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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1, 15, 27, 30, 35, 39, 41, 45, 62, 64, 69, 72 are amended. New claims 201-205 are added. Claims 2-4, 6-14, 16-26, 28, 29, 31-34, 36-38, 40, 42-44, 46-61, 63, 65-68, 70, 71, 73-200 are canceled. Claims 1, 5, 15, 27, 30, 35, 39, 41, 45, 62, 64, 69, 72, 201-205 are under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/20/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3. (previous objection, withdrawn) The abstract of the disclosure was objected to.
Applicant contends: a new abstract is submitted.
In view of applicant’s submission, the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
4. (new objection) Claims 1, 62 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claims 1, 62, for improved and consistent language, claims 1, 62 should recite “ii) the first oncolytic virus is a Maraba MG1 virus and the second oncolytic virus is a Farmington virus”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. (previous rejection, withdrawn) Claims 1, 5, 13, 15, 27, 30, 35, 39, 41, 45, 62, 64, 67, 69, 72, 149 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as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.
Applicant contends: the claims have been amended.
In view of applicant’s amendments, the rejection is withdrawn.
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.
6. (new, necessitated by amendment) Claim 205 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.
See claim 205 as submitted 12/10/2025.
Claim 205 recites “the nucleic acid sequence”. Claim 62 on which the claim depends however recites “a first nucleic acid” and “a second nucleic acid”. It is not clear what is being referred to, or if both are being referred to.
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.
7. (new, necessitated by amendment) Claims 201, 203 are 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.
See claims 201, 203 as submitted 12/10/2025.
As to claim 201, the claim recites “wherein the priming composition comprises the nucleic acid sequence of (i) or the priming peptide composition of (ii)”. Claim 30 on which the claim depends however appears to require (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv), as the elements are not recited in the alternative. Thus claim 201 is not further limiting of claim 30 on which it depends.
As to claim 203, the claim recites “wherein the priming composition comprises the nucleic acid sequence of (i) or the priming peptide composition of (ii)”. Claim 202 on which the claim depends however appears to require (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv), as the elements are not recited in the alternative. Thus claim 203 is not further limiting of claim 202 on which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. (previous rejection, withdrawn) Claims 1, 5, 15, 27, 35, 39, 45 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojdl (WO2019195933A1; previously cited).
Applicant contends: Stojdl et al. does not teach or suggest the instant claims.
In view of applicant’s amendments, the rejection is withdrawn.
Double Patenting
9. (previous rejection, withdrawn) Claims 1, 5, 13, 27, 30, 35, 39, 45, 62, 64, 67, 69, 130, 149, 179, 182 were provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-9, 13, 14, 17, 28, 29, 49, 50, 64, 65 of copending
Applicant contends: copending Application No. 17/638576 has been abandoned.
In view of applicant’s amendments and the abandonment of the application, the rejection is moot.
10. (previous rejection, withdrawn) Claims 15, 72, 147 were provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-9, 13, 14, 17, 28, 29, 49, 50, 64, 65 of copending Application No. 17/638576 in view of Stojdl (cited above)
In view of the withdrawal of the rejection over claims 1, 3-9, 13, 14, 17, 28, 29, 49, 50, 64, 65 of copending Application No. 17/638576 on which the instant rejection depends, the instant rejection is also withdrawn.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A. Rooney et al. (WO2017173321A1)(See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited) teaches: immunotherapeutic peptides for use in the immunotherapy of cancer (abstract); including embodiments wherein isolated neoantigenic peptide is a first neoantigenic peptide linked to at least a second neoantigenic peptide p. 10).
B. Juneja et al. (WO2019126186A1)(See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited) teaches: priming dose and boosting dose [0400]; APCs loaded with first and second neoantigenic peptides [0292].
12. Claims 5, 15, 27, 30, 35, 39, 41, 45, 64, 69, 72, 202, 204 are objected to for depending on claims objected to.
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M FRANCO G SALVOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4468. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Thomas Visone can be reached at 571-270-0684. 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.
/M FRANCO G SALVOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1672