DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Status of Application, Amendments and/or Claims 1. Claims 1-18 are pending and under examination in the present application. Information Disclosure Statement 2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) filed 08/30/2021 have been considered and the references therein are of record. Note that two of the documents submitted on 08/30/2021 are PTO-892 forms from parent applications 13/060,143 and 15/285,181. The listing of references in these submitted documents is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.0 2 ( II ) (A)(2) states : If resubmitting a listing of the information [in a continuation application], applicant should submit a new listing that complies with the format requirements in 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and the timing requirements of 37 CFR 1.97. Applicants are strongly discouraged from submitting a list that includes copies of PTO/SB/08 or PTO-892 forms from other applications . A completed PTO/SB/08 form from another application may already have initials of an examiner and the application number of another application. This information will likely confuse the record. (emphasis added) Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892 in the instant application, they have not been considered. Specification 3. The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. See, in particular, at paragraphs [0088] and [00103]. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures 4. REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures. 37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted: In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying: the name of the ASCII text file; ii) the date of creation; and iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes; In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying: the name of the ASCII text file; the date of creation; and the size of the ASCII text file in bytes; In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended). When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824. If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical. If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical. Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows: Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the specification are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). See at p. 14 paragraphs [0079] and [0080], p. 15 paragraph [0084] , and present claim 4 . Required response – Applicant must provide: A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers, consisting of: A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version); A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: 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. 5. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a composition comprising a stabilized tau oligomer or a fragment or peptide derivative thereof, which are products of nature . The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 1, for example, reads upon a naturally-occurring tau peptide or oligomer. Claim 16 is directed to an agent that specifically binds to extracellular tau oligomer in a mammal, and reads upon a naturally-occurring anti-tau autoantibody, which is also a product of nature. In particular, claims 1-15 and 17-18 are drawn to composition comprising tau oligomers. Both the instant specification and the art acknowledge that tau oligomers are found naturally in subjects having tau-associated pathology, such as in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients. The instant specification demonstrates, for example, that disulfide-linked tau oligomers, such as dimers and trimers, are present in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of AD patients (see Figure 7). See also Senguta et al. ( Ann Clin Translat Neurol . 2017, 4(4):226-235) which similarly reports the presence of tau oligomers in CSF of AD patients, which oligomers include dimers, trimers, and higher order aggregates. Further, Hasegawa et al. ( Acta Neuropathol . 2014, 127:303-305) teaches that the 3R and 4R isoforms of tau are present in oligomers found in AD patients. Also, all six peptide sequences recited in the claims (i.e., SEQ ID NOs: 1-6) are naturally occurring amino acid sequences of the tau protein. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite a composition comprising the tau oligomers . While dependent claims 9-12 , 14-15 and 17 recite intended uses of the claimed products (i.e., the tau peptide “is adapted” for use in immunotherapeutic or drug screening purposes), these recitations do not change the structure of the claimed tau peptides. Accordingly, because there are no differences in characteristics between the claimed and naturally-occurring tau peptide oligomers, the claimed tau oligomers are not integrated into a practical application as they do not have any markedly different characteristics from what exist in nature, and are thus still “product of nature” exceptions. Claim 16 is drawn to a composition comprising an immunotherapeutic agent that specifically binds to extracellular tau oligomer in a mammal. The specification does not provide a limiting definition for the term “immunotherapeutic agent”, but implies that it could be an antibody or else a tau peptide dimer (see, for example, [0007], [0021] and [0049]). Note that a tau peptide dimer would specifically bind to other tau oligomers. Thus, the BRI of an “immunotherapeutic agent” reads upon a tau oligomer, which as discussed above is a product of nature, or else an antibody that binds tau, which is also a product of nature. For example, the art recognizes that naturally-occurring anti-tau autoantibodies can be found in human subjects (see Wu et al. (2016) J Biomed Res . 30(5):361-372 ). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed tau oligomers and antibodies are not markedly different from their naturally occurring counterparts . Therefore, the claims do not qualify as patent eligible subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. 6. Claim s 1-18 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. This is a written description rejection . Claims 1, 17 and dependent claims thereof is drawn to a composition comprising stabilized tau oligomer or a fragment or peptide derivative thereof. Claim 16 is drawn to a composition comprising an immunotherapeutic agent that specifically binds to extracellular tau oligomer in a mammal. The claims are thus directed to a genus of peptide fragments and derivatives of peptides, as well as “immunotherapeutic agents”, which are not structurally limited and are defined broadly by a desired functional property. The fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought , applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc ., 935 F.2d at 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d at 1117. The factors to be considered when analyzing claims for compliance with the written description requirement include: actual reduction to practice; disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas; sufficient relevant identifying characteristics (e.g., disclosure of complete or partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, structure/function correlation); method of making the claimed invention; level of skill and knowledge in the art; and predictability in the art. See MPEP §2163. The recitation of a fragment or peptide derivative of a tau oligomer represent a partial structure only in the sense that the structure of peptide molecules is generally known. The recitation of an immunotherapeutic agent that specifically binds to extracellular tau oligomer represents a functional characteristic with no structure. In each case, the peptide’s, derivative’s, or agent’s structure can vary substantially within the above given claimed recitations. The instant specification indicates that fragments include “less than entire tau protein provided the fragment is antigenic and will cause antibodies or antibody binding fragments to react with the tau fragment.” The specification also states at [0089] that peptide derivatives include “derivatives (chemically functionalized protein molecules obtained starting with the disclosed protein sequences) or mimetics (three-dimensionally similar chemicals) of the native tau oligomer, as well as proteins sequence variants (such as mutants), genetic alleles, fusion proteins of tau or combinations thereof.” Thus, neither the peptide fragments nor the peptide derivatives are particularly structurally limited and, in the case of the derivatives, encompasses molecules that may not even been peptides. The instant specification does not provide a definition for the “immunotherapeutic agent” of claim 16, but instead implies that the agent could be a tau peptide or else an antibody molecule. See, for example, paragraphs [0007], [0021] and [0049] as discussed above. Thus, the claimed agent is not structurally limited and is claimed only in its desired functional characteristic to specifically bind tau oligomer. While the recitation of an antibody, for example, may provide a general structure for the claimed agent, the specification does not describe any correlation between the structure of any agent and the ability to specifically bind tau oligomer and act in an immunotherapeutic manner, nor does the art recognize such a correlation. In each of the cases of the peptide fragment, peptide derivative, or immunotherapeutic agent, therefore, the genus of molecules is highly variant because a significant number of structural differences between genus members is permitted. Consequently, in the absence of sufficient recitation of distinguishing identifying characteristics, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the claimed genera nor guidance as to which of the myriad of molecules encompassed by the claimed fragments, derivatives and agents would meet the limitations of the claims. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar , 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991), clearly states that “applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed. ” (See page 1117.) The specification does not “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” (See Vas-Cath at page 1116). The skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the encompassed claimed agents (if any) which have the ability to bind tau oligomer or act as an immunotherapeutic agent, without further testing , and therefore conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of identification. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method of isolating it. The compound itself is required. See Fiers v. Revel , 25 USPQ2d 1601 at 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. , 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Functionally defined genus claims can be inherently vulnerable to invalidity challenge for lack of written description support, especially in technology fields that are highly unpredictable, where it is difficult to establish a correlation between structure and function for the whole genus or to predict what would be covered by the functionally claimed genus. Abbvie Deutschland GMBH & Co. v. Janssen Biot ech, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014 , Appeal No. 13-1338 at page 26 ). Therefore, the full breadth of the claims does not meet the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. 7. Claim s 7, 9-15 and 17-18 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 7 is indefinite because it recites tau oligomers formed by “reacting” various tau variants, but does not set forth clear metes and bounds as to how the “reacting” is carried out. Additionally, claim 7 recites that the tau oligomers are formed by reacting tau 4R dimer and tau 4R/3R dimer with tau 4R monomer and tau 3R monomer to form tau trimer, tetramer or pentamer. However, this recitation renders the claim indefinite because if you combine two dimers (i.e., 4 monomers total) with two additional monomers, you would create an oligomer having at a minimum 6 total monomers ( i.e., a tau hexamer ) . Therefore , it is unclear how one would arrive at a trimer (3 monomers), tetramer (4 monomers) or pentamer (5 monomers) by “reacting” the recited tau dimer and monomer molecules according to the claim. Claim s 12-15 each recite the limitation " the purified…tau oligomer " in line 1 of each of the claims . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Each of claims 9-12, 14 -15 , 17 and 18 recite functional language (either explicitly or by way of dependency) stating that the composition/peptide derivative/oligomer is adapted to/for a particular purpose. Hence, the tau peptides or agents are defined by the functional characteristic of being adapted for generating antibodies, modulating the immune system, treating a tauopathy, screening for drug compounds , or is [used as] a biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease progression or tauopathy disease progression . And claim 18, referring to the drug compounds identified through the screening process of claim 14 “prevents or inhibits tau-tau binding resulting from hydrogen bonding, van der Waals interaction such that disulfide bond formation is blocked or prevented.” These limitations recite functional characteristics without providing any supporting structural elements/features that account for these functional limitations. A functional limitation can provide a patentable distinction to a product (limit the claim scope) by imposing limits on the structure or material. Here, there are no such limits, rather an intended result or effect is recited but does not provide any structural/material limits. Thus , the scope of these recitations is indefinite. In In re Fullam (161 F.2d 247 (C.C.P.A. 1947) the court held that the USPTO properly rejected certain patent claims as being functional, and rationalized the rejection by stating that the article in question was defined “not in terms of what it is, but of what it does.” (Id. at 249. (citing General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp ., 304 U.S. 364 (1938)). See als o MPEP 2173.05(g). One of skill in the art therefore cannot determine the structure or structural boundaries of the agents in the claims that perform the recited functions. Therefore, the claims are indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent. (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States. 8 . Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al . ( J. Neurochem . 2004, 90:1302-1311) . Watanabe et al . teach compositions comprising isolated and purified tau dimers and higher order oligomers composed of recombinant 381-amino acid tau (i.e., 3R tau or the instant SEQ ID NO: 2) and 412-amino acid tau (i.e., 4R tau or the instant SEQ ID NO: 5). See “Expression and purification of tau” at p. 1303. Purified, non-cysteine blocked tau was incubated in sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.4 and allowed to form tau oligomers, including dimers, trimers, tetramers and higher order species (see “Incubation of tau and other proteins” at p. 1303, and Fig. 1(a) at p. 1305). Note that this is essentially the same procedure by which the instant specification exemplifies production of tau oligomers. Such teachings are therefore on point to the tau oligomers of the present claims reciting a tau oligomer that is purified and/or isolated, or that is at least in a dimeric formation. While in some studies carboxymethylated tau was used, which produced disulfide-independent oligomerization, Watanabe notes that other studies used non-carboxymethylated (i.e., non-cysteine blocked) recombinant tau which were subject to disulfide linkage of cysteine residues (see p. 1304, right column). Such teachings are on point to limitations reciting disulfide linkages within the tau oligomers, such as in claims 5, 14 and 15, as well as claim 13 reciting that the tau peptides have no free thiol moieties. Note also that the recitations in claims 4, 6 and 8 regarding particular regions of the tau peptide (i.e., microtubule binding region, aggregation core) would be inherently present in the 3R tau and 4R tau peptides used by Watanabe. Regardless, each of claims 1-18 broadly reads upon a fragment of a tau oligomer, as each of claims 1-15 and 18 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1, and claim 1 recites that the composition comprises a tau oligomer or fragment thereof. Recitations in the dependent claim may define the tau oligomer or peptide derivative, yet even these dependent claims encompass fragments of the tau oligomer, wherein such fragments would be encompassed by the teachings of Watanabe. With respect to claims 9-15 and 17, it is noted that the recitations that the claimed product is “adapted” to/for a particular purpose are considered intended uses of the product, and therefore do not aide in distinguishing the claimed oligomers from those of the prior art tau oligomers. MPEP § 2173.05(g), Functional Limitations, states that “[i]f a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber , 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 – § 2112.02. The tau oligomers of Watanabe could be used in immunotherapy, for producing antibodies, or else in drug screening applications, and therefore are anticipatory for these claims. With respect to claim 16, as noted above the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “immunotherapeutic agent that specifically binds to extracellular tau oligomer” reads upon tau monomers or other tau oligomers, since these agents would specifically bind to other tau molecules. Finally, the recitations in claim 18 are with respect to the drug that is discovered as part of a screening assay using the claimed tau oligomers or fragments thereof. These limitations therefore in no way limit the structure of the claimed tau molecules. 9 . Claim(s) 1 -4 , 6, 8- 13, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) as being anticipated by Maeda et al . ( Biochemistry, 2007 Mar, 46:3856-3861) . Maeda et al . teach the production of isolated tau oligomers from purified recombinant human tau (2N4R), which is on point to claims 1-3 and 17. Claims 6 and 8-13 are anticipated because the tau peptides of Maeda inherently comprise a microtubule binding region as in claim 6 and an aggregation core as in claim 8, and the intended uses of claims 9-12 and 17 do not structurally limit the claimed products (see above). Regarding claim 16, Maeda discloses the use of antibodies that bind specifically to tau oligomers, such as the monoclonal antibodies E1 and MC1 (see Fig. 3e, wherein fraction 3 is reported to consist of granular tau oligomers). Therefore, the antibodies taught by Maeda meet the limitation of an agent that specifically binds to extracellular tau oligomer. Note that the recitation of “immunotherapeutic”, and binding “in a mammal” are intended uses of the claimed product, and do not structurally distinguish the claimed agent from the prior art antibodies of Maeda. 1 0 . Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) as being anticipated by Davidowitz EJ et al . ( Curr. Topics Biotechnology , Jan 2008, 4:47-64). Davidowitz et al. teach the production of tau oligomers in vitro , formed from 4R/2N tau isoform and variants thereof (see p. 51). Dimers and trimers through hexamers were noted to be produced (see p. 51, right column), either in the absence (i.e., disulfide-linked) or presence (i.e., no free thiol groups) of DTT. The tau monomers of Davidowitz would inherently comprise the microtubule binding regions and aggregation core of the present claims. The reference also teaches the production of aggregates composed of wildtype 4R and 3R tau isoforms, which is on point to claim 7. The intended usage limitations of claims 9-12, 14, 15 and 17-18 have been addressed above and do not further limit the claimed products. With respect to claim 16, Davidowitz teaches antibodies that bind tau oligomers at p. 56. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 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 . 1 1 . Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 9,464,122 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in each case the claims are directed to compositions comprising tau oligomers having the same structural ( e.g ., comprising monomeric units comprising one of SEQ ID NOs: 1-6) and functional properties ( e.g ., stable for at least 2 months) . 12. Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,104,710 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in each case the claims are directed to compositions comprising tau oligomers having the same structural ( e.g ., comprising monomeric units comprising one of SEQ ID NOs: 1-6) and functional properties ( e.g ., stable for at least 2 months) . 13. Claims 1 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,465,001 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in each case the claims encompass an agent that specifically binds to tau oligomers. Patented claim 1 recites an antibody or antibody fragment that specifically recognizes oligomeric tau, which anticipates the BRI of the presently recited “immunotherapeutic agent” as discussed above. Claim Objections 14. Claims 2-15 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: each of these dependent claims begins with the article “A”; however, it is conventional to begin dependent claims with the definite article “The” . Appropriate revision is therefore respectfully suggeste d. Conclusion 1 5 . No claims are allowed. Advisory Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Kimberly A. Ballard whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2150 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8AM - 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jeffrey Stucker can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-0911 . 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. /KIMBERLY BALLARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1675