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. Claim Objections Claims 79-84 , 94, 95 are objected to because of the following informalities: C laims 79-84 depend from canceled claim 42 . In claim 94, the phrase “A nucleotide has the structure”, should be substituted with -- A nucleotide has a structure selected from --. In claim 95, the phrase “A nucleotide has the structure”, should be substituted with -- A nucleotide has a structure selected from --; the words “and” after the first structure and the word “or” after the second structure, should be deleted and replaced with --;-- . 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 78 -86, 88-89, 91-92, 94-95, 97, 100-101 , 107, 109-110 , 121-123 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 79-84 are vague and indefinite because they depend from a canceled claim 42 , which makes the antecedent basis for their limitations insufficient and confusing as to what methods they apply. Claims 94-95 are vague and indefinite because it is unclear how the A nucleotide can have two chemical structures at the same time. Claims 78, 80- 86, 88-89, 91-92, 94-95 and 110 are vague and indefinite because it is unclear what are the metes and bounds for the terms “first functional moiety ”, “ second functional moiety” and “third functional moiety”. Note that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Also see In re Van Geuns , 988 F.2d 1181,26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Also see, In re Zetz , 13 USPQ2d 1320,1322. “An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct and unambiguous.” 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 78 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 88 of copending Application No. 18/392975 (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 78 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 78 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 4 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 1 of copending Application No. 18/ 39 2975 ( 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 using nucleotides comprising 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 41 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 -3 , 6-7 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 comprising 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. Clai m 41 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 67 of copending Application No. 18/393220 (reference application); and over claims 1, 20, 36-37 and 60 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 of determining the sequence of plurality of polynucleotides comprising similar steps using nucleotides comprising 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 § 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 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(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Balasubramanian et al. US 7,785,796 . 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 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 and chemically removing the label and 3’ blocking group and repeating the steps. (See Summary and claims). 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) (this is viewed to be inclusive of the solid support comprising at least 5,000,000 spatially distinguishable sites of step (a) ). 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. Claim(s) 41, 78- 8 5 , 88, 91, 94, 97, 100-101, 107, 109-110, 121-123 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. US 7,785,796 in view of Ju et al. US 20220213542 and Gatti-Lafranconi et al. US 20200190569. 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 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 and chemically removing the label and 3’ blocking group and repeating the steps. (See Summary and claims). 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) (this is viewed to be inclusive of the solid support comprising at least 5,000,000 spatially distinguishable sites of step (a)). 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 of claim s 109 - 110 ). However, Balasubramanian et al. d oes not teach unlabeled nucleotide analogue comprising a first functiona l moiety and contacting the extended copy polynucleotides with an aqueous labeling mixture comprising a first labeling reagent, wherein the first labeling reagent comprises one or more first detectable labels and a first binding moiety that is capable of specific binding to the first functional moiety of the first type of unlabeled nucleotide as claimed in claim 78. Ju et al. teach a method for sequencing nucleic acids wherein the method comprises sequence-by synthesis using anchor labeled nucleotide analogs compris ing a base and a blocking group (which can be an allyl moiety) at the 3' -OH position, wherein the anchor labeled nucleotide analogues have the structure as shown in Fig 1B, wherein the anchor is viewed as the functional moiety and is linked to the base via a cleavable linker. Ju et al. teach contacting the extended polynucleotide with a fluorescently labeled anchor binding molecule specific the anchor . Ju et al. teach a method of sequencing nucleic acid comprising: a) providing at least one nucleic acid template hybridized to a primer; b) providing a first nucleic acid polymerase and four different anchor labeled nucleotide analogues (A, C, T, G) ( [0030]-[0083], Fig. 7 , 10 and claim 16 for example) and using TCEP or THP to remove label and regenerating 3-OH on the primer extension product to allow continuous DNA sequencing (para [0469] for example ). Ju et al. teaches different anchors for different nucleotide (this is vie we d to be inclusive of claims 79 - 8 5 , 88, 91, 94 ). Ju et al. teaches kits comprising all the required nucleotide analogues, polymerases, cleavage agents and other reaction buffer components for carrying out the method (this is viewed to be inclusive of claim 107). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the method of Balasubramanian et al. with anchor labeled nucleotide analogues as taught by Ju et al. to develop an improved method for sequencing nucleic acids. The ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would have motivated to combine the method as taught by Balasubramanian et al. with the method as taught by Ju et al. and have a reasonable expectation of success that the combination would result in improved method because Ju et al. explicitly teach anchor labeled nucleotide analogues in sequencing nucleic acids, cleaving the primer extension product after each incorporation to remove the label and regenerate 3'-OH group for primer extension and continuous sequencing ( see [0029], for example ) ; Ju et al. teach “t he approach can be used with a variety of types of nucleotide analogues and with a variety of single color SBS approaches … and single molecule or ensemble sequencing ” [0451] -[ 0454] . Therefore, such a modification of the method is considered obvious over the prior art. With regards to claims 101, 110, 121-123, it is well known in art to use a wash solution comprising a scavenger, see for example Gatti-Lafranconi et al. (US 20200190569 ) teaching “The addition of lipoic acid (a scavenger) to the universal wash composition, in a composition referred to as “BB7,” reduces phasing and reduces wash volume relative to universal wash composition alone. Reduced phasing may enable longer sequencing runs (more cycles). Reduced wash volume may enable faster sequencing times” (page 13-14) . With regards to claim 97, Ju et al. teaches “ The non-limiting examples of the invention provided herein only show examples with virtual terminators or 3′-blocked NRTs, either of which may be used for both ensemble and single molecule SBS schemes. A hybrid approach incorporating … acceptor-labeled dideoxynucleotides in combination with … unlabeled NRTs “ [ 0481] ; and Gatti-Lafranconi et al. teaches “ Suitable nucleotides for use in the provided methods include, but are not limited to, deoxynucleotide triphosphates, deoxyadenosine triphosphate ( dATP ), deoxythymidine triphosphate (dTTP), deoxycytidine triphosphate ( dCTP ), and deoxyguanosine triphosphate ( dGTP ). Optionally, the nucleotides used in the provided methods, whether labeled or unlabeled, can include a blocking moiety such as a reversible terminator moiety that inhibits chain extension ” [0037] . Hence the embodiments set forth in claims 97, 101, 110, 121-123 are merely some of the several straightforward possibilities which the skilled person would select, in accordance with circumstances, without requiring any inventive skill in order to solve the problem posed. 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. MPEP states wherein the “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Alter, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Routine optimization is not considered inventive and no evidence has been presented that the products resulting from the optimization have any unexpected properties, or that the results should be considered unexpected in any way as compared to the closest prior art. 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 3 1 March 2026