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. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/05/2025 and 0 8 / 24 /2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT Group I drawn to a method of expanding a population of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes by culturing a disaggregated tumor sample with a T cell receptor (TCR) agonist, a CD28 agonist, and a T cell-stimulating cytokine in the reply filed on 11/05/2025 is acknowledged. Status of Claims 1-2, 4, 11-14, 16-18, 20, 22, 24, 27-28, 31, 33, 34 and 105 are pending and under exam. Claims 35 and 53 are withdrawn from as being directed to no nelected inventions. 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 FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 1-2, 4, 11-14, 16-18, 20, 22, 24, 27-28, 31, 33-34 and 105 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. Regarding claim 1 : Claim 1 requires culture of a disaggregated tumor sample and contacting tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) with a TCR agonist, a CD28 agonist and a T-cell stimulating cytokine. It is not clear as to when and where TILs are added or appear, if TILs are present in the disaggregated tumor or if TILs are enriched from the disaggregated tumor cells and cultured separately. As such the claim does not clearly identify the source of the TILs or when and how they are contacted with the recited agonists, leading to ambiguous scope of the claim. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite. Claims 2, 4, 11-14, 16-18, 20, 22, 24, 27-28, 31, 33-34 and 105 are rejected for their dependency on the rejected claim. 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. Claim s FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1-2, 11-14, 16, 22, 24, 27-28, 31, 33, and 34 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. Claim 1 : A method of expanding a population of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in a disaggregated tumor sample, the method comprising culturing the disaggregated tumor sample in a medium, wherein the TILs are contacted with a T cell receptor (TCR) agonist, a CD28 agonist, and a T cell-stimulating cytokine. The breadth of the claim encompasses any TCR agonist, and any T-cell stimulating cytokine. The specification at [0115] indicates that “T cell receptor agonist” or “TCR agonist” refers to an agonist of the T cell receptor complex. Suitable TCR agonists include, without limitation, CD3 agonists (e.g., anti-CD3 antibodies).” As such TCR agonists are not expressly limited to CD3 agonists. However, Example 1 of the specification only taught the use of CD3 as the TCR and IL-2 as the cytokine. While CD3 agonists are the predominantly used TCR agonists, the specification provides no guidance regarding what other TCRs are anticipated to provide the intended effect. The specification provides no support to all known TCRs that provide activation of TILs. Example 1 of the specification specifically used humanized recombinant agonists against human CD3 and CD28. As such there is no support for the claimed embodiment from the specification. Similarly, the specification provides no support that any known cytokine can be used in the activation of TILs. [0134] of the specification states that “As used herein, the phrase “T cell-stimulating cytokine” refers to a cytokine that stimulates and/or activates T cell lymphocytes.” However, Example 1 of the specification is directed only to the use of IL2 a s the T-cell stimulating cytokine. The specification provides no support to all known T-cell stimulating cytokine that provide activation of TILs. Example 1 of the specification specifically used IL2. As such there is no support for the claimed embodiment from the specification. Regarding claims 31 and 34 : The claims require a TCR agonist comprises a soluble monospecific complex comprising two anti-CD3 antibodies linked together or two anti-CD2 antibodies linked together. [0772] of the specification exemplifies a soluble monospecific complex specific to CD2. CD28 or CD3. Further specification at [0221] provides exemplary concentrations of CD2 or CD3 antibodies linked together. Although the specification provides example concentrations at which antibodies may be added, the specification does not identify, describe, or exemplify any specific antibody used as a TCR agonist or CD28 agonist, nor does it disclose any structural, binding, or functional characteristics of such antibodies. The disclosure of antibody concentrations alone, without identification or description of any representative antibody species, does not demonstrate that the inventors were in possession of the claimed antibodies or soluble monospecific complexes at the time of filing. The specification thus amounts to a statement of intended use rather than a description of the invention itself. Given the known functional variability among antibodies that bind the same target, and the unpredictability of T-cell activation, the generic disclosure provided is insufficient to support the full scope of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, the specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of §112(a). Claims 2, 11-14, 16, 22, 24, 27-28, 31, 33, and 34 are rejected for their dependency on the rejected claim. 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. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-2, 4, 24 and 105 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Nijhuis et al ( Cancer Immunol Immunother . 1990; hereinafter " Nijhuis ;" See PTO-892) . Regarding claim s 1 , 4 and 105 : Niihuis disclosed that TILs can be expanded from tumor cell suspension by “[ i ]n the initiation phase of TIL culture immobilized antiCD3 antibodies together with anti-CD28 mAb and lowdose interleukin-2 induced a rapid expansion of T cells from various human tumour tissues.” ( See Nijhuis abstract). For example Nijhuis disclosed that “ The combination of immobilized antiCD3 mAb with CLB- CD28 /1 and low-dose IL-2 , however, induced an efficient outgrowth of TIL, with expansion rates in four patients tested ranging from 4.3 to 10.4 on day 7. ” ( See Nijhuis , p. 2 47 , col. 1 , last par a ). IL-2 reads on the cytokine. It is noted that p. 4, col. 1 st para of Ye disclosed that CD3 and CD28 antibodies were agonistic antibodies. Further the CD3 agonistic antibody reads on the TCR agonist. It is further noted that tumor cell suspensions read on the claimed disaggregated tumor cells. As such all elements of the claim s are taught by Nijhuis and are thus anticipated. Regarding claim 2 : Nijhuis disclosed that “TIL were cultured on the CLB-T3/3-coated wells for 3 days in a final volume of 1 rel. Where indicated 1 µg/ml CLB-CD28/1, 25 IU/ml rIL-2 or a combination of both was added. After 3 days cells were harvested, counted, seeded at 2.5x10 5 lymphocytes/well and new culture medium with or without anti-CD28 mAb and IL-2 was added.” ( See Nijhuis p. 246, 1 st col last para to 2 nd col. 1 st para). As such Nijhuis disclosed 3-day interval of cytokine addition. Regarding claim 24 : Nijhuis does not require feeder cells for achieving TIL expansion. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 11-14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Nijhuis et al (Cancer Immunol Immunother . 1990; hereinafter "Nijhuis;" See PTO-892) in view of Ye et al (J Transl Med. 2011 Aug 9; hereinafter "Ye;" See IDS filed 11/08/2025 ). Regarding claim 11 : The teachings of Nijhuis are set forth above. Nijhuis did not teach tumor sample comprising digested tumor fragments. However, Ye taught that “TILs can be vigorously expanded directly from enzyme-digested tumor specimens ex vivo with KT64/BBL aAPCs , and display favorable phenotypic and functional attributes for the application of adoptive immunotherapy of cancer.” (See Ye p. 9, col. 2, para 1).” As such, it was known at the time of the invention that enzymatic digestion of tumor for isolation of TILs was a known and common technique. In view of the teachings of Nijhuis regarding CD3/CD28 and IL-2 mediated TIL expansion and Ye regarding arriving at a disaggregated tumor sample using digested tumor fragments, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the claimed invention using disaggregated tumor sample arrived at by digested tumor fragments. Regarding claims 12- 14, 16 and 20 : Ye used aAPCs as feeder cells for TIL expansion. For example, Ye disclosed that “ engineered K562 cell-based aAPCs as an “off-the-shelf” platform for ex vivo TIL expansion. K562 aAPCs that express CD137L offer the potential to expand antigen-experienced TILs and represent a potential new cell-based platform for the standardization of ex vivo TIL expansion. ” ( See Y e , p.2, col. 1 last para). Ye taught that “To generate cell-based aAPCs , the parental K562 cell line was engineered to stably co-express the high-affinity Fc receptor CD64 and the costimulatory ligand CD137L (4-1BBL) by lentiviral gene transduction.” ( See Ye; p. 3-4, col. 2 of p.3 to col. 1 of p. 4) . Ye further taught that “KT64/BBL aAPCs were cultured in the absence of serum to pre-clear CD64 of serum derived immunoglobulins, irradiated and then loaded with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 agonist monoclonal antibodies ( mAbs ) for TIL expansion.” ( See Ye, p.4, col. 1, para 1). As such Ye used genetically engineered aAPC to expand production of TILs. As such it was well known in art at the time of filing that feeder cells, such as irradiated aAPC , are routinely incorporated into TIL culture protocols, particularly in rapid expansion methods (REP), to provide accessory co-stimulatory signals and support robust TIL proliferation. Ye explicitly teaches the inclusion of feeder cells, such as irradiated aAPC , in TIL culture media to enhance TIL expansion. The combination of Nijhuis and Ye would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Nijhuis provides the fundamental method of TIL expansion with CD3/CD28 stimulation and cytokine, while Ye provides the routine and well-understood teaching of incorporating feeder cells to improve proliferation. A skilled artisan would have recognized that adding feeder cells to the medium of Nijhuis’ method is a predictable and routine modification, providing enhanced expansion and support of TILs without any unexpected results. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1 7 and 1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Nijhuis et al (Cancer Immunol Immunother . 1990; hereinafter "Nijhuis;" See PTO-892) in view of Ye et al (J Transl Med. 2011 Aug 9; hereinafter "Ye;" See IDS filed 11/08/2025 ) as applied to claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 11-14, 16 and 20 above and further in view of Suhoski et al (Mol Ther . 2007 May; hereinafter " Suhoski ;" See PTO-892) . Regarding claims 1 7 and 1 8 : The teachings of Nijhuis and Ye are set forth above. It is noted that Nijhuis or Ye did not taught that the feeder cells expressing a CD3 agonist or OKT3 as required by the subject claims. However, Suhoski taught an aAPC system by engineering K562 cells with lentiviruses to direct the stable expression and secretion of a variety of co-stimulatory molecules and cytokine and expression of various combinations of genes on the aAPC enables precise determination of human T-cell activation such that aAPCs can be tailored for the optimal propagation of T-cell subsets. ( See Suhoski Abstract). Specifically, Suhoski taught that “for potential therapeutic applications, it would be useful to have off-the-shelf a APC that could simply be added as feeder cells to T cell cultures.” ( Suhoski p. 3, para 2 ). Suhoski taught that the efficiency of pre-loaded aAPCs was similar to that of freshly prepared OKT3-loaded CD64–86 aAPCs ( See Suhoski Figure 2c). Given the benefit of TCR stimulation and co-stimulation in view of the cited art, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an aAPC presenting OKT3 (or genetically engineered to do so) as the feeder cell for TIL expansion, with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Nijhuis et al (Cancer Immunol Immunother . 1990; hereinafter "Nijhuis;" See PTO-892) in view of Ye et al ( J Transl Med. 2011 Aug 9 ; hereinafter " Ye ;" See IDS filed 11/05/2025 ) as applied to claims 11-14, 16 and 20 above and further in view of Santegoets et al (J Transl Med. 2013 Feb 12; hereinafter " Santegoets ;" See PTO-892) . Regarding claim 22 : The teachings of Nijhuis and Ye are set forth above. It is noted that Nijhuis or Ye did not t each that the feeder cells express cytokine. Santegoets compared the effects of IL-2, -15 and −21 cytokines on the expansion and activation of TIL from single-cell suspensions of non-small cell lung cancer, ovarian cancer and melanoma. In their study, Santegoets taught that “K562-based artificial APC ( aAPC ) platform for the direct and rapid expansion of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes isolated from primary cancer specimens. These aAPC were engineered to express the Fc-γ receptor CD32 (for anti-CD3 antibody binding), the co-stimulatory molecule 4-1BBL, and to secrete either IL-2, IL-15 or IL-21 cytokine” ( See Santegoets Abstract). Santegoets further indicated that “[o] ur data rationalize the clinical application of IL-21-secreting aAPC as a standardized cell-based platform in the expansion of “young” effector TIL for ACT.” Given the benefit of TCR stimulation and co-stimulation in view of the cited art, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an aAPC secreting cytokines as the feeder cell for TIL expansion, with a reasonable expectation of success. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Nijhuis et al (Cancer Immunol Immunother . 1990; hereinafter "Nijhuis;" See PTO-892). in view of Scheffold et al (US20140087462A1; published Mar 27, 2014; hereinafter " Scheffold ;" See PTO-892) . Regarding claims 27-28 : The teachings of Nijhuis are set forth above. Nijhuis did not teach use of nanomatrix comprising a colloidal suspension of matrices of polymer chains, wherein each nanomatrix is 1 to 500 nm in length in its largest dimension linked to CD3/CD28 agonists as required by the claim. Scheffold taught “[a]n in vitro method for polyclonal stimulation of T cells, the method comprising contacting a population of T cells with a nanomatrix , the nanomatrix comprising a) a flexible matrix, wherein said matrix is of polymeric material; and b) attached to said polymeric flexible matrix one or more polyclonal stimulatory agents which provide activation signals to the T cells; thereby activating and inducing the T cells to proliferate; wherein the nanomatrix is 1 to 500 nm in size.” (See Scheffold claim 1). [00245] of Scheffold indicates that the nanometric is colloidal. It is also pointed out that Figure 1 of Scheffold showed expansion of sorted human naive CD4 and CD8 T cells stimulated with CD3/CD28 conjugated nanomatrices at the indicated concentrations (effective CD3 concentration) in the presence of IL-2 for 7 days. ( Scheffold [0026]). The teachings of Schaeffold would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute traditional stimulation formats of Nijhuis with the colloidal nanomatrix approach of Schaeffold as nanomatrix approach was known to achieve expansion of T-cells. Thus it would have been obvious to present the CD3 agonist and CD28 agonist of Nijhuis on a colloidal nanomatrix as taught by Scheffold with a reasonable expectation of success in expanding the population of T-cells in culture Therefore the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. It is also noted that the polymeric chain of Scheffold is indicated to be dextran in [0037] of Scheffold . As such one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use same polymer chains for CD28 and TCR agonist as required by claim 28. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Nijhuis et al (Cancer Immunol Immunother . 1990; hereinafter "Nijhuis;" See PTO-892). in view of Lier et al ( Immunology. 1989 Sep ; hereinafter " Lier ;" See PTO-892) . The teachings of Nijhuis are set forth above. Nijhuis did not teach use of monospecific complex comprising two anti-CD3 antibodies linked together as required by the claim. Lier taught that “anti-CD3 mAb CLB-T3/3 induces strong T-cell stimulation that is proportional to the density of the immobilized antibody. T cells, optimally stimulated with plastic-immobilized CLB-T3/3, showed a five-fold higher proliferation compared to cells that were stimulated with soluble anti-CD3 in the presence of accessory cells.” ( See Lier Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Nijhuis and Lier to modify the CD3 agonist of Nijhuis to monospecific complex comprising two anti-CD3 antibodies linked together to achieve enhanced activation. Claim 3 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Nijhuis et al (Cancer Immunol Immunother . 1990; hereinafter "Nijhuis;" See PTO-892). in view of Skanland et al ( J. Biochem 2014 ; hereinafter " Skanland ;" See PTO-892) . The teachings of Nijhuis are set forth above. Nijhuis did not teach use of CD2 agonistic antibody as required by the claim. Skanland demonstrated that “CD2 co-stimulation induces phosphorylation of the TCR-proximal signaling complex, whereas CD28 activates distal signaling molecules, including the transcription factors NF- κB (nuclear factor κB ), ATF (activating transcription factor)-2, STAT3/5 (signal transducer and activator of transcription 3/5), p53 and c-Jun.” (See Skanland Abstract). Skanlan further taught that “The signaling patterns induced by CD2 and CD28 co-stimulation lead to distinct functional immune responses in T-cell proliferation and cytokine production. In conclusion, CD2 and CD28 co-stimulation induces distinct signalling responses and functional outcomes in T-cells.” (See Skanland Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Nijhuis and Skanland to modify the use CD2 to the agonists taught by Nijhuis to achieve enhanced activation. 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) of the present application." \d "[ 1 ]" 1, 31 and 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) of the copending application." \d "[ 2 ]" 1, 8, 10, 11, and 24 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference application." \d "[ 3 ]" 17/802,080 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because FILLIN "Provide appropriate explanation for anticipation or rationale for obviousness of claims being rejected over the claims of the cited application." \d "[ 4 ]" of the reasons stated below. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The following claims are anticipated by the corresponding claims in the reference application. 17/779,458; instant application Reference application 1 1, 24 31 8 31 10 27 11 Conclusion Claim 34 appears free of art but lacks written description. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAGAMYA VIJAYARAGHAVAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5934 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:00a-5:00p . 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 Christopher M. Babic can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8507 . 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. /JAGAMYA NMN VIJAYARAGHAVAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1633 /EVELYN Y PYLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1633