CTNF 18/701,982 CTNF 81567 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Detailed Action Claims 1-42 (dated 04/17/2024) are pending and is now under consideration for examination; examiner notes that there are two sets of claims dated 04/17/2024 and are identical. Priority Applicants’ claim for the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. This application is a 371 of PCT/US2022/078260 filed on 10/18/2022, which claims benefit of Provisional application 63/256,754 filed on 10/18/2021. However, note that claims 8 and method claims 20-42 are only given the priority date of 371 of PCT/US2022/078260 filed on 10/18/2022 . Information disclosure statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2024 and 01/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement is considered and initialed by the examiner. 35 U.S.C. 112 Specification. I. (e) REFERENCE IN MULTIPLE DEPENDENT FORM. — A claim in multiple dependent form shall contain a reference, in the alternative only, to more than one claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the particular claim in relation to which it is being considered. MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIMS/objection I. Claims 19, 20 and claims 21-37 (depending therefrom); and claim 38 and claims 39-42 (depending therefrom) is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 19-42 not been further treated on the merits. Claims Objections II. Recitation of “and/or” in claims 20-21, 24, 29-30, 34, 38 and claims 22-23, 25-28, 32-33, 35-37 and 39-42 (depending therefrom) makes the claim indefinite, as it is not clear what limitations must be present. Correction and clarification is required. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “…or …”. Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA 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. I. Claims 19, 20 and claims 21-37 (depending therefrom); and claim 38 and claims 39-42 (depending therefrom) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 19-20 and 38 as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim; it is not clear what the applicants’ intend to encompass in the rejected claims and the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear and as being indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. Correction and clarification is required. II. Claims 20-21, 24, 29-30, 34, 38 and claims 22-23, 25-28, 32-33, 35-37 and 39-42 (depending therefrom) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention; recitation of “and/or” in claims 20-21, 24, 29-30, 34 and 38 makes the claims indefinite, as it is not clear what limitations must be present. The metes and bounds of claims 20-21, 24, 29-30, 34, 38 and claims 22-23, 25-28, 32-33, 35-37 and 39-42 (depending therefrom) are not clear and thus, it would not be possible to one of ordinary skill in the art to define the metes and bounds of the desired patent protection. The rejection may be overcome by amending the claims to recite “… or …”. Correction and clarification is required. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “…or …”. 07-04 AIA 07-04-01 Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 101 Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 07-04-03 Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism. Claims 20-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability , 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 Claims 20-42 recites "A method of effecting precision epigenetic modulation… host cell comprising : a nucleic acid molecule…wherein the expression and/or activity of one or more genes of interest in the one or mor cells is modulated … wherein the cels are in a subject… ." The specification discloses that "the target DNA molecule is present in the genome of a cell, preferably a mammalian cell, more preferably a human cell " see ¶ [00820087], [0111], pages 16-17 and 24 of specification. Therefore, when the cell of claims 20 and 38 is present in vivo , it reads on a human organism, which is excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act. Examiner also takes the position that the claimed method reads on the genetic modification of human germ cells/germline modification and thus the rejection is maintained. Applicant is advised to amend such that the claim recites " an isolated host cell ." Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 112(a) 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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. 07-31-01 I. Claims 1-42 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, at the time the invention was made, of the specific subject matter claimed. For a broad generic claim, the specification must provide adequate written description to identify the genus of the claim. “ A written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a description of a chemical species, 'requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name,' of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials." Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1171, 25 USPQ2d 1601; In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 284985 (CCPA 1973) (“In other cases, particularly but not necessarily, chemical cases, where there is unpredictability in performance of certain species or subcombinations other than those specifically enumerated, one skilled in the art may be found not to have been placed in possession of a genus.”). Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398. MPEP § 2163 further states that if a biomolecule is described only by a functional characteristic, without any disclosed correlation between function and structure of the biomolecule, it is "not sufficient characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed biomolecule .” “The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice . . ., reduction to drawings . . ., or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus.” MPEP 2163. Furthermore, a “‘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 disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure ‘indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us].’ See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004) (‘[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated.’). ‘A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when … the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed.’ In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” MPEP 2163. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2163(I). Claims 1-42 as interpreted encompass a genera of structural elements i.e., any isolated nucleic acid molecule, comprising: any nucleic acid sequence encoding (i) any deactivated Cas9 (dCas9) endonuclease of undefined and unlimited structures, (ii) at least one polypeptide having any enzymatic activity of undefined and unlimited structures, and (iii) at least one guide RNA of undefined and unlimited structures targeting any gene of interest or portion thereof having no specific structural elements; wherein the dCas9 endonuclease comprises a deactivated Staphylococcus aureus Cas9 (dSaCas9), a deactivated Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 (dSpCas9), a deactivated Campylobacter jejuni Cas9 (dCjCas9), or a variant dCas9 endonuclease of undefined and unlimited structures (as in claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9-42 ); said nucleic acid molecule is any fragment of SEQ ID NOs: 24 or 25 or 26 (as in claims 3-4 ); said nucleic acid molecule is any fragment of SEQ ID NOs: 58 or 59 (as in claim 8) ; and methods of use of said genera of structural elements (as in claims 20-42 ; also see claims objections, 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above for claims interpretation). The prior art clearly provides evidence regarding the structural specificity of deactivated Cas9 and the specific requirement of structural features regarding guide RNAs (gRNA) that are utilized for targeting any gene of interest or genome of interest, as gRNA directed towards targeting of coding or non-coding strand of gene of interest or genome of interest affects the efficiency of genome editing (Qi et al., Cell, 2013, Vol. 152(5): 1173-1183; see Abstract; Results, pages 3-7; and entire document). No information, beyond the characterization of rAAV vector composition comprising specific constructs and specific structures (see Table 1, pages 140-145; of specification) has been provided by the applicants’, which would indicate that they had possession of claimed genera of structural elements i.e., any isolated nucleic acid molecule, comprising: any nucleic acid sequence encoding (i) any deactivated Cas9 (dCas9) endonuclease of undefined and unlimited structures, (ii) at least one polypeptide having any enzymatic activity of undefined and unlimited structures, and (iii) at least one guide RNA of undefined and unlimited structures targeting any gene of interest or portion thereof having no specific structural elements; wherein the dCas9 endonuclease comprises a deactivated Staphylococcus aureus Cas9 (dSaCas9), a deactivated Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 (dSpCas9), a deactivated Campylobacter jejuni Cas9 (dCjCas9), or a variant dCas9 endonuclease of undefined and unlimited structures (as in claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9-42 ); said nucleic acid molecule is any fragment of SEQ ID NOs: 24 or 25 or 26 (as in claims 3-4 ); said nucleic acid molecule is any fragment of SEQ ID NOs: 58 or 59 (as in claim 8) ; and methods of use of said genera of structural elements (as in claims 20-42 ; also see claims objections, 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above for claims interpretation); furthermore, the specification provides no guidance regarding either modulating any gene of interest or anticipating the source of and preventing or treating of Alzheimer’s disease irrespective etiology and pathology or all the preemptive measures that can be taken to prevent Alzheimer’s disease including the use of the claimed genera of structural elements of undefined and unlimited structures in the claimed prevention of Alzheimer’s disease . As the claimed nucleic acid molecules and method of effecting precision epigenetic modulation encompass a genera of structural elements i.e., any isolated nucleic acid molecule, comprising: any nucleic acid sequence encoding (i) any deactivated Cas9 (dCas9) endonuclease of undefined and unlimited structures, (ii) at least one polypeptide having any enzymatic activity of undefined and unlimited structures, and (iii) at least one guide RNA of undefined and unlimited structures targeting any gene of interest or portion thereof having no specific structural elements; wherein the dCas9 endonuclease comprises a deactivated Staphylococcus aureus Cas9 (dSaCas9), a deactivated Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 (dSpCas9), a deactivated Campylobacter jejuni Cas9 (dCjCas9), or a variant dCas9 endonuclease of undefined and unlimited structures (as in claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9-42 ); said nucleic acid molecule is any fragment of SEQ ID NOs: 24 or 25 or 26 (as in claims 3-4 ); said nucleic acid molecule is any fragment of SEQ ID NOs: 58 or 59 (as in claim 8) ; and methods of use of said genera of structural elements (as in claims 20-42 ; also see claims objections, 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above for claims interpretation), having widely variable structures and associated function in the claimed genera of nucleic acid molecules, since minor changes in structure may result in changes affecting function and no additional information correlating structure with function has been provided. Furthermore, “Possession may not be shown by merely describing how to obtain possession of members of the claimed genus or how to identify their common structural features” (See University of Rochester , 358 F.3d at 927, 69 USPQ2d at 1895). Therefore, one skilled in the art cannot reasonably conclude that applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the instant application was filed. Applicants are referred to the revised guidelines concerning compliance with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, published in the Official Gazette and also available at www.uspto.gov. Enablement II. Claims 1-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification is enabling for characterization of rAAV vector composition comprising specific constructs and specific structures (see Table 1, pages 140-145; of specification), isolated host cells comprising said expression vector and methods of making and use of said rAAV vector, does not reasonably provide enablement for a genera of structural elements i.e., any isolated nucleic acid molecule, comprising: any nucleic acid sequence encoding (i) any deactivated Cas9 (dCas9) endonuclease of undefined and unlimited structures, (ii) at least one polypeptide having any enzymatic activity of undefined and unlimited structures, and (iii) at least one guide RNA of undefined and unlimited structures targeting any gene of interest or portion thereof having no specific structural elements; wherein the dCas9 endonuclease comprises a deactivated Staphylococcus aureus Cas9 (dSaCas9), a deactivated Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 (dSpCas9), a deactivated Campylobacter jejuni Cas9 (dCjCas9), or a variant dCas9 endonuclease of undefined and unlimited structures (as in claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9-42 ); said nucleic acid molecule is any fragment of SEQ ID NOs: 24 or 25 or 26 (as in claims 3-4 ); said nucleic acid molecule is any fragment of SEQ ID NOs: 58 or 59 (as in claim 8) ; and methods of use of said genera of structural elements (as in claims 20-42 ; also see claims objections, 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above for claims interpretation); furthermore, the specification provides no guidance regarding either modulating any gene of interest or anticipating the source of and preventing or treating of Alzheimer’s disease irrespective etiology and pathology or all the preemptive measures that can be taken to prevent Alzheimer’s disease including the use of the claimed genera of structural elements of undefined and unlimited structures in the claimed prevention of Alzheimer’s disease . The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make/use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims without undue experimentation. Factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is required are summarized in In re Wands (858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ 2nd 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) as follows: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claim(s). Claims 1-42 , broadly encompass a genera of structural elements i.e., any isolated nucleic acid molecule, comprising: any nucleic acid sequence encoding (i) any deactivated Cas9 (dCas9) endonuclease of undefined and unlimited structures, (ii) at least one polypeptide having any enzymatic activity of undefined and unlimited structures, and (iii) at least one guide RNA of undefined and unlimited structures targeting any gene of interest or portion thereof having no specific structural elements; wherein the dCas9 endonuclease comprises a deactivated Staphylococcus aureus Cas9 (dSaCas9), a deactivated Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 (dSpCas9), a deactivated Campylobacter jejuni Cas9 (dCjCas9), or a variant dCas9 endonuclease of undefined and unlimited structures (as in claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9-42 ); said nucleic acid molecule is any fragment of SEQ ID NOs: 24 or 25 or 26 (as in claims 3-4 ); said nucleic acid molecule is any fragment of SEQ ID NOs: 58 or 59 (as in claim 8) ; and methods of use of said genera of structural elements (as in claims 20-42 ; also see claims objections, 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above for claims interpretation) and the scope of the claims does not commensurate with the enablement provided by the disclosure and the specification provides no guidance regarding either modulating any gene of interest or anticipating the source of and preventing or treating of Alzheimer’s disease irrespective etiology and pathology or all the preemptive measures that can be taken to prevent Alzheimer’s disease including the use of the claimed genera of structural elements of undefined and unlimited structures in the claimed prevention of Alzheimer’s disease . While a few rAAV vectors comprising specific structural elements that specifically target specific genes under in vitro conditions are known in the art, there are no reports of procedures for use of the claimed structural elements in preventing or treating of Alzheimer’s disease irrespective etiology and pathology or all the preemptive measures that can be taken to prevent Alzheimer’s disease including the use of the claimed genera of structural elements of undefined and unlimited structures in the claimed prevention of Alzheimer’s disease . Because there is no such readily available guidance in prior art, nor does the specification provides one, it would be undue experimentation for those skilled in the art to make and use said genera of nucleic acid molecules for intended purposes. In view of the great breadth of the claims, amount of experimentation required to make and use the claimed composition, the lack of guidance, working examples, and unpredictability of the art in predicting the use of claimed nucleic acid molecule composition described in the present inventio for treating or in the prevention of claimed disease condition(s). For the above purpose, the claimed invention would require undue experimentation. As such, the specification fails to teach one of ordinary skill how to use the full scope of the composition encompassed by the claims. Thus, applicants have not provided sufficient guidance or shown any therapeutic procedures in their working examples to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention in a manner reasonably correlated with the scope of the claims broadly including: preventing or treating of Alzheimer’s disease irrespective etiology and pathology or all the preemptive measures that can be taken to prevent Alzheimer’s disease including the use of the claimed genera of structural elements of undefined and unlimited structures in the claimed prevention of Alzheimer’s disease . The scope of the claims must bear a reasonable correlation with the scope of enablement ( In re Fisher , 166 USPQ 1924 (CCPA 1970)). Without sufficient guidance, determination of compositions for making and using said nucleotide compositions is unpredictable and the experimentation left to those skilled in the art is unnecessarily, and improperly extensive and undue. See In re Wands (858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ 2nd 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988). However, claims reading on significant numbers of inoperative embodiments would render claims non-enabled when the specification does not clearly identify the operative embodiments and undue experimentation is involved in determining those that are operative .” Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1577, 224 USPQ 409, 414 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cook , 439 F.2d 730, 735, 169 USPQ 298, 302 (CCPA 1971); MPEP 2164.08(b). Here, the claims read on a significant number of inoperative embodiments . In this regard, the application disclosure and claims are compared per the factors indicated in the decision In re Wands 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2nd 1400 (Fed. Cir, 1988). These factors are considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a description that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is undue. The factors include but are not limited to: (1) the nature of the invention; (2) the breath of the claims; (3) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; (4) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (5) the presence or absence of working examples; (6) the quantity of experimentation necessary; (7) the relative skill of those skilled in the art. Each factor is here addressed on the basis of a comparison of the disclosure, the claims, and the state of the prior art in the assessment of undue experimentation. Without sufficient guidance, determination of a genera of active nucleic acid molecule(s) having no specific structural elements in the composition is unpredictable and the experimentation left to those skilled in the art is unnecessarily, and improperly, extensive and undue. See In re Wands 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2nd 1400 (Fed. Cir, 1988). Although the claims are examined in the light of the specification, specification cannot be read into the claims, i.e., the limitations of the specification cannot be read into the claims (see MPEP 2111 R-5). 415 F.3d at 1316, 75 USPQ2d at 1329. See also In re Hyatt , 211 F.3d 1367, 1372,54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater , 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (Claim 9 was directed to a process of analyzing data generated by mass spectrographic analysis of a gas. The process comprised selecting the data to be analyzed by subjecting the data to a mathematical manipulation. The examiner made rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 102. In the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, the examiner explained that the claim was anticipated by a mental process augmented by pencil and paper markings. The court agreed that the claim was not limited to using a machine to carry out the process since the claim did not explicitly set forth the machine. The court explained that “reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.” The court found that applicant was advocating the latter, i.e., the impermissible importation of subject matter from the specification into the claim.). See also In re Morris , 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The court held that the PTO is not required, in the course of prosecution, to interpret claims in applications in the same manner as a court would interpret claims in an infringement suit. Rather, the “PTO applies to verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in applicant’s specification.”). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. III. Claims 20-42 (directed to a host cell comprising in its genome the nucleic acid molecules of claims 20 and 38 ) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement when given the broadest reasonable interpretation, because, while claims 20-42 is enabling for an isolated host cell transformed with the recombinant expression vector, does not reasonably provide enablement for transgenic multi-cellular organisms or host cells within a multi-cellular organism that have been transformed with the synthetic nucleic acid . The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with the claims. However, in this case the disclosure is limited to only host cells in vitro . Thus, Applicants’ have not provided sufficient guidance to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention in a manner reasonably correlated with the scope of the claims broadly including the use of host cells within a multi-cellular organism for the production of polypeptide. The scope of claims must bear a reasonable correlation with the scope of enablement ( In re Fisher , 166 USPQ 19 24 (CCPA)). Without sufficient guidance, expression of genes in a particular host cell and having the desired biological characteristics is unpredictable, the experimentation left to those skilled in the art is unnecessarily, and improperly, extensive and undue. See In re Wands 858 F. 2d 731, 8 USPQ 2 nd 1400 (Fed. Cir., 1988). It is suggested that the Applicants’ limit the claim to “An isolated host cell …”. IV. The scope of the instant invention and claims 20-42 as written encompasses genetic modification of a cell in vivo , therefore the invention falls in the realm of “Gene Therapy”. Gene Therapy is considered a highly experimental area of research at this time, and both researchers and the public agree that demonstrable progress to date has fallen short of initial expectations. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the NIH responded to widespread concern about risks, especially after the 1999 death of teenager in a phase I clinical trial. Many laboratories were shut down, public meetings were held, reviews and investigations commissioned and administrative changes have been put in place to deal with the crisis. But the troubles run deep within the heartland of biomedical science, where the most important concern remains the issue of safety. Gene therapy targets diseases based on the transfer of genetic material into an individual, rather than a drug. It uses genes as the therapeutic agent, and it is qualitatively very different from other forms of treatment. Gene Therapy is targeted at virtually every ill known to human beings, especially those inhabiting the first world. Massive investment has gone in but no clinical efficacy has ever been proven, despite anecdotal claims of success. Most studies have neglected to include well-defined biochemical or clinical end points that would clearly indicate whether the therapy is having a desired effect. The Recombinant DNA Advisory committee (RAC) also emphasized that expectation of current gene therapy protocols have been over sold without any apparent success. The advisory panel further emphasized the need for a greater understanding of an underlying mechanism associated with etiology of the disease in context. Furthermore, it is not possible to extrapolate from animal experiments to human studies. Gene transfer frequency is extremely low and results of gene therapy protocols rely on qualitative rather that quantitative assessments of gene transfer and expression. The panel concluded "only a minority of clinical studies, illustrated by some gene marking experiments, have been designed to yield useful basic information" [as these at least track the fate of the genetic vector]. The report states that there is "concern at the overselling of results of laboratory and clinical studies by investigators and their sponsors, either academic, federal, or industrial, leading to the widespread perception that gene therapy is further developed and more successful that it actually is". The NIH expert panel found that all gene transfer vectors are ineffective and it is not understood how they interact with the host. Basic studies of disease pathology and physiology have not been done, which are critical for designing treatment. It is not possible to extrapolate from animal experiments to human studies. In the cases of many diseases, animal models do not have the major manifestation of the disease in humans. Gene transfer frequency is extremely low and results of gene therapy protocols rely on qualitative rather that quantitative assessments of gene transfer and expression. In the instant case, considering the etiologies associated with Alzheimer’s disease, the state of the art at the time of filing, and the limited amount of guidance provided in the specification as filed, it is highly unpredictable that one skilled in the art would be able to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with instant claim. There are no controls, and biochemical or disease endpoints are not defined for any of the etiologies associated with Alzheimer’s disease and wherein the claimed nucleic acid molecule(s) could be potentially employed. Furthermore, in vitro gene transfer studies are not predictive of in vivo gene therapy because gene transfer frequency is much higher in vitro models where most of cells are undergoing rapid cell division, which is quite not the case in vivo environment. In addition, besides the limitations in gene transfer the problem to selectively target cells in vivo is still one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome. The viral particles binds to many cells they encounter in vivo and therefor would be diluted out before reaching their targets. In instant case treatment of diseases/conditions and considering the etiologies associated with Alzheimer’s disease and wherein the claimed nucleic acid molecule(s) could be potentially employed using gene based therapies and is not considered routine in the art not only because there is no disclosure as to how one skill in the art could successfully deliver and express the desired nucleic acid molecule but also because the specification fails to disclose sufficient guidance regarding specific genes and their association with specific conditions/diseases. Therefore, the experimentation left to those skilled in the art is unnecessarily, and improperly, extensive and undue. See In re Wands 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2nd 1400 (Fed. Cir, 1988). It is noted that the unpredictability of a particular area may alone provide reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the broad statement made in support of enablement of claims. See Ex parte Singh , 17 USPQ2d 1714 (BPAI 1991). Therefore, considering the state of the art and limited amount of guidance provided in the instant specification, one skill in the art would have to engage in excessive and undue amount of experimentation to exercise the invention as claimed. Taking all this into consideration, the specification provides insufficient guidance or teaching as to how to engineer genetic modification of a cell in vivo using the claimed nucleic acid molecule(s) agent. The specification does not provide guidance and fails to provide any correlation between vectors, cells comprising vectors, route and site of delivery, dosage amounts/frequencies. The specification fails to disclose how to carry out this method in a transgenic multicellular organism, including humans. Without such guidance in the specification and lack of correlative working examples, the claims would require an improperly extensive and undue amount of experimentation without a predictable degree of success on the part of the skilled artisan. (See In re Wands 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ 2nd 1400 Fed. Cir. 1988). The instant invention, as claimed, falls under the “germ of an idea” concept defined by the CAFC. The court stated that “patent protection is granted in return for an enabling disclosure, not vague intimations of general ideas that may or may not workable”. The court continues to say that “tossing out the mere germ of an idea does not constitute an enabling disclosure” and that “the specification, not knowledge in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement”. (See Genentech Inc v. Novo Nordisk A/S 42 USPQ2d 1001, at 1005). The scope of the instant invention and claims 20-42 as written encompasses genetic modification of a cell in vivo , therefore, the invention falls in the realm of gene therapy constitutes such a “germ of an idea”. Thus, applicants’ have not provided sufficient guidance to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention in a manner reasonably correlated with the scope of the claims, broadly including diseases/conditions and considering the etiologies associated with Alzheimer’s disease and wherein the claimed nucleic acid molecule(s) could be potentially employed. The scope of the claim must bear a reasonable correlation with the scope of enablement ( In re Fisher , 166 USPQ 19 24 (CCPA 1970)). Without sufficient guidance, determination of nucleic acid molecules having the desired biological characteristics is unpredictable and the experimentation left to those skilled in the art is unnecessarily, and improperly, extensive and undue. See In re Wands 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2nd 1400 (Fed. Cir, 1988). Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 102 (AIA) 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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 . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-32, 35-36 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Gersbach et al., (US 12,428,631 B2; priority 04/13/2017) when given the broadest reasonable interpretation . Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-32, 35-36 and 38-40 , Gersbach et al., (US 12,428,631 B2; priority 04/13/2017) disclose compositions and a method of modulating expression of a gene, in vivo , in a subject comprising administering to, or providing in, the subject: (a) (i) a fusion molecule comprising a sequence comprising a dCas9 molecule fused to a modulator of gene expression ; or (ii) a nucleic acid that encodes a fusion molecule comprising a sequence comprising a dCas9 molecule fused to a modulator of gene expression; and (b) (i) a gRNA which targets the fusion molecule to the gene; or (ii) a nucleic acid that encodes a gRNA which targets the fusion molecule to the gene in an amount sufficient to modulate expression of the gene (see Abstract; Fig. 1-14 and entire document); said reference dCas9 molecule having 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 24 of the instant invention (see provided sequence alignment); said reference discloses gRNA constructs comprising U6 promoter (see Figs. 1-14); said reference discloses dCas9-KRAB fusion constructs (Figs. 1-14; and entire document) and fusion constructs targeting MECP2, APOE and designed for treating Alzheimer’s disease (see Table 2-3; col. 51) and pharmaceutical compositions comprising said reference dCas9 molecules (col. 7, lines 40-45 to col. 8, lines 1-67; Claims; and entire document). Therefore, the reference of by Gersbach et al., (US 12,428,631 B2; priority 04/13/2017) is deemed to anticipate claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-32, 35-36 and 38-40 as written and when given the broadest reasonable interpretation and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing applicants’ composition and method with the composition and method of the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed composition and method and the composition and method of the prior art (i.e., that the method of the prior art does not possess the same material structural and functional characteristics of the method of the instant invention). See In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594. Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 103 07-20 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-20-02 AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). 07-23 AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21 AIA Claim s 1-7 and 9-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gersbach et al., (US 12,428,631 B2; priority 04/13/2017) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-32, 35-36 and 38-40 (see 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection above) and further in view of Cawood (US 2025/0270528 A1; priority 12/16/2020), Cong et al., (US 11,407,985 B2), Nagata et al., (US 5,266,491) and Munafo et al., (Front. Neurosci., 2020, Vol. 14, Article 614643, pages 1-14) . The disclosure of Gersbach et al., (US 12,428,631 B2; priority 04/13/2017) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-32, 35-36 and 38-40 is described above (see 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). However, Gersbach et al., are silent regarding wherein the dCjCas9 comprises the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:25, SEQ ID NO:26, or a fragment thereof (as in claim 4 ); wherein the at least one gRNA targets the SNCA gene or the promoter of the SNCA gene (as in claims 10 and 31-34 ); wherein the one or more promoters operably linked to the dCas9 endonuclease comprises an EF-1 a promoter (as in claim 14 ); and further comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of one or more immune modulators; wherein the one or more immune modulators comprise methotrexate, rituximab, intravenous gamma globulin, Tacrolimus, SVP-Rapamycin, bortezomib, or a combination thereof (as in claims 36-37 and 41-42 ). Regarding claim 4 , Cawood (US 2025/0270528 A1; priority 12/16/2020) disclose CRISPR/dCas9 polypeptides having 93.6% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 25 of the instant invention (¶ [0060]; see provided sequence alignment); said reference also provides teaching, suggestion and motivation for the use of said reference encoded CRISPR/dCas9 polypeptides as dCas9-KRAB fusion protein (see ¶ [0085-0086]). Regarding claims 10 and 31-34 , Cong et al., (US 11,407,985 B2) provides teaching, suggestion and motivation to a skilled artisan regarding the use of CRISPR/dCas9 polypeptides in rAAV vectors, U6 promoters, MECP fusions and gRNA constructs that targets the SNCA gene or the promoter of the SNCA gene (see Abstract; Figs. 1-3, 5-9; TABLE B, cols. 143-144; col. 169, line 57; and entire document). Regarding claim 14 , Nagata et al., (US 5,266,491) provides teaching, suggestion and motivation to a skilled artisan regarding the use of expression plasmids comprising a DNA fragment having a promoter region for a human polypeptide chain elongation factor-1.alpha. gene ( EF-1 a ) and said reference expression plasmids have high applicability to a wide range of host cells with high expression efficiency (Abstract; and entire document), a skilled artisan based on the teachings/suggestions of Nagata et al., will be motivated to utilize EF-1 a promoter to express the genes of interest in human cellular context. Regarding claims 36-37 and 41-42 , Munafo et al., (Front. Neurosci., 2020, Vol. 14, Article 614643, pages 1-14) provides teaching, suggestion and motivation to a skilled artisan regarding the use of immunomodulators in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (Abstract; and entire document); said reference teaches wherein the one or more immune modulators comprise methotrexate, rituximab, intravenous gamma globulin, Tacrolimus, SVP-Rapamycin, bortezomib, or a combination thereof (Fig. 2, page 5; Fig. 3, page 8; TABLE 1, page 9). As such, disclosure of strategy and methods for “wherein the dCjCas9 comprises the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:25, SEQ ID NO:26, or a fragment thereof; wherein the at least one gRNA targets the SNCA gene or the promoter of the SNCA gene (; wherein the one or more promoters operably linked to the dCas9 endonuclease comprises an EF-1 a promoter; and further comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of one or more immune modulators; wherein the one or more immune modulators comprise methotrexate, rituximab, intravenous gamma globulin, Tacrolimus, SVP-Rapamycin, bortezomib, or a combination thereof”; as in claims 4, 10, 14, 31-34, 36-37 and 41-42 of the instant invention, such as that of references of Cawood et al., Cong et al., Nagata et al., and Munafo et al., teaching the advantages of said modifications, clearly suggests to a skilled artisan to modify the teachings of Gersbach et al., and incorporate the structural and functional elements of Cawood et al., Cong et al., Nagata et al., and Munafo et al., in the claimed composition/nucleic acid molecules(s)/rAAV vectors and method of use as claimed in the instant invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success, since compositions, a method of modulating expression of a gene, in vivo , in a subject comprising administering to, or providing in, the subject: (a) (i) a fusion molecule comprising a sequence comprising a dCas9 molecule fused to a modulator of gene expression ; or (ii) a nucleic acid that encodes a fusion molecule comprising a sequence comprising a dCas9 molecule fused to a modulator of gene expression; and (b) (i) a gRNA which targets the fusion molecule to the gene; or (ii) a nucleic acid that encodes a gRNA which targets the fusion molecule to the gene in an amount sufficient to modulate expression of the gene and method of use are well known in the art. Double Patenting rejection 08-33 AIA 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-9, 11-33, 34-35 and 38-40 of the instant invention are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over amended claims 1-7, 9, 25, 27-30, 37 and 39-41 (dated 04/29/2026) of co-pending Application No. 18/033,166 (US 20230392133 A1). This is a provisional double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced co-pending application and would be covered by any patent granted on that co-pending application since the referenced co-pending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, said reference co-pending Application No. 18/033,166 (US 20230392133 A1) vector comprises nucleic acid molecules having 100% sequence identities of SEQ ID NOs: 24, 25, 26, 58 and 59 of the instant application (see provided sequence alignments); and furthermore, instant claims and co-pending application claims recite “comprising” and is an open language and includes unrecited elements and the claimed common subject-matter is as follows: The recited amended claims 1-7, 9, 25, 27-30, 37 and 39-41 (dated 04/29/2026) of co-pending Application No. 18/033,166 (US 20230392133 A1) also encompass “an isolated nucleic acid molecule, comprising: a nucleic acid sequence encoding (i) a deactivated Cas9 (dCas9) endonuclease, (ii) at least one polypeptide having an enzymatic activity, and (iii) at least one guide RNA targeting a gene of interest or portion thereof…wherein the at least one gRNA targets the APOE gene or the promoter of the APOE gene…wherein the subject is suspected of having or has been diagnosed with having Alzheimer's disease…” and the subject-matter as claimed in claims 1-9, 11-33, 34-35 and 38-40 of the instant application , falls entirely within the scope of co-pending claims in co-pending reference application . Allowable Subject Matter/Conclusion None of the claims are allowable. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU whose telephone number is (571)272-4533. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5pm EST. 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, Robert Mondesi can be reached on 408-918-7584. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 2 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 3 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 4 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 5 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 6 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 7 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 8 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 9 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 10 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 11 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 12 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 13 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 14 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 15 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 16 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 17 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 18 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 19 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 20 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 21 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 22 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 23 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 24 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 25 Art Unit: 1652 Application/Control Number: 18/701,982 Page 26 Art Unit: 1652
Prosecution Insights