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 Status/Action Summary Claims 1-20 are under examination. No other claims are currently pending in the present application. Priority/Effective Filing Date The present application, filed on November 10, 2023, is a Continuation in Part of 17/083,803, filed on October 29, 2020, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,814,682 on November 14, 2023. Information Disclosure Statement The listing of references in the specification at paragraphs 00160-00181 is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Drawings The drawings filed on November 10, 2023 are acceptable. Specification The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code at paragraph 00117 . Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: T he claim term “translocation” appears to be misspelled “ translocaion ” at line 11. Appropriate correction is required . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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. Claim s 1-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The term “ about 5 to about 20 ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 requires that the DNA fragments prepared from the DNA of a parent carrier of the chromosomal rearrangement and from the cells (of the 4 day post in vitro fertilization embryo trophectoderm biopsy) comprise an average fragment length of from about 5 to about 20 kb . Taken together, the claim, the specification, and the prior art do not teach a predictable, concrete, margin of error in the recited average fragment size range outside which one would not expect to successfully “determine[e] carrier status of an embryo for a chromosomal rearrangement”. It is not clear whether the claim is intended to encompass only embodiments wherein the average fragment length of the input DNA molecules is between the recited bounds 5 to 20 kb, inclusive of the recited endpoints, exclusive of the recited endpoints, or is intended to encompass embodiments wherein the average fragment length is outside the recited bounds by some unspecified relative or absolute margin of error (i.e. ±1%, ±5%, ±10%, ±10 bp, ±100 bp, ±1 kb, etc.). It is the position of the examiner that the ordinary artisan would not have been aware of a particular upper or lower cutoff in average fragment length of a population of input DNA molecules (i.e. about 5… about 20) beyond which the claimed method would not be practicable. Therefore, the metes and bounds of patent protection sought by this limitation are unclear. Similarly, the claim term “an average length of from about 8 to 15 kb”, recited by claim 4 do not clearly define the lower bound of the claimed scope “about 8 kb”. Similarly, the claim terms “an average length of from about 5 to 20 kb, from about 8 to 15 kb, or from about 8 to 10 kb”, recited by claim 19 do not clearly define the lower bounds of any of the alternatively recited overlapping ranges. The term “ highly repetitive genomic region ” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ highly repetitive ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Taken together, the claim, the specification, and the art do not teach a predictable, concrete degree of repetitiveness in a particular genomic region that constitutes a “highly repetitive” genomic region. It is unclear whether this limitation requires that the genomic region in question comprises some unspecified absolute number (i.e. 10 direct repeats, 10 inverted repeats, 10 transposable elements, 10 copies of a tandem repeat, some number of copies of, for example, a trinucleotide repeat, etc.) or unspecified fractional composition (i.e. 10% of the sequence is repeated within the genomic region in question) of “repeats”, whether said repeats must share some percent sequence identity to each other or to a consensus sequence thereof, whether the genomic region in question comprises some unspecified quantity or degree of repeats or repetitiveness relative to sequences that are found within the same genomic region, or whether the genomic region comprises some unspecified quantity of repeats or degree of repetitiveness relative to sequences that are found at other (unspecified) genomic regions. Claims 2-15 are also rendered indefinite because they depend from, and thus include the indefinite limitations of the claim(s) upon which they depend. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Madjunkova et al., 2020 “Detection of Structural Rearrangements in Embryos” N ENGL J MED 382;25 (published June 18, 2020) . It is noted that the authorship of the Madjunkova et al., 2020 reference is distinct from the inventorship of the instant application and that this rejection may be overcome by the filing of a 132 Katz-type declaration or a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) (see MPEP 717.01(a)(1)(B) “Where the authorship of the prior art disclosure includes the inventor or a joint inventor named in the application, an “unequivocal” statement from the inventor or a joint inventor that he/she (or some specific combination of joint inventors) invented the subject matter of the disclosure, accompanied by a reasonable explanation of the presence of additional authors, may be acceptable in the absence of evidence to the contrary.”) Regarding claim 1, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach methods of determining carrier status of an embryo for a chromosomal rearrangement prior to implantation of the embryo comprising: obtaining cells from a trophectoderm biopsy at day 5 or 6 post in vitro fertilization ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, figure 1) ; conducting long read nanopore sequencing on DNA fragments from the carrier parent and from the trophectoderm cells, wherein “the average length of the DNA fragments was approximately 8 to 10 kb, with the longest reads reaching over 100 kb ” ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, figure 1). Furthermore, ( Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach the chromosomal rearrangement of the parent carrier comprises a reciprocal translocation between the long arm of chromosome 8 and the long arm of chromosome 22 “ t( 8,22)(q24.3, q13.3)” ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, figure 1). ( Madjunkova et al., 2020 further teach preparing custom PCR primers specific to the breakpoint (i.e. the junctions between the rearranged chromosomes 8 and 22), performing PCR with the customized breakpoint primers, determining whether the embryo is a carrier or a noncarrier of the chromosomal rearrangement, and performing Sanger Sequencing to confirm whether the rearrangement carrier embryo is fully balanced ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, figure 1, reproduced below for convenience). Additionally, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach performing the method on parents and embryos wherein the carrier parent has a known balanced chromosomal rearrangement comprising various: reciprocal translocations , pericentric inversions , or paracentric inversions ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, supplementary appendix, page 3, paragraph 1). Regarding claim 2, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach performing the method on 4-6 cells collected by trophectoderm biopsy (i.e. 3 to 10 cells) ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, supplementary appendix, page 3, paragraph 2). Regarding claim 3, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach obtaining the cells by trophectoderm biopsy at day 5 or day 6 post in vitro fertilization ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, figure 1). Regarding claim 4, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach the DNA fragments sequenced by long-read nanopore sequencing have an average length of approximately 8 to 10 kb (i.e. about 8 to about 15 kb) ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, figure 1). Regarding claim 5, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach the DNA fragments sequenced by long-read nanopore sequencing comprise fragments greater than 100kb ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, figure 1). Regarding claim 6, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach sequencing the fragments on a R9.4 flowcell on a MinION sequencer for 48 hours (i.e. long-read nanopore sequencing on a real-time long-read nucleic acid sequencer for up to 48 hours) ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, supplementary appendix, page 8, paragraph 1). Regarding claim 7, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach producing a copy-number variation plot from the sequencing data ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, figure S2). Regarding claim 8, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach detecting multiple breakpoints, and preparing customized primers for cBP -PCR for each breakpoint ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, supplementary appendix, page 12-13 bridging paragraph). Regarding claim 9, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach the Sanger sequencing determines full balance at single base resolution ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, supplementary appendix, page 4, paragraph 2). Regarding claim 10, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach detecting breakpoints in genomic regions containing repetitive sequences, including high-abundance (i.e. highly repetitive) repeats such as LINE, SINE, LTR, Satellite, and simple repeat elements ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, supplementary appendix, page 14, paragraph 2 and table S4). Regarding claim 11, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach implanting selected noncarrier embryos in a human subject ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, supplementary appendix, page 18). Regarding claim 12, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach collecting embryonic cells by trophectoderm biopsy before vitrification (i.e. before freezing the embryo) ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, figure 1). Regarding claim 13, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach implanting the embryos (which were sampled by trophectoderm biopsy before vitrification (i.e. freezing)). Therefore, Madjunkova et al., 2020 necessarily teach thawing the vitrified embryos prior to the implanting step ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, figure 1). Regarding claim 14, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach determining the embryo status as a carrier of a balanced chromosomal rearrangement “BCR”, a cryptic imbalance, or a complex rearrangement ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, page 1, column 2, paragraph 2). Regarding claim 15, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach the chromosomal rearrangement comprises a balanced chromosomal rearrangement comprising inversion or translocation ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, figure 1, also supplementary appendix, page 3, paragraph 1). Regarding claim 16, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach methods for determining embryo carrier status for a chromosomal rearrangement prior to implantation of the embryo comprising obtaining trophectoderm biopsy cells at least 4 days post-IVF ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, figure 1), performing long-read nanopore sequencing of DNA from the embryo and the carrier parent to detect at least one breakpoint ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, figure 1), preparing custom PCR primers for the breakpoint, performing cBP -PCR to determine whether the embryo is a carrier of a chromosomal rearrangement, and performing Sanger sequencing to determine whether the rearrangement is fully balanced ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, figure 1). Regarding claim 17, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach performing the method on 4-6 cells collected by trophectoderm biopsy (i.e. 3 to 10 cells) ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, supplementary appendix, page 3, paragraph 2). Regarding claim 18, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach performing the method on parents and embryos wherein the carrier parent has a known balanced chromosomal rearrangement comprising various: reciprocal translocations , pericentric inversions , or paracentric inversions ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, supplementary appendix, page 3, paragraph 1). Regarding claims 19-20, Madjunkova et al., 2020 teach conducting long read nanopore sequencing on DNA fragments from the carrier parent and from the trophectoderm cells, wherein “the average length of the DNA fragments was approximately 8 to 10 kb, with the longest reads reaching over 100 kb ” ( Madjunkova et al., 2020, figure 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. 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 1, 3-10, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madjunkova et al., 2018 “The First Report of Comprehensive Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Chromosomal Structural Rearrangements (PGT-SR) Using Long Read Sequencing” Fertility and Sterility Vol. 110, No. 4, Supplement, e419-e420 (published September 2018) in view of Chow et al., 2019 A “Distinguishing between carrier and noncarrier embryos with the use of long-read sequencing in preimplantation genetic testing for reciprocal translocations” Genomics 112 (2020) 494-500, ( published April 1, 2019 ) ( previously cited on IDS as NPL 4 ) . It is noted that this reference has overlapping but distinct authorship relative to the current inventive entity and is a conference abstract (poster) presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine conference on October 10, 2018. Regarding claim 1, Madjunkova et al., 2018 teach methods for determining carrier status of an embryo for chromosomal rearrangement prior to implantation of the embryo comprising: obtaining embryonic DNA From day 5 or day 6 post in vitro fertilization Trophectoderm (TE) biopsies, conducting long-read nanopore sequencing of the cells and the carrier parent DNA, detecting breakpoint(s) for the following rearrangements : “ 46,XX , t(8,22)(q24.3;q11.2)” (i.e. a reciprocal translocation between the long arms of chromosomes 8 and 22) “ 46,XX , t(1,2)(p34.1;p13), 46,XX,t(6,14)(p25;q23.3)” (i.e. a reciprocal translocation between the short arms of chromosomes 1 and 2, AND a reciprocal translocation between the short arm of chromosome 6 and the long arm of chromosome 14) “ 46,XX ,t(11,22)(23.2;q11.2)” (i.e. a reciprocal translocation between chromosome 11 (unspecified p or q arm, band 23.2) and the long arm of chromosome 22) “ 46,XY , inv4(p16.3,q32.3)” (i.e. an inversion on chromosome 4 with one breakpoint on the long arm and the other breakpoint on the short arm (i.e. the inverted region comprises the centromere; a “ pericentric inversion ”) “46, XX, inv ( 8)( q13q24.3)” (i.e. an inversion on chromosome 8 with both breakpoints on the long arm of the chromosome (i.e. the inverted region does not comprise the centromere; a “ paracentric inversion ”). Madjunkova et al., 2018 further teach designing custom PCR primers based on the identified breakpoints and performing “custom breakpoint PCR” and Sanger sequencing to determine whether the embryo is a carrier or noncarrier of the chromosomal rearrangement, and determine whether a carrier embryo is fully balanced. Madjunkova et al., 2018 teach the average read length obtained by long-read nanopore sequencing was 4kb (i.e. about 5 kb). Regarding claims 1, 5, 19, and 20, Madjunkova et al., 2018 do not teach the extent of the distribution of, or the maximum of, read- or input DNA- fragment lengths in the conference abstract obtained by the examiner . It is noted that the contents of the poster/presentation disclosed with the cited abstract on October 10, 2018 have not been included in the IDS with this application . However, Chow et al., 2019 A teach very similar methods to those disclosed by Madjunkova et al., 2018 for determining carrier status of preimplantation in vitro fertilized embryos for a chromosomal rearrangement comprising obtaining embryo cells by trophectoderm biopsy, obtaining carrier parent genomic DNA (Chow et al., 2019 A, abstract and Figure 1), performing long-read nanopore sequencing on the embryo and parental DNA to detect breakpoint(s) at the chromosomal rearrangement locus/loci, preparing PCR primers specific to the breakpoints, and performing breakpoint PCR to determine the carrier status of the embryo followed by confirmatory Sanger sequencing to determine whether the embryo is fully balanced (Chow et al. 2019 A, page 496, column 1, paragraph 3- column 2). Furthermore, Chow et al. 2019 A teach performing long-read nanopore sequencing on the aforementioned DNA samples wherein the average read length ranges between approximately 6 kb and approximately 8 kb, with the longest read being 106 kb (i.e. greater than 50, greater than 100 kb) (Chow et al., 2019 A , page 496, column 1, paragraph 4 ) . Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the methods taught by Madjunkova et al., 2018 comprising long-read nanopore sequencing of parental and 5 or 6 day TE biopsy DNA to detect breakpoints associated with chromosomal rearrangements carried by one of the parents followed by confirmatory breakpoint PCR and Sanger sequencing with the methods taught by Chow et al., 2019 A comprising long-read nanopore sequencing of parental and TE biopsy DNA to detect chromosomal breakpoints associated with chromosomal rearrangements carried by one of the parents wherein the nanopore sequencing comprises average fragment lengths (at least equal to the read lengths) between approximately 6 kb and approximately 8 kb, with the longest read being 106 kb (i.e. greater than 50, greater than 100 kb) (Chow et al., 2019 A, page 496, column 1, paragraph 4). The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the methods of Madjunkova et al., 2018 comprising long-read nanopore sequencing with average read lengths of 4 kb (i.e. about 5 kb) and an unspecified maximum read length and unspecified fragment size (or read length) distribution to comprise longer reads averaging approximately 8 kb, as taught by Chow et al., 2019 A, because of the teaching of Chow et al., 2019 A that long-read nanopore sequencing greatly increases the chance of obtaining chimeric reads overlapping breakpoint junctions (Chow et al., 2019 A). Therefore, the ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation that the chance of obtaining chimeric reads informative of breakpoints (i.e. chromosomal rearrangements) increases with increasing read length. Regarding claim 3, Madjunkova et al., 2018 teach obtaining embryonic DNA From day 5 or day 6 post in vitro fertilization Trophectoderm (TE) biopsies. Regarding claim 4, Chow et al., 2019 A teach long-read nanopore sequencing having an average read length of approximately 8 kb. (Chow et al., 2019 A, page 496, column 1, paragraph 4). Regarding claim 5, Chow et al., 2019 A teach the long-read nanopore sequencing comprises reads of 100 kb or greater (Chow et al., 2019 A, page 496, column 1, paragraph 4). Regarding claim 6, Chow et al., 2019 A teach the long-read nanopore sequencing was conducted on a MinION flow cell with a 48 hour sequencing protocol (i.e. a real time sequencer for up to 48 hours) (Chow et al., 2019 A, page 495, column 2, paragraph 1). Regarding claim 7, Madjunkova et al., 2018 teach aneuploidy detection and phasing of the maternal and paternal chromosomes using long-read nanopore sequencing (i.e. generating a copy-number variation plot (plotting the location of aneuploid loci, loci that are duplicated or deleted relative to a parental chromosome)). Regarding claim 8, Madjunkova et al., 2018 teach detecting multiple breakpoints, (see A-E above) and performing breakpoint PCR for each of the identified breakpoints. Regarding claim 9, Madjunkova et al., 2018 teach “Sanger sequencing confirmed the full sequence of the breakpoints and we achieved base pair resolution sensitivity to detect embryos that were balanced CR carriers vs. non-carriers”. Regarding claim 10, Chow et al., 2019 A teach identifying breakpoints within highly repetitive genomic regions (“repeated elements”, “segmental duplication”) (Chow et al., page 496, column 1, paragraph 1, and table 1). Regarding claim 14, Madjunkova et al., 2018 teach determining the carrier embryo status as a balanced chromosomal rearrangement, a cryptic imbalance (i.e. “cryptic microdeletion/duplication at breakpoint sites”). Regarding claim 15, Madjunkova et al., 2018 teach detecting chromosomal rearrangements including balanced chromosomal rearrangements including inversion(s) and translocation(s) (see A-E above). Regarding claim 16, Madjunkova et al., 2018 teach methods for determining carrier status of an embryo for chromosomal rearrangement prior to implantation of the embryo comprising: obtaining embryonic DNA From day 5 or day 6 post in vitro fertilization Trophectoderm (TE) biopsies, conducting long-read nanopore sequencing of the cells and the carrier parent DNA, detecting breakpoint(s), designing custom PCR primers based on the identified breakpoints and performing “custom breakpoint PCR” and Sanger sequencing to determine whether the embryo is a carrier or noncarrier of the chromosomal rearrangement, and determine whether a carrier embryo is fully balanced. Regarding claim 18, Madjunkova et al., 2018 teach the chromosomal rearrangements of the carrier parents comprise a reciprocal translocation, a pericentric inversion, or a paracentric inversion (see A-E above). Regarding claim s 19 and 20 , Madjunkova et al., 2018 teach the average read length obtained by long-read nanopore sequencing was 4kb (i.e. about 5 kb) and Chow et al. 2019 A teach performing long-read nanopore sequencing on the aforementioned DNA samples wherein the average read length ranges between approximately 6 kb and approximately 8 kb, with the longest read being 106 kb (i.e. greater than 50, greater than 100 kb) (Chow et al., 2019 A, page 496, column 1, paragraph 4). Claim s 2 , 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madjunkova et al., 2018 in view of Chow et al., 2019 A as applied to claims 1, 3-10, 14-16, and 18-20 above, and further in view of Aoyama et al. , “Trophectoderm biopsy for preimplantation genetic test and technical tips: A review” Reprod Med Biol. 2020 Jan 26;19(3):222-231 . ( previously cited on IDS as NPL 1 ) . Regarding claims 2 and 17, Madjunkova et al., 2018 do not teach the number of cells collected in the trophectoderm biopsy in the conference abstract obtained by the examiner . However, Aoyama et al. teach a review of best practices for trophectoderm biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing of IVF-generated embryos. Aoyama et al. teach biopsy on days 5-6 after in vitro fertilization has greater benefits than on days 3-4 (namely sampling on days 3-4 results in a higher risk of inner cell mass incarceration (trapping the inner cell mass, see below) (Aoyama et al., page 225, column 1, paragraph 1 and page 228, column 2, paragraph 1). Furthermore, Aoyama et al. teach the most suitable number of cells collected in a trophectoderm biopsy for obtaining conclusive diagnostic results without increasing the viability risk of the embryo is 5-10 cells (Aoyama et al, page 225, column 1-2 bridging paragraph). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the methods for preimplantation genetic testing of embryos comprising trophectoderm biopsy of an unspecified number of cells with the teachings of Aoyama et al. that the optimal number of cells collected by trophectoderm biopsy is approximately 5-10 cells (i.e. comprising 3 to 10 cells). The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to select this number of cells for the sample size in trophectoderm biopsy because of the teaching of Aoyama et al. that the general consensus among researchers that about 1-5, about 8, or about 5-10 cells were nearing the lower limit of cells required for successful genetic analysis at the time Aoyama published their review, and increasing the number of cells collected in TE biopsy increases the risk of embryo disruption (Aoyama et al., page 225, column 1). Aoyama therefore teaches selecting an optimal number of cells collected by TE biopsy comprises balancing the sensitivity of the particular molecular assay to be performed (i.e. a minimum number of cells required) with increasing risk of embryo disruption with increasing sample size. Regarding claim s 11 -13 , Madjunkova et al., 2018 and Chow et al., 2019 A teach methods for preimplantation genetic testing of embryo biopsies obtained from couples actively pursuing reproduction by IVF due to known carrier status of one of the parents for a chromosomal rearrangement. While Madjunkova et al., 2018 and Chow et al., 2019 A do not teach the implantation steps, each of these references name pre-implantation genetic testing as the desired implementation and both references cite successful clinical pregnancies attained from the embryos used in their studies. Furthermore, Aoyama et al. teach implanting fresh embryos after trophectoderm biopsy, or cryopreserving (i.e. freezing) selected embryos after trophectoderm and performing vitrified-thawed blastocyst transfer (i.e. freezing, thawing, and implanting the selected embryo into a human subject) (Aoyama et al., page 228, column 1, paragraph 2). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the preimplantation genetic testing methods taught by Madjunkova et al., 2018 and Chow et al., 2019 A with standard protocols for implantation of selected IVF embryos comprising fresh transfer, or vitrified-thawed embryo transfer, as explicitly taught by Aoyama et al. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to implant, or freeze (vitrify), thaw, and implant the selected embryos because of the suggestion of Madjunkova et al., 2018 and Chow et al., 2019 A and the explicit teaching of Aoyama et al. that trophectoderm biopsied embryos are suitable for transfer (i.e. implantation) following the biopsy step for preimplantation genetic testing. Double Patenting 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 s 1 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11 , 814 , 682 (herein referred to as ‘682 ) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of ‘682 anticipates the present claim s 1 and 16 . ‘682 claim 1 recites: “ A method of determining carrier status of an embryo for a balanced chromosomal rearrangement (BCR) prior to implantation of the embryo, said method comprising: obtaining cells of the embryo from a trophectoderm biopsy at least day 4 post in vitro fertilization; conducting long-read nanopore sequencing and data analysis of the DNA of the cells and the DNA of the parent carrier of BCR to detect at least one breakpoint, wherein the sequencing is conducted on DNA fragments prepared from the DNA of the parent carrier of BCR and from the DNA of the cells, wherein said DNA fragments comprise ultra long fragments of 50 kb or greater, and said DNA fragments comprise an average fragment length of from about 5 to 15 kb, wherein the BCR of the parent carrier comprises a Robertsonian translocation; preparing customized primers specific to the breakpoint; employing the customized primers in a polymerase chain reaction customized to the breakpoint ( cBP -PCR) to determine whether the breakpoint is indicative of BCR; determining on the basis of cBP -PCR whether the embryo status is BCR carrier or BCR noncarrier; and determining, on the basis of Sanger sequencing, whether the BCR carrier embryo is fully balanced. ” The present claim 1 differs only in that it recites the broader claim terms: “chromosomal rearrangement” rather than “balanced chromosomal rearrangement”, “ said DNA fragments comprise an average fragment length of from about 5 to 20 kb ” rather than “ said DNA fragments comprise an average fragment length of from about 5 to 15 kb ”, and “the chromosomal rearrangement of the parent carrier comprises a translocation, reciprocal translocation, deletion, insertion, duplication, pericentric inversion, or paracentric inversion” rather than “ the BCR of the parent carrier comprises a Robertsonian translocation ” . The present claim 16 is broader in scope than the present claim 1, requiring only steps of obtaining cells from the embryo from a trophectoderm biopsy at least day 4 post IVF; conducting long-read nanopore sequencing and data analysis of the DNA of the cells and the DNA of the parent carrier of the chromosomal rearrangement to detect at least one breakpoint; preparing customized primers specific to the breakpoint; performing cBP -PCR to determine whether the breakpoint is indicative of chromosomal rearrangement, whether the embryo is a carrier or noncarrier of the chromosomal rearrangement, and performing Sanger sequencing to determine whether a chromosomal rearrangement carrier embryo is fully balanced. Therefore, the method recited by claim 1 of ‘682 is encompassed by, and thus anticipates, the broader claimed methods of the present claims 1 and 16. Conclusion The prior art made of record in addition to that cited on applicant’s IDS and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chow 2019 B “Selective Transfer of Euploid Noncarrier Embryos with the use of Long-read Sequencing in Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Reciprocal Translocation” RBMO Volume 39 Issue S1, p e14-e15, August 14 2019. This reference is a conference abstract describing similar methods to those described by the Chow 2019 A reference prior to the publication of Chow 2019 A. Zhang et al. 2020 , “Current Status and Recent Advances in Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Structural Rearrangements” Reproductive and Developmental Medicine Volume 4, issue 1, March 25, 2020. This reference is a review of the general state of the art in late 2019/early 2020. Zhang et al. 2019 , “Long-read sequencing and haplotype linkage analysis enabled preimplantation genetic testing for patients carrying pathogenic inversions” J Med Genet 2019; 56:741-749. This reference disclosed similar methods to those disclosed by Chow et al., 2019 A . Kuznyetsov et al. , “Evaluation of a novel non-invasive preimplantation genetic screening approach” PLoS ONE 13(5): e0197262 (May 10, 2018). This reference discloses a very similar workflow to that of present claim 1, except that “next generation sequencing” comprising short reads rather than the claimed long read nanopore sequencing. Xu et al. , “Mapping allele with resolved carrier status of Robertsonian and reciprocal translocation in human preimplantation embryos” PNAS 114(41 ):E 8695-E8702 September 27, 2017. This reference discloses a similar workflow to present claim 1, except that the sequencing step comprises short read “next generation sequencing” rather than the claimed long read nanopore sequencing. No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZACHARY MARK TURPIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5917 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm . 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 Winston Shen can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712723157 . 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. /Z.M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 1682 /WU CHENG W SHEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1682