DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The amendment filed 2025 November 24 is acknowledged and considered. Claims 55 and 57-108 are pending. Newly amended c laims 55, 57-103, and 105 are examined on the merits. Claims 104, 107, and 108 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2025 May 9. Claim Objections Claim s 57-103 , 105, and 106 are objected to because of the following informalities: extraneous language is present in these claims . The language “wherein P 1 , … ,R 7 and R 8 in formula (II) and mAb ” in claim 57 is extraneous because the same variables have the same definition unless they are further limited. Unless one or more variables is further limited, there is no need to state that the variables are the same definition as in the parent claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 93 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. In claim 93, the metes and bounds of variable Z 1 are unclear. Newly amended variable Z 1 is defined as a precursor of variable Y 1 , so Z 1 is directly dependent on variable Y 1 . In claim 92, variable Y 1 is selected from twenty-four different groups. When Y is NH 2 , there are many protecting groups and each protecting group can be cleaved with at least one method. WUTS ( Protective Groups in Organic Synthesis , 2007 , pages 775-785 ) describes two different precursor groups for an amine group , an acetamide and a chloroacetamide group . Which of these protecting groups is being present for variable Z 1 ? Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 55, 57 , 58, 61, 103, 105, and 106 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by ZHAO (CN 109912263, published 2019 June 21 ; machine translation of CN 109912263 ) . Zhao describes compounds 444 (page 244 of original document ) and a pharmaceutical composition comprising the same (machine translation of CN 109912263, page 85, paragraph [00356] to page 96, paragraph [0374]). In these compounds, the following examined definitions apply: R 1 -R 4 are each Me ; R 5 is -C(O)-Me ; R 6 is H ; R 8 is Me ; P 1 is H ; and L is -C(O)-propylene -NH-C(O)-CNH[butylene-NHC(O)-CH 2 -(O-ethylene) 9 -OMe][NHC(O)propylene- succinimide] . Method of treating diseases are described (machine translation, page 77, paragraph [0348] to page 84, paragraph [0354]). A method of preparing is described (machine translation, page 284). Column chromatography can be used to purify the conjugates (machine translation, page 97, paragraph [0377]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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 . Claim s 55, 57, 58, 61, 105, and 106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over ZHAO (CN 109912263, published 2019 June 21; machine translation of CN 109912263). Determining the scope and contents of the prior art Zhao describes compounds 455, 467, and 474 (page 244 of original document) and a pharmaceutical composition comprising the same (machine translation of CN 109912263, page 85, paragraph [00356] to page 96, paragraph [0374]). In these compounds, the following examined definitions apply: R 1 -R 4 are each Me; R 5 is -C(O)-Me; R 6 is H; R 8 is Me; P 1 is H; and L is -C(O)- NH-C(O)-CNH[butylene-NHC(O)-CH 2 -(O-ethylene) 3,6,9 -OMe][NHC(O)propylene-succinimide] . Methods of preparing these compounds are described (pages 285-287 of machine translation). Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue In the prior art, a direct bond connects a C(O) group to an NH group. In the examined claims, a –(CH 2 ) 1-8 -(Aa) 0-12 - group connects a C(O) and NH group. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art Those of relative skill in the art are those with level of skill of the authors of the references cited to support the examiner’s position (MD’s, PhD’s, or those with advanced degrees and the requisite experience in preparation of compounds of the elected group). Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness Zhao describes that -C(O)-propylene-NH- and -C(O)-NH-linking groups are alternative linking groups in compounds conjugated to a monoclonal antibody. A reference is good not only for what it teaches by direct anticipation but also for what one of ordinary skill in the art might reasonably infer from the teachings. ( In re Opprecht 12 USPQ 2d 1235, 1236 (Fed Cir. 1989); In re Bode 193 USPQ 12 (CCPA) 1976). In light of the foregoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a). From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham . The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include : (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Note that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel. Conclusion Claim s 57-103, 105, and 106 are not allowed. 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NOBLE E JARRELL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9077 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM . 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 Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3311 . 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. /NOBLE E JARRELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699