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. Double Patenting A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 88 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 78 of copending Application No. 18/393,291 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented. Claim 88 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 90 of copending Application No. 18/393220 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented. Claim 88 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 38 of copending Application No. 18/392547 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim 61 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 41 of copending Application No. 18/ 393,291 ( reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim a method comprising similar steps and . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim 61 -62, 70-72 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 -3, 6-10 of copending Application No. 19/173,685 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim a method of determining the sequence of plurality of polynucleotides comprising similar steps using nucleotides compri si ng a label attached to the base via a cleavable linker comprising a moiety similar to the 1 st structure in instant claim 61, and a 3’ allyl blocking group. The reference application teaches “The methods set forth herein can use arrays having features at any of a variety of densities including, for example, at least about 10 features/cm 2 , 100 features/cm 2 , 500 features/cm 2 , 1,000 features/cm 2 , 5,000 features/cm 2 , 10,000 features/cm 2 , 50,000 features/cm 2 , 100,000 features/cm 2 , 1,000,000 features/cm 2 , 5,000,000 features/cm 2 , or higher” [0170]. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 61-62, 70-72, 74-83, 86-87 , 110-112, 114, 117, 119 -120 , are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 67-73, 76-77, 79-80, 82-83, 88-89, 112-113, 116, 119, 121-122 of copending Application No. 18/393220 (reference application) ; and over claims 1- 8, 20-21, 23-25, 27-28, 30-31, 36-37, 60-61, 65, 67, 69-70 of copending Application No. 18/392547 (reference application) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they all claim a method and kit of determining the sequence of plurality of polynucleotides comprising similar steps using nucleotides comprising a label attached to the base via a cleavable linker comprising a moiety similar to the 1 st structure in instant claim 61, and a 3’ allyl blocking group. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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. 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. Claim 61-62, 70-72, 74 , 77, 80, 83, 110, 117, 119-120 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. US 7,785,796 in view of Milton et al. WO2004018493. Balasubramanian et al. discloses a nucleoside or nucleotide triphosphate comprising a removable 3’-allyl blocking. Said removable 3’-OH blocking group is covalently attached to the 3’-carbon atom . Balasubramanian et al. discloses said nucleoside or nucleotide comprises a delectable label attached via a cleavable linker to the base (see abstract, Figure 3). Balasubramanian et al. discloses a method of determining the sequence of a nucleic acid using said nucleoside or nucleotide triphosphate that comprises similar steps such as incorporating said nucleoside or nucleotide triphosphate using polymerase, and that the incorporation prevents the introduction of any subsequent nucleotide, identifying said nucleoside or nucleotide incorporation by detecting signal from the detectable label and chemically removing the label and 3’ blocking group and repeating the steps. (See Summary and claims). Balasubramanian et al. also teaches the cleavable linker may consist of functionality cleavable under identical conditions to the block. This will make the deprotection process more efficient as only a single treatment will be required to cleave both the label and the block. Thus, the linker may contain functional groups as described in FIG. 3, which could be cleaved with the hydroxyl functionality on either the residual nucleoside or the removed label. The linker may also consist of entirely different chemical functionality that happens to be labile to the conditions used to cleave the block. (see col. 8 lines 34-42). The cleavable conditions can comprise a palladium catalyst (see claims). Balasubramanian et al. also teaches “ The sequencing method can be carried out on both single polynucleotide molecule and multi-polynucleotide molecule arrays, i.e., arrays of distinct individual polynucleotide molecules and arrays of distinct regions comprising multiple copies of one individual polynucleotide molecule. Single molecule arrays allow each individual polynucleotide to be resolved separately. The use of single molecule arrays is preferred. Sequencing single molecule arrays non-destructively allows a spatially addressable array to be formed” (col.9, lines 39-67). Balasubramanian et al. also teaches kits (col. 3-4 bridging paragraph : In a further aspect, the invention features a kit, where the kit includes: (a) individual the nucleotides, where each nucleotide has a base that is linked to a detectable label via a cleavable linker, and where the detectable label linked to each nucleotide can be distinguished upon detection from the detectable label used for other three nucleotides; and (b) packaging materials therefor. The kit can further include an enzyme and buffers appropriate for the action of the enzyme). Further Balasubramanian et al. also teaches “ Many different polymerase enzymes exist, and it will be evident to the person of ordinary skill which is most appropriate to use. Preferred enzymes include DNA polymerase I, the Klenow fragment, DNA polymerase III, T4 or T7 DNA polymerase, Taq polymerase or vent polymerase. A polymerase engineered to have specific properties can also be used ” (col. 9 lines 25-32) (this is viewed to be inclusive of the altered archaeal DNA polymerase) . Balasubramanian et al. does not disclose a cleavable linker comprising a moiety structure as shown in claim 61 step (b)( i ) . However, Milton et al. teaches modified nucleotides having a base attached to detectable label via a cleavable linker, wherein said cleavable linker can comprise a moiety identical to the first structure claimed in step (b) ( i ). (See abstract, page s 4 -5, page 11, for example, where the 2 nd moiety is identical when X and Y are O) . Milton et al. teaches said linker may be cleaved with w ater soluble phosphine or water-soluble transition metal- containing catalysts (page 7). Milton et al. teaches the transition metal is palladium (page 12) and the phosphine may be trialkyl phosphine derivatized with hydroxyl (see page 15 and claims 16-21). Milton et al. teaches that the linker and the blocking group are cleaved under identical condition (page 25). Milton et al. teaches that Labelled nucleotides comprising such linkers an d methods for using them are clearly advantageous in the context of techniques carried out in aqueous media such as sequencing reactions, polynucleotide synthesis, nucleic acid amplification, nucleic acid, hybridization assays, single nucleotide polymorphism studies, and other techniques using enzymes such as polymerases, reverse transcriptases , terminal transferases, or other DNA modifying enzymes. The invention is especially useful in techniques that use labelled dNTPs, such as nick translation, random primer labeling, end-labeling (e.g., with terminal deoxynucleotidyltransferase ), reverse transcription, or nucleic acid amplification (pages 3 lines 24 - page 4 line 10 ). Milton et al. teaches that this makes the deprotection process more efficient since only a single treatment with be required to cleave both the label and the block (page 25). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the primary references in the manner of the claims to achieve the expected benefits, optimizations and/or expanded applications as this is well known practice in the art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to carry out the claimed method. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JEZIA RILEY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0786 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30-6:00pm . 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 Gary Benzion can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-0782 . 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. /JEZIA RILEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681 18 March 2026