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. Status of Claims Applicant’s election and response to the restriction requirement filed September 18, 2025 is acknowledged . Applicant elected Group IV, the pharmaceutical composition comprising peptides comprising an elas t in motif XGxxPG and autophagy inhibiting amino acids, as well as insulin was made without traverse . Claims 61-65 have been added. Claims 1-57 and 60 have been canceled. Claims 58-59 and 61-65 are pending in the application. Claims 59 and 6 2 -65 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 58 and 61 are under examination. Trademarks The use of the term Neuroprobe and Costar (page 41) , which are a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term . Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. There may be other trademarks or Trade names used in the application. Applicant should review the specification and make the appropriate corrections. 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. 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. Written Description Claims 58 and 61 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. The MPEP states that the purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter later claimed. The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the application. These include “level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention.” 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, disclosure of drawings, or by disclosure of relevant identifying characteristics, for example, 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 Applicants were in possession of the claimed genus. The instant claims are directed to a c laim(s) 58 and 61 drawn to the pharmaceutical formulation comprising a peptide having from 7 amino acids to at most 30 amino acids, the peptide comprising a sequence of the formula Фn xGxxPG, xGxxPG Фn, or Фn xGxxPG Фm, wherein x is a naturally occurring amino acid, Ф is an autophagy inhibiting amino acid, n = an integer from 1 to 24, and m is an integer from 1-23,wherein n+m is no greater than 24, at least one pharmaceutically acceptable excipient, and insulin and drawn to the pharmaceutical formulation of claim 58, wherein Фn and/or Фm comprise(s) AQ, LQ, PQ, VQ, GQ, AQL, LQL, PQL, VQL, GQL, PLQ, LQG, PQV,VGQ, LQP, LQV, AQG, QPL, PQV,VGQ, GQG, SEQ ID NO:1 (LQGV), or SEQ ID NO:2 (AQGV). The claims encompass any amino acid which includes both naturally occurring and non-naturally occurring amino acid with regard to having the recited function of autophagy inhibiting . The specification discloses methods and means to target the elastin receptor complex specifically and to provide molecules and compositions comprising a specific targeting agent as well as amino acid compositions that are involved in the pathway of autophagy and the diseases related thereto. The disclosure also relates to peptide-drug development, in particular to (the improvement of) autophagy inhibiting amino acid containing peptides, more in particular glutamine-containing peptides and/or glutamine and other autophagy modulating amino acid containing compositions useful in the treatment of vascular and inflammatory conditions [0002]. According to the present invention , the amino acids that have the beneficial effects are targeted to the cells in which they can have their beneficial effects, in particular by targeting the elastin receptor complex through any specific mean s [0010]. Preferably the targeting means enables internalization of the amino acids and when the amino acids are provided in an oligopeptide format said internalization typically results in the oligopeptide being delivered to a lysosome (generally, and herein, also called autophagosome). Thus the invention provides a method for lowering autophagy, comprising targeting cells having an elastin receptor complex associated with their surface with a molecule specifically recognizing said complex, whereby said molecule is provided with a source of autophagy inhibiting amino acids, selected from the group of alanine (in one letter code: A), glutamine (Q), glycine (G), valine (V), leucine (L), isoleucine (I), proline (P) and arginine (R), more preferably selected from the group leucine (L), alanine (A), glutamine (Q), glycine (G) and proline (P). Said targeting then results in delivering said source, as a package of autophagy inhibiting amino acids, to the cell, where the molecule provided with said source or package is for example taken up by common endocytosis and/or phagocytosis, and then hydrolyzed into its collection of constituent, preferably autophagy inhibiting, amino acids in lysosomes (autophagosomes), and individual amino acids are released in the cytosol of said cell. In this way the mechanistic target of rapamycine (mTOR) is activated by the collection of autophagy inhibiting amino acid in said package selected for targeting of the Q-ER peptide to said cell [0010]. The specification teaches that c entral to the delivery of such sources of autophagy inhibiting amino acids to cells and tissues in curative need, the invention provides use of targeted delivery of a collection or source of such amino acids to cells having an elastin receptor complex associated with their surface, as these cells (examples of cells having or carrying a surface-associated elastin receptor complex in at least a part of their life cycle are red and white blood cells, vascular endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells and fibroblasts) are typically involved in curative activities that benefit from lowered and at least partly inhibited autophagy and likewise increased and improved mTOR mediated proteogenesis [0015]. While the specification discloses that autophagy inhibiting amino acids, selected from the group of alanine (in one letter code: A), glutamine (Q), glycine (G), valine (V), leucine (L), isoleucine (I), proline (P) and arginine (R), more preferably selected from the group leucine (L), alanine (A), glutamine (Q), glycine (G) and proline (P ), it does not disclose if non-naturally occurring amino acids can provide the same function (e.g. an autophagy inhibiting amino acid ). Jin et al ( Curr Issues Mol Bio., 2024 Aug 13;46(8):8780-8793) teach a utophagy is a kind of “self-eating” phenomenon that is ubiquitous in eukaryotic cells. It mainly manifests in the damaged proteins or organelles in the cell being wrapped and transported by the autophagosome to the lysosome for degradation. Many factors cause autophagy in cells, and the mechanism of nutrient-deficiency-induced autophagy has been a research focus. It has been reported that amino-acid-deficiency-induced cellular autophagy is mainly mediated through the mammalian rapamycin target protein complex 1 (mTORC1) signaling pathway. In addition, some researchers also found that non-mTORC1 signaling pathways also regulate autophagy, and the mechanism of autophagy occurrence induced by the deficiency of different amino acids is not precisely the same (See the Abstract). Jin et al teach that m any studies on autophagy have fully shown that a lack of nutrition, especially in amino acids, will lead to strong autophagy. However, it is unclear how individual amino acids, such as Lys, Leu, Arg, or Gln, respond to autophagy, which is also the point of investigating the relationship between amino acid nutrition and autophagy. It has been shown that Lys and Leu regulate protein synthesis through the mTORC1 signaling pathway, but Leu stimulates mTORC1 signaling significantly more than Lys , and the similarities and differences between Lys and Leu in the regulation of protein metabolism need further study to be clarified (See 5. Defects in Studies on Amino Acid – Regulated Autophagy). The claim requires that the amino acids of the invention exhibit specific functions, but the specification provides no guidance regarding which amino acids (both naturally occurring and non-naturally occurring) are capable of performing the required function. Therefore, the specification provides i nsufficient written description to support the genus encompassed by the claim. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111, makes clear 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 polypeptides, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. V. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016. In Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481, 1483, claims directed to mammalian FGF's were found unpatentable due to lack of written description for the broad class. The specification provided only the bovine sequence. University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404. 1405 held that: ...To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and does so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines Inc. , 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gosteli , 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (" [T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious," and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2datl966. Given the teachings of th e reference that point out the limitations and pitfalls of using sequence to predict functions, and the lack of a representative number of species across the breadth of the genus, one of skill in the art would not reasonably conclude that the full breadth of the claims meet the written description provision of 35 USC 112(a). Further , an adequate written description of the claimed invention must include sufficient description of at least a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. However, factual evidence of an actual reduction to practice has not been disclosed by Applicant in the specification; nor has Applicant shown the invention was “ready for patenting” by disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete; nor has the Applicant described distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant were in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Therefore for all these reasons the specification lacks a dequate written description , and one of skill in the art cannot reasonably conclude that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the instant application was filed. Claim 58 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting the phrase “ Ф is an autophagy inhibiting amino acid”. It is unclear as t o what the specification is referring to. What makes an amino acid an autophagy inhibiting amino acid? Can an amino acid be naturally and non-naturally occurring? Correction/Clarification is required. Pertinent Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wensvoort (WO 2018/141969 A1 published August 9, 2018) is not available under 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) because the following exceptions disclosure a disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of the claim ed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor and a disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly f rom the inventor or joint inventor. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Vanessa L. Ford whose telephone number is 571.272.0857. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 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, Yvonne Eyler can be reached on 571.272.1200 . 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /VANESSA L. FORD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1674