ” which is not actively performing the purification. Additionally, the claim is omitting essential steps for purifying the engineered biological moiety, as a single incubating step is an incomplete process for purification , such omission amounting to a gap between the steps of using plates for purification. See MPEP § 2172.01. Claims 11-20 are rejected as being dependent from claim 10. With respect to claims 6-9 and 15-18, the claims contain the trademark/trade names FLAG, HPC, GSK, H is -Tag and Strep II . Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the structures of tags and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. 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 1-2, 5, 10-11 , 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Dong et al. (“DNA origami patterning of synthetic T cell receptors reveals spatial control of the sensitivity and kinetics of signal activation”, PNAS, vol. 118, no. 40, pgs. 1-10, published September 29, 2021) . Dong teaches receptor clustering plays a key role in triggering cellular activation (at abstract). Dong further teaches developing a DNA-based molecular “pegboard” for ligand patterning (at pg. 1, right col., Significance and Fig. 1 ). Dong teaches immobilized the DNA pegboards on a glass surface via biotin-s treptavidin-biotin interactions (at pg. 2, right col., middle of para. 2). Dong teaches each pegboard that employs the ssDNA ligands as “pegs” and the DNA-CAR as the cell-surface receptor and the pegboard has 72 “peg” DNA sticky ends facing the top side of the plate which each be extended with additional nucleotides to incorporate the ligand DNA of custom length and sequence (at pg. 2, left col., para. 2 of Results). Dong teaches an extracellular SNAP tag protein that covalently reacts with a benzyl-guanine-labeled single-stranded DNA. Fig. 1A shows that plate affixed with an array of pegs which interact with the wells in a well plate wherein the pegs are conjugated to a compound which bind tags on an engineered biological moiety and wherein the pegs extend into the well plate to bind the tags to the engineered biological moiety. Dong teaches an extracellular SNAP tag protein that covalently reacts with a benzyl-guanine-labeled single-stranded DNA (at pg. 2, left col., para. 1 of Results). Dong teaches DNA-based chimeric antigen receptor (at pg. 2, left col., para. 1 of Results). Note that the immunoreceptor tyrosine activation motifs (ITAMs) connected to SNAP (Fig. 1A) has all the structural limitation of the recited engineered biological moiety . Dong teaches the DNA origami particles were immobilized on the glass bottom of multiwell plates (at Fig. 2 caption). Note that the interpretation is pegs are affixed/interacted to wells of well plates . With respect to claim 2, Dong teaches DNA-based chimeric antigen receptor (at pg. 2, left col., para. 1 of Results) which is connected to SNAP (Fig. 1A) has all the structural limitation of the recited engineered biological moiety that is part of a cell lysate. With respect to claim 5 , Dong teaches DNA-based chimeric antigen receptor (at pg. 2, left col., para. 1 of Results). With respect to claim 10, see discussion above. In particular, Dong teaches a method for developing a DNA-based molecular “pegboard” for ligand patterning (at pg. 1, right col., Significance) and using it with cell extract solution that comprises the engineered biological moiety (see Fig. 1). With respect to claim 11, Dong teaches DNA-based chimeric antigen receptor (at pg. 2, left col., para. 1 of Results) which is connected to SNAP (Fig. 1A) has all the structural limitation of the recited engineered biological moiety that is part of a cell lysate. With respect to claim 14, Dong teaches DNA-based chimeric antigen receptor (at pg. 2, left col., para. 1 of Results). With respect to claim 19, Dong teaches excess DNAs were washed before using these cells for DNA origami stimulation experiments (at pg. 10, right col., para. 1). 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. 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 . Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (“DNA origami patterning of synthetic T cell receptors reveals spatial control of the sensitivity and kinetics of signal activation”, PNAS, vol. 118, no. 40, pgs. 1-10, published September 29, 2021) in view of Pezzi et al. (“Integration of Magnetic Bead-Based Cell Selection into Complex Isolations”, ACS Omega 2018, vol. 3, 3908-3917, published 04/6/2018). With respect to claims 1 and 10, Dong teaches developing a DNA-based molecular “pegboard” for ligand patterning (at pg. 1, right col., Significance). Dong teaches immobilized the DNA pegboards on a glass surface via biotin-streptavidin-biotin interactions (at pg. 2, right col., middle of para. 2). Dong teaches each pegboard that employs the ssDNA ligands as “pegs” (at pg. 2, left col., para. 2 of Results). Dong teaches the DNA origami particles were immobilized on the glass bottom of multiwell plates (at Fig. 2 caption). Dong teaches to functionalize the glass surface with DNA origami 96-well imaging plates (at pg. 10, left col., para. 1). Fig. 1A shows that plates affixed with an array of pegs which interact with the wells in a well plate wherein the pegs are conjugated to a compound which bind tags on an engineered biological moiety and wherein the pegs extend into the well plate to incubate and bind the tags to the engineered biological moiety. However, Dong does not teach the compounds and tags are avidin-biotin system tags. Pezzi teaches magnetic bead-based analyte capture has emerged as a ubiquitous method in cell isolation, enabling the highly specific capture of target populations through simple magnetic manipulation (at abstract and picture ). Pezzi teaches dynabeads M-280 streptavidin or speedbeads streptavidin-blocked magnetic particles (at pg. 3908, left col., para. 2). Pezzi teaches integration of magnetic bead-based cell isolation with standard nucleic acid extraction methods and to characterize the potential impact of each cell isolation magnetic bead type on nucleic acid isolation , both RNA and DNA were evaluated through M-280 streptavidin beads ( at pg. 3913, right col para. 3 and pg. 3914, left col., para 2 ). Pezzi teaches streptavidin-biotin binding of the antibody to the beads (at pg. 3914, right col., para. 3). Pezzi teaches the cells and beads were transferred into a 96-well plate (at 3912, left col., bottom of para. 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pegs as taught by Dong with a streptavidin s moiety as taught by Pezzi because Dong teaches that the pegs are design ed to specific ally conjugat e moieties and Pezzi teaches that streptavidin-biotin linkage is to capture specific targets such as DNA, RNA, and antibody . Additionally, it would have been obvious to have used the plates containing the pegs of Dong in a well plate of Pezzi because Pezzi ’s well plates contain the targets for isolation . The person would have a reasonable expectation of success in adding a streptavidin to pegs of Dong for streptavidin-biotin affinity because it has been well understood in the art t hat the pair provides linkage for specific immobilization and isolation, as taught by Dong and Pezzi . With respect to claim s 2 -3 and 11 -12 , Dong teaches DNA receptor/ligand (at Fig. 1), which would read on all the chemical structures of the claimed engineered biological moiety. With respect to claims 4 and 13, Dong does not teach RNA molecule. Pezzi teaches for RNA, the capture beads were added to each cell sample prior to the addition of any lysis buffer to ensure that the impact of cell isolation beads on the entire RNA isolation process was evaluated (at pg. 3912, right col., para. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the pegs with streptavidin to immobilize RNA for specific target immobilization or isolation . With respect to claims 5 and 14, Dong does not teach the engineered biological moiety is a protein. Pezzi teaches antibody was first biotinylated to facilitate streptavidin-biotin binding of the antibody to the beads (at pg. 3914, right col., para. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the pegs with streptavidin to capture biotinylated protein s for specific protein detection . With respect to claims 5-9 and 15-18, although Dong teaches biotin-streptavidin for immobilization on the plates, the reference does not teach the compound and tags are avidin-biotin system tags. Pezzi has been discussed above. However, i t would have been obvious to have modified the pegs as taught by Dong with a streptavidins moiety as taught by Pezzi because Dong teaches that the pegs are designed to specifically conjugate moieties and Pezzi teaches that streptavidin-biotin linkage is to capture specific targets such as DNA, RNA, and antibody. With respect to claim 19, Dong teaches excess DNAs were washed before using these cells for DNA origami stimulation experiments (at pg. 10, right col., para. 1). With respect to claim 20, Dong does not teach eluting the bound biological moieties from the pegs. Pezzi teaches following isolation, the eluted RNA underwent reverse transcription into cDNA (at pg. 3912, right col., para. 3). It would have been obvious to have eluted the biological moieties from the pegs because Pezzi teaches the biological moieties are used after being elut ed . Claims 1-2, 6, 10-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kizilel et al. ( “Encapsulation of Pancreatic Islets Within Nano-Thin Functional Polyethylene Glycol Coatings for Enhanced Insulin Secretion”, Tissue Engineering: Part A, vol. 16, no. 7, pgs. 2217-2228, published 03/18/2010 ) . This rejection is made in view of the term pegs which could be interpreted as polyethylene glycol. The term peg has not been defined in the specification. Kizilel teaches covalent attachment of polymers to cells and tissues and transplantation of islets into diabetic patients is an attractive form of treatment (see abstract). Fig. 1 shows a system for using an array of pegs (i.e., polyethylene glycol spacer) wherein the pegs are conjugated to compounds which bind tags on an engineered biological moiety, and wherein the pegs extend to bind the tags on the engineered biological moiety. Kizilel teaches an automatic fraction collector that was designed for a multi - well plate format and to preserve the integrity of the analytes in the perifusate , the per ifusate in the collecting plate was kept at <4 o C (at pg. 2220, left col., middle of para. 2). Kizilel teaches that it demonstrates the feasibility of treating pancreatic inlets with reactive polymeric segments and provides the foundation for a novel means of potential immunoisolation (see abstract). Kizilel teaches a plurality of GLP1s which has all the structural limitations of an engineered biological moiety comprising tags (at Fig. 1). Kizilel does not explicitly teach the polyethylene glycol spacers (pegs) interact with the wells of well plate s . However, it would have been obvious to the person to have placed the i slets in well plates and with a reasonable expectation of success because the plates are design ed to hold multiwells for assay immobilization . Therefore, the incorporation of the islets would produce a system or method where the polyethylene glycol spacers (pegs) would extend into the well plate to bind the engineered biological moiety. With respect to claim 2, Kizilel teaches GLP1 which has all the structural limitations of the engineered moiety is part of a cell lysate. With respect to claim 6 , Kizilel teaches in Fig. 1 the streptavidin-biotin system tags. With respect to claim 10, see discussion above. Kizilel teaches in Fig. 1 incubating the pegs in a cell-extract solution wherein the solution comprises the engineered biological moiety. With respect to claim 11, Kizilel teaches GLP1 which has all the structural limitations of the engineered moiety is part of a cell lysate. With respect to claim 15, Kizilel teaches in Fig. 1 the streptavidin-biotin system tags. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NAM P NGUYEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0287 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday (8-4) . 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 Gregory Emch can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8149 . 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. /N.P.N/ Examiner, Art Unit 1678 /SHAFIQUL HAQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1678