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. Application Status Claims 1, 7, 9, 11-13, 21, 36, 39, 45, 48, 53, 54, 57, 59, 64, 73, 76, 78, and 79 are pending. Examination on the merits commences on claims 1, 7, 9, 11-13, 21, 36, 39, 45, 48, 53, 54, 57, 59, 64, 73, 76, 78, and 79 . 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. 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. Claims 1, 7, 9, 11-13, 21, 36, 39, 45, 48, 53, 54, 57, 59, 64, 73, 76, 78, and 79 is 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. Claim 1 recites, “… wherein the composition has an osmolarity of lower than about 450 mOsm /kg.” However, the term "osmolarity of 450mOsm/kg" in claim 1 renders its scope unclear, since the term osmolarity is known as Osm /L, thus per liter (L), while claim 1 indicates the osmoles per kg, which is known for indicating the osmolality. Creedon teaches that in biologic systems, osmolality is expressed as mOsm /kg of water. Osmolarity is the concentration of osmoles in a volume of solvent and in biologic systems is expressed as mOsm /L of water ( pg 263 col 2 para 2; Creedon ( Creedon , Jamie M. Burkitt. "Sodium disorders." Small animal critical care medicine . WB Saunders, 2015. 263-268.). Claims 7, 9, 11-13, 21, 36, 39, 45, 48, 53, 54, 57, 59, 64, 73, 76, 78, and 79 are also rejected under 35 USC 112 (b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 without remedying the indefiniteness. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) – Written Description The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention . Claim(s) 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. MPEP 2163.II.A3.(a).( i ) states, “whether the specification shows that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention is not a single, simple determination, but rather is a factual determination reached by considering a number of factors. Factors to be considered in determining whether there is sufficient evidence of possession include the level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention.” For claims drawn to a genus, MPEP 2163.II.A3.(a).(ii) states, “written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species” where “representative number of species’ means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.” The claims are drawn to “A method of treating a disease or a condition in a subject in need there of comprising administering to the subject a pharmaceutical composition comprising an extracellular vesicle comprising an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), wherein the ASO comprises a contiguous nucleotide sequence of 10 to 30 nucleotides in length that is complementary to a nucleic acid sequence within a STAT6 transcript . ” The specification has not adequately described the entire genus of “diseases” able to be treated by an ASO complementary to a nucleic acid sequence of a STAT6 transcript, for the following reasons. Size and Breadth of the Genus The claims are drawn to the broad genus of any disease capable of being treated by an ASO complementary to a nucleic acid sequence of a STAT6 transcript. The genus of “ disease ” is extensive and diverse. Species disclosed in the Specification The specification discloses a variety of diseases on page 7 including: a cancer, a fibrosis, a hemophilia, diabetes, a growth factor deficiency, an eye disease, a Pompe disease, a lysosomal storage disorder, mucovicidosis , cystic fibrosis, Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy, transthyretin amyloidosis, hemophilia A, hemophilia B, adenosine-deaminase deficiency, Leber's congenital amaurosis, X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy, metachromatic leukodystrophy, OTC deficiency, glycogen storage disease 1A, Criggler -Najjar syndrome, primary hyperoxaluria type 1, acute intermittent porphyria, phenylketonuria, familial hypercholesterolemia, mucopolysaccharidosis type VI, al antitrypsin deficiency, a hypercholesterolemia , bladder cancer, cervical cancer, renal cell cancer, testicular cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer , head and neck cancer, ovarian, lymphoma, liver cancer, glioblastoma, melanoma, myeloma, leukemia, and pancreatic cancer . However, the Specification does not disclose treatment of any disease in the working examples or describe diseases associated with STAT6. Species Disclosed in the Art The genus of “ diseases ” is broad and diverse in the art. Tamura et. al., teaches STAT6 related disease include allergic diseases such as atopic dermatitis, bronchial asthma, and food related anaphylaxis (abstract; Tamura, Kazushi, et al. "Linkage and association studies of STAT6 gene polymorphisms and allergic diseases." International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 131.1 (2003): 33-38. ) Regarding nucleic acid oligonucleotides as gene modulators, Wang teaches that the ability to predict nucleic acid hybridization (i.e., via “rational design”) is generally limited to the use of unmodified nucleic acids, and that many broadly employed chemical modifications to DNA and RNA have not been included in predictive models (pg. 2, para. 1 and pg. 14, para. 1; Wang et al., 2022, PLOS ONE, 17(5), e0268575). Wang teaches thermodynamic models of hybridization for nucleic acid molecules with phosphorothioate linkages, where each linkage modification decreases duplex stability (pg. 13, para. 4) Wang teaches that backbone and sugar ring modifications, in conjunctions with nucleotide sequence, would likely require a combinatorially large (and synthetically intractable) set of duplexes to fully characterize (pg. 13, para. 3). Therefore, it is unpredictable that nucleic acid hybridization without a rational design incorporating thermodynamics, phosphorothioate linkages or backbone/sugar ring modifications would successfully promote nucleic acid binding in such a way as to treat any disease . Roberts et. al., (Roberts, Thomas C., Robert Langer, and Matthew JA Wood. "Advances in oligonucleotide drug delivery." Nature reviews Drug discovery 19.10 (2020): 673-694.) teaches, “achieving efficient oligonucleotide delivery, particularly to extrahepatic tissues, remains a major translational limitation.” ( pg 673). Kobelt et, al., (Cancer Gene Therapy in Gene Therapy of Cancer: Methods and Protocols, Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 2521, pages 1-15 (Springer Nature 2022)) teaches gene transfer efficiency of nonviral vectors, either as naked DNA or RNA or as nanocomplexed /encapsulated vector construct, is limited ( pg 3 para 2). As the prior art establishes, there is substantial variation within the genus of diseases able to be treated by a nucleic acid . Applicant fails to adequately describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. Furthermore, the description of a representative number of species from the specification is not representative of the entire genus. Given the lack of guidance in the art and specification regarding common structural characteristics shared by members of the genus of “ disease ” and lack of predictability of undefined modifications, secondary structure, or function, the specification disclosure is not sufficient to show that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed “ disease ” as well as any disease associated with STAT6 at the time the invention was filed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) – Scope of Enablement The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 73 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for administering an ASO targeting STAT6 to treat a subject with a disease associated with STAT6, does not reasonably enable the method for the genus of all genes targeted by ASOs and all diseases and all subjects. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The test of enablement is whether one skilled in the art could make and use the claimed invention from the disclosures in the specification coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation ( United States v. Telectronics ., 8 USPQ2d 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Whether undue experimentation is needed is not based upon a single factor but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factors. These factors were outlined in Ex parte Forman , 230 USPQ 546 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986) and again in In re Wands , 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988), and the most relevant factors are indicated below: Nature of the Invention and Breadth of claims The claims are drawn to a method of treating a disease or a condition in a subject in need there of comprising administering to the subject a pharmaceutical composition comprising an extracellular vesicle comprising an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), wherein the ASO comprises a contiguous nucleotide sequence of 10 to 30 nucleotides in length that is complementary to a nucleic acid sequence within a STAT6 transcript. Guidance from the Specification The specification ( pg 110) teaches in Example 1 various ASO-loaded exosome constructs including exosomes loaded with ASOs targeting STAT6. The specification is limited as to working examples of ASOs targeting transcripts for treatments in subjects. State of the Art A thorough search of the related art demonstrates there is strong evidence that ASO targeting to specific tissues in any disease state is a therapeutic challenge. For example, Roberts et. al., (Roberts, Thomas C., Robert Langer, and Matthew JA Wood. "Advances in oligonucleotide drug delivery." Nature reviews Drug discovery 19.10 (2020): 673-694.) teaches, “achieving efficient oligonucleotide delivery, particularly to extrahepatic tissues, remains a major translational limitation.” ( pg 673). Kobelt et, al., (Cancer Gene Therapy in Gene Therapy of Cancer: Methods and Protocols, Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 2521, pages 1-15 (Springer Nature 2022)) teaches gene transfer efficiency of nonviral vectors, either as naked DNA or RNA or as nanocomplexed /encapsulated vector construct, is limited ( pg 3 para 2). Given the disclosed evidence of the challenges of nucleic acid targeted therapeutics, there is no reasonable predictability of an ASO composition able to target any transcript in any subject with any disease state. After a thorough search of the related art, in the administration method of claim 73, evidence in the art is lacking as to whether the method of treating a disease or a condition in a subject in need there of comprising administering to the subject the ASO composition of claim 1 could be effective. Taking this into consideration the lack of related examples in the specification, the lack of knowledge in the art, and the large genus in the claims, it is the conclusion that undue experimentation would be required to use the described invention with the entire genus of all genes targeted by ASOs and all diseases and all subjects. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 76 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 76 recites, “The pharmaceutical composition of claim 1, for treating a disease or a condition in a subject in need thereof.” However, “for treating a disease or a condition in a subject in need thereof” is considered intended use. Therefore, claim 76 is rejected because it does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, claim 1. MPEP 2111.02.II . states, “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” However, even if the intended use is recited in the body of a product claim, if the intended use does further limit the structure of the product, it is also not considered a limitation. Claim Interpretation Claim 1 recites “… wherein the composition has an osmolarity of lower than about 450 mOsm /kg.” Although osmolality not osmolarity is described by mOsm /kg, Examiner is interpreting osmolarity and osmolality as interchangeable in this case given the physiologic difference of osmolarity and osmolality are nearly identical and the terms are commonly used interchangeably in the art. 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, 7, 9, 12, 13, 36, 45, 48, 53, 54, 57, 64, 73, 76, 78, and 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Burzyn ( Burzyn , D., WO2021030776A1, published January 2021) as evidenced by RMBIO (RMBIO PBS parameters, https://rmbio.com/products/phosphate-buffered-saline- pbs#:~:text=Buffered%20saline%20solutions%20are%20balanced,such%20as%20serum%20or%20trypsin, retrieved 3/13/26, printed as pages 1/1 to 1/4, 2026). Regarding claim 1, Burzyn discloses ( Burzyn , [0622], claim 24, 136; figures 2A, 26B-D; examples 4, 15): An extracellular vesicle for treating conditions like lymphoma or other cancer types, comprising an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) which comprises a contiguous nucleotide sequence of 10 to 30 nucleotides in length that is complementary to a nucleic acid sequence within a STAT6 transcript. Example 4 discloses ASO Loading on exosomes [0713] wherein ASOs targeting STAT6 were loaded onto exosomes that overexpressed PTGFRN as shown in FIG.2A. For intravenous applications carriers are disclosed like physiological saline and phosphate buffered saline (PBS) [0622]. Example 15 discloses that mice treated with exo-STAT-6 ASO had improved survival relative to PBS and exo -Scramble controls (FIGs.26B-26D). Therefore exo-STAT6-ASOs in PBS are disclosed in Burzyn . PBS, phosphate buffered saline is a commonly known buffer with the following well known features: a known osmolality of 279~309 mOsm /kg , pH of 7.1~7.3 and comprising NaCI ( approx 137mM), KCI ( approx 2.7mM), Na₂HPO ₄ (approx. 10mM) and KH₂PO₄ (approx. 1.8mM) (RMBIO pg 3). Regarding carrier and buffers for administration, storage, and stabilization of the EV ASO compositions, Burzyn teaches acceptable stabilizer carriers, excipients, or stabilizers are nontoxic to recipients (e.g., animals or humans) at the dosages and concentrations employed, and include buffers such as phosphate, citrate, and other organic acids; antioxidants including ascorbic acid and methionine; preservatives (such as octadecyldimethylbenzyl ammonium chloride; hexamethonium chloride; benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride; phenol, butyl or benzyl alcohol; alkyl parabens such as methyl or propyl paraben; catechol; resorcinol; cyclohexanol; 3-pentanol; and m-cresol); low molecular weight (less than about 10 residues) polypeptides; proteins, such as serum albumin, gelatin, or immunoglobulins; hydrophilic polymers such as polyvinylpyrrolidone; amino acids such as glycine, glutamine, asparagine, histidine, arginine, or lysine; monosaccharides, disaccharides, and other carbohydrates including glucose, mannose, or dextrins ; chelating agents such as EDTA; sugars such as sucrose, mannitol, trehalose or sorbitol; salt-forming counter-ions such as sodium; metal complexes (e.g., Zn-protein complexes); and/or non-ionic surfactants such as TWEEN™, PLURONICS™ or polyethylene glycol (PEG). [0620] Examples of carriers or diluents include, but are not limited to, water, saline, Ringer's solutions, dextrose solution, and 5% human serum albumin. Burzyn teaches use of such media and compounds for pharmaceutically active substances is well known in the art [0619]. Regarding claim 7, Burzyn teaches exosomes resuspended in a minimal volume of PBS (~200 µL) and stored at 4°C until ready to be used [0710]. Examiner interprets storage in PBS as at least 24 hours. Regarding claim 9, the composition of the storage and administration buffers such as PBS has a pH of 7.1~7.3 , i.e. about 7.4 (RMBIO pg 3). Regarding claim 12, and the pharmaceutical buffers for stabilization disclosed by Burzyn [0619-0622] to facilitate optimized storage and delivery of the ASO containing EVs, Examiner interprets these buffers as anticipating elements i -vi of claim 12 absent evidence to the contrary, i.e. wherein the composition has ( i ) reduced aggregates, (ii) improved stability of the EV, (iii) improved integrity of the EV architecture, (iv) improved stability of engineered proteins contained on or in EVs, (v) improved filterability, and (vi) reduced dissociation of the ASO. Regarding claim 13, the composition of the storage and administration buffers such as PBS has a NaCl (RMBIO pg 3). Regarding claim 36, the EV/ASO storage buffers such as PBS are in a liquid solution state, i.e. non-lyophilized. Regarding claims 45 and 64, Burzyn teaches exosome protein scaffold moieties such as PTGFRN protein Fragment scaffolds [0461]. Regarding claim 48, Burzyn teaches a scaffold protein linker [0504]. Regarding claims 53 and 54, Burzyn teaches exosome protein scaffold moieties such as PTGFRN protein Fragment scaffolds with SEQ ID NO: 301 100% identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 6 [0468]. Regarding claim 57, Burzyn teaches ASOs of the invention include antiSTAT6 ASO SEQ ID NO: 91 with 100% identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 91 [0189]. Regarding claim 73, 78, and 79, Burzyn teaches exosomes, comprising an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO), wherein the ASO comprises a contiguous nucleotide sequence of 10 to 30 nucleotides in length that is complementary to a nucleic acid sequence within a STAT6 transcript and wherein the exosome/ASOs are comprised within methods for producing the exosomes and methods for using the exosomes to treat and/or prevent diseases or disorders (abstract). Buffer solutions for injection and storage carrying the EVs of the invention include PBS (phosphate buffered saline) which contains a salt [0622]. Regarding claim 76, Burzyn teaches the above applied to claim 1. Claim 76 recites, “The pharmaceutical composition of claim 1, for treating a disease or a condition in a subject in need thereof.” However, “for treating a disease or a condition in a subject in need thereof” is considered intended use and therefore not a required limitation. 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) 11, 21, 39, FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burzyn ( Burzyn , D., WO2021030776A1, published January 2021) as evidenced by RMBIO (RMBIO PBS parameters, https://rmbio.com/products/phosphate-buffered-saline-pbs#:~:text=Buffered%20saline%20solutions%20are%20balanced,such%20as%20serum%20or%20trypsin, retrieved 3/13/26, printed as pages 1/1 to 1/4, 2026). Regarding claims 11, 21, and 39 and the carrier/buffers for administration and storage of the EV ASO compositions, Burzyn teaches many acceptable carriers, excipients, or stabilizers are nontoxic to recipients (e.g., animals or humans) at the dosages and concentrations employed, and include buffers such as phosphate, citrate, and other organic acids; antioxidants including ascorbic acid and methionine; preservatives (such as octadecyldimethylbenzyl ammonium chloride; hexamethonium chloride; benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride; phenol, butyl or benzyl alcohol; alkyl parabens such as methyl or propyl paraben; catechol; resorcinol; cyclohexanol; 3-pentanol; and m-cresol); low molecular weight (less than about 10 residues) polypeptides; proteins, such as serum albumin, gelatin, or immunoglobulins; hydrophilic polymers such as polyvinylpyrrolidone; amino acids such as glycine, glutamine, asparagine, histidine, arginine, or lysine; monosaccharides, disaccharides, and other carbohydrates including glucose, mannose, or dextrins ; chelating agents such as EDTA; sugars such as sucrose, mannitol, trehalose or sorbitol; salt-forming counter-ions such as sodium; metal complexes (e.g., Zn-protein complexes); and/or non-ionic surfactants such as TWEEN™, PLURONICS™ or polyethylene glycol (PEG). Examples of carriers or diluents include, but are not limited to, water, saline, Ringer's solutions, dextrose solution, and 5% human serum albumin. Burzyn teaches the use of such media and compounds for pharmaceutically active substances is well known in the art [0619-0620]. Burzyn does not specify the specific parameters of the storage and administration buffers of the EV/ASO composition buffers, parameters such as the specific pI (isoelectric point), conductivity, or buffer concentrations, etc. However, Examiner notes that the optimization of doses/concentrations (i.e., pH, pI , conductivity, sucrose, NACL, KPO4, NAPO4) would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing: “[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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05). As set forth at MPEP 2144.05 II. A: “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.” Therefore, claims 11, 21, and 39 are obvious and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Regarding claim 59, Burzyn teaches ASOs of the invention include antiSTAT6 ASO SEQ ID NO: 91 with 100% identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 91 [0189]. Burzyn further teaches the stabilizing buffer solutions described above. Examiner again notes that the optimization of doses/concentrations of buffers are obvious based on routine experimentation, as described in the paragraph above. Conclusion All claims are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN CHARLES MCKILLOP whose telephone number is (703)756-1089. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30. 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, Jennifer Dunston can be reached on (571) 272-2916. 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. /JOHN CHARLES MCKILLOP/ Examiner, Art Unit 1637 /EKATERINA POLIAKOVA-GEORGANTAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1637