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. Claims 1,3-5,10-22,25-26,29-32,45,47 are pending. Claims 2,6-9,23-24,27-28,33-44,46,48-51 have been cancelled. An action on the merits is set forth below. 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. Claims 1,3-5,10-22,25-26,29-32,45,47 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. Claim 1 is indefinite over the structures required by claim 1. In pa rticular the language of the claim include multiple “optionally” recitations and it is not clear which structures would be encompassed with the term. For example in part iv there is a recitation of “ optionally ” and it is not clear if the term intends the structure of iv or iv-vi. Claims 3-5,10-22,25-26,29-32,45,47 are indefinite over the methods required by claim 3 . In particular the language of the claim include multiple “optionally” recitations and it is not clear which methods would be encompassed with the term. For example in part iv there is a recitation of “ optionally ” and it is not clear if the term intends the methods of step iv or the method steps of iv-viii. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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) 1,3-5,10-22,25-26,29-32,45,47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chee et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20120129716 May 24, 2012) . With regard to claim 3, Chee et al. teaches methods of contacting a sample with a primary probe that binds to a target (para 111-137) . Chee et al teaches a method of hybridizing secondary probes to primary probes and tertiary probes to secondary probes (para 137-140). Chee et al. taches detection of labels (para 103) and as such teaches imaging. It is noted that steps iii-viiii can be interpreted as optional. With regard to claim 4, Chee et al. teaches multiple probes and samples (para 270-274) and as such at least step I is repeated. With regard to claim 5, Chee et al. teaches stabilizing the primer probe (para 148). With regard to 10, Chee et al. teaches that the secondary and tertiary probes comp rises amplifier fragments (para 111). With regard to claim 11 -1 3 , Chee et al. teaches methods of using secondary and tertiary probes that amplify to a region of a primer (para 111-137 ). The terms “amplifier fragment” is not defined in the specif ication . As such the term would encompass any nucle oti de that is complementary to the primer probe. As such the region that hybridized would be considered a first and second amplifier fragment. With regard to claim s 14 -16 , Chee et al. teaches a method wherein the fragments are ligated with a ligase (para 101-104). With regard to claim 17-18, Chee et al. teaches that there is a detection probe to bind to a junction (splint sequence) and as such would be considered a read out probe (para 101-103). With regard to claim 19, Chee et al. teaches UV crosslinking (para 169). With regard to claim 20, Chee et al. teaches RNA or DNA targets. With regard to claim 21, Chee et al. teaches methods wherein targets are conjugated to a primer (oligonucleotide) (para 62). With regard to Claims 22, 25 and 29, Chee et al. teaches ligation using phosphate groups and as such teaches cis ligated (para 62 and 63). With regard to claim 26 , Chee et al. teaches methods of contacting a sample with a primary probe that binds to a target (para 111-137). With regard to claim 30 , Chee et al. teaches that there is a detection probe to bind to a junction (splint sequence) and as such would be considered a read out probe (para 101-103). With regard to claims 31-32, Chee et al. teaches that the that the detection probes can be different (e.g. multiple detection probes), but also that the detection probes can be used in different samples (e.g. the same sequence) ( para 101-105). With regard to claim 45, Chee et al. teaches performing the method multiple times with multiple detection probes and as such the detection differs (para 101-105 and 133). With regard to claim 47 , Chee et al. teaches that there is a detection probe to bind to a junction (splint sequence) and as such would be considered a read out probe and Chee et al teaches it is ligated (para 101-103). Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KATHERINE D SALMON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3316 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9-530 . 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 Wu Cheng (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. /KATHERINE D SALMON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682