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 Application, Amendments and/or Claims 1. Claims 1-9 are pending and under examination in the current Office action. Information Disclosure Statement 2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) filed 04/22/2020 and 06/30/2021 have been considered and the references therein are of record. Priority 3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/103,810 , filed on August 14, 2018 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated 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 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 . 4. Claim s 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araclon Biotech S.L. (WO 2010/136487 A1) in view of Sarasa Barrio (US 2009/0162362 A1) and Ulrich et al. (US 2013/0011431 A1), and as evidenced by ChemTrade product profile sheet for Rehydragel ® adjuvants; 09/23/2015) and CovaChem product sheet for GMBS Crosslinker (retrieved 02/19/2019; listed on 04/22/2020 IDS) . Araclon Biotech teach a pharmaceutical composition comprising a peptide derived from the C-terminal region of amyloid-beta (A ) peptide having an N-terminal cysteine residue (Cys-A 33-40) that is conjugated to a carrier protein (albumin), wherein the composition also contains an adjuvant that is aluminum hydroxide gel ( Rehydragel ® HPA) see table at p. 34. Araclon Biotech discloses that the bifunctional linking agent - maleimido-butyryloxy succinimide ester (GMBS) may be used to couple the A peptide to albumin (see p. 23; lines 29-30). Note that this an alternative name for the same crosslinking agent recited in present claims 1 and 2. See, for example, the CovaChem product sheet, which evidences that GMBS is an alternative name for the instantly recited 4-Maleimidobutyric acid N- hydroxysuccinimide ester. Araclon Biotech indicates that the molar ratio of A peptide to the carrier protein albumin may be about 1000:1, about 750:1, about 500:1, about 250:1, about 100:1, about 75:1 or about 50:1 (see p. 22 lines 28-32), which ratios are all at least 45:1 as in present claim 1. With respect to claims 2-4, the ChemTrade product sheet for Rehdragel ® adjuvants evidences that Rehydragel HPA has a pH of about 5.5 to 6.5, which pHs fall within and/or extensively overlap with the presently recited pH ranges of 5.8 to 7.0, 6.2 to 7.0, and 5.8 to 6.2 in claims 2-4, respectively . However, the teachings Araclon Biotech are not limited to the Rehydragel HPA product only but broadly encompass the inclusion of any aluminum hydroxide gel in the composition (see p. 30 line 26). The ChemTrade product sheet shows that the different Rehydragel products, Rehydragel CG, LV, HPA and HV, have pHs that range from 5.5 to 8.0, such as the pH for LV which is 5.8 to 6.8, and HS which is 6.0 to 8.0. Thus, the aluminum hydroxide gel adjuvant as taught by Araclon Biotech comprises pH values that are on point to the pH of the presently claimed composition. Regarding claims 5-8, Araclon Biotech discloses formulations comprising 400 g of A 33-40 peptide (see at p. 53 lines 14-18), which is an amount that is at least 100 g (claim 5), at least 150 g (claim 6) and from 150-400 g (claim 7). The disclosure also teaches that the dosage may be determined by the doctor and other clinical factors, such as the physical characteristics of the patient, the method of administration used, the severity of the disease, the particular compound used, and the pharmacokinetic properties of the individual (see p. 39 lines 17-21). Thus, one of skill in the art would recognize that the dosage administered to a patient ultimately would require optimization based on clinical factors, and the concentration of the composition comprising the peptide vaccine is therefore not critical, as it can be diluted or else given in a larger amount as necessary. In other words, formulating a composition comprising the claimed A peptide conjugate at any reasonable concentration, such as a concentration of about 160 g to 240 g amounts to a simple design choice. Since formulations containing a concentration of 400 g A peptide conjugate can be produced according to the teachings of Araclon Biotech, a composition comprising a concentration of about 160-240 g A peptide, as in claim 8, would be obvious and predictable. The difference, therefore, between the teachings of Araclon Biotech and the present invention is that the prior art reference does not teach that the carrier protein is KLH as presently claimed. And while a container comprising the vaccine composition of Araclon Biotech must necessarily be present in order to contain the pharmaceutical composition, the reference does not explicitly teach a glass ampule comprising the claimed pharmaceutical composition as in claim 9. However, Sarasa Barrio teaches a vaccine composition comprising an immunoconjugate comprising A (33-40) peptide (the reference’s SEQ ID NO: 2) conjugated to KLH (A -KLH conjugate) that was used to immunize animals and produce A -specific antibodies (see [0027] -[ 0028], [0036] and Example 1 at p. 3). And consistent with the teachings of Araclon Biotech, Ulrich et al. teach vaccine compositions comprising an immunoconjugated A peptide construct and a pharmaceutically acceptable adjuvant (see [0007]), such as the adjuvant aluminum hydroxide (see [0021]), wherein coupling of the A peptide to the carrier molecule is accomplished using a hetero-bifunctional cross-linker such as GMBS (see [0011] -[ 0013]). Ulrich teaches that the composition may comprise about 150 g, 200 g or 300 g of the A peptide construct (see [0027]), and that the pH of the composition comprising the aluminum hydroxide adjuvant is about 5.5-7.5 (see [0125]) , which is on point to present claims 2-4 (i.e., the pH…ranges from 5.8 to 7.0, 6.2 to 7.0 , 5.8 to 6.2 ) . Finally, Ulrich teaches that such compositions may be comprised in a glass container, such as a vial (i.e., a glass ampule ) (see [0094]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have substituted KLH, as taught by Sarasa Barrio, for albumin as the carrier protein in the A peptide immunoconjugate using a crosslinking agent as taught by Araclon Biotech and Ulrich to conjugate the molecules, thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention. This is because the artisan has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp to obtain a predictable outcome. Such would amount to the simple substitution of one known, equivalent carrier for another (i.e., KLH for albumin) to obtain predictable results. Such would also amount to the combining of prior art elements according to known methods (i.e., using GMBS as a crosslinking agent to form immunoconjugates) to yield predictable results. Moreover, given that A (33-40)-KLH immunoconjugates were actually made and successfully used by Sarasa Barrio to elicit an anti-A antibody response, it would not only have been obvious to make such a conjugate using a known cross-linking agent, but there would have been a high expectation of success that such an immunoconjugate could be made and used as part of a vaccine composition. Furthermore, the recited limitations related to the concentration of the peptide, the pH of the composition, or the glass ampule are all rendered obvious in view of the cited prior art teaching equivalent vaccine compositions comprising A peptides, demonstrating concentrations and pHs of such compositions within the presently claimed ranges, and the containment of such compositions in glass vials. The concentrations of pharmaceutical agents within containers, as well as the pH of the composition, can be routinely changed or optimized to suit the need of the end user, and thus is obvious to modify. See, for example, p. 39 of Araclon Biotech (discussed above) as well as [0044] of Ulrich, which teaches that the pH of the composition comprising an A peptide vaccine can be modified as necessary. The teachings of the prior art references thus render obvious the presently recited invention of claims 1-9. Claim Objections 6. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 the claim recites “ the keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH)”, yet this is the first instance of the protein (KLH) being mentioned in the claim and thus the article “the” is unnecessary. It is therefore suggested that the claim be amended to delete “the” and instead recite: “…linked to keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH)”. Appropriate correction is required. Conclusion 7 . No claims are allowed. 8 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This art includes the following: Kafi K et al . Maleimide conjugation markedly enhances the immunogenicity of both human and murine idiotype-KLH vaccines. Mol. Immunol . 2009, 46:448-456. As the title implies, the reference teaches that in addition to improving efficacy, maleimide conjugation (compared to glutaraldehyde conjugation) yields vaccines with more uniform composition and fewer aggregates, which enhances the immunogenicity of the KLH conjugates. 9 . This is a Continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 16/ 855,263 . All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the earlier application and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no, however, event will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. 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