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. Acknowledgments and Claim Status The Examiner acknowledges receipt the amendment filed 12/19/2025 wherein claims 6-8 were amended and claims 22-29 were canceled. In addition, the Examiner acknowledges the amendments filed 6/2/2022 and 2/6/2023. Note(s) : Claims 1-21 are pending. Priority This application is a 371 of PCT/US2020/063092 filed 12/3/2020 and PCT/US2020/063092 claims benefit to PRO 62/942,987 filed 12/3/2019 Note(s) : The earliest effective filing date is 12/3/2019 as the pending invention is fully disclosed in the provisional application. Claim Interpretation Independent claim 1 is directed to a method of treating a cancer in a mammalian subject, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a TLR5 agonist and an immune checkpoint therapy (ICT). Applicant’s Election Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (pending claims 1-21) filed 12/19/2025 is acknowledged. Hence, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL . Applicant elected a species wherein the TLR5 agonist is CBLB502, the immune checkpoint therapy is Nivolumab, and the cancer of interest is melanoma. Claims 1-6 , 9-18, 20, and 21 read on the elected species. The elected species was searched and prior art was found to reject the claims as set forth below. Thus, the search was not further extended. Withdrawn Claims Claims 7, 8, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected species. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 9/14/2023 was considered. 112 Second Paragraph Rejections 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. Claims 2 -5 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. 11 2, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 2 and 3 : The claims as written are ambiguous because it is unclear what portion of the parent structure is present in the flagellin and CBLB502 derivatives. Claims 4 and 5 : According to MPEP 803.02, proper Markush terminology requires ‘closed’ language. The use of the term ‘comprises’ is ‘open’ language and allows for unnamed substances to be present in the Markush groups. 103 Rejection 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 1-6, 9-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulder et al (WO 2019/180000). Independent claim 1 is directed to a method of treating a cancer in a mammalian subject, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a TLR5 agonist and an immune checkpoint therapy (ICT). Claim 2 is directed to the method of claim 1 wherein the TLR5 agonist is flagellin or a flagellin derivative. Claim 3 is directed to the method of claim 2 wherein the TLR5 agonist is flagellin, CBLB502, or a CBLB502 derivative. Claim 4 is directed to the method of claim 3 wherein the immune checkpoint therapy is selected from an anti-PD1 antibody, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, an anti-CTLA4 antibody; an anti-LAG3 antibody, an anti-TIM-3 antibody, an anti-VISTA antibody, an anti-TIGIT antibody, an anti-KIR antibody, an anti-CD47 antibody, an anti-B7-H3 antibody, an anti-B7-H4 antibody, an ICOS agonist, an OX40 agonist, and/or an IDO inhibitor. Claim 5 is directed to the method of claim 4 wherein the immune checkpoint therapy is selected from an anti-PD1 antibody, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, or an anti-CTLA4 antibody. Claim 6 is directed to the method of claim 4 wherein the anti-PD 1 antibody is Pembrolizumab, Nivolumab, REGN2810, BMS-936558, SHR1210,IB1I308, PDR001, BGB- A317, BCD-100, or JS001. Claim 9 is directed to t he method of claim 3, wherein the CBLB502 is administered to the subject. Claim 11 is directed to t he method of claim 2 wherein the administration is intratumoral , peritumoral, intravenous, parenteral, subcutaneous, or intrathecal. Claim 12 is directed to t he method of claim 11 wherein the administration is intratumoral or peritumoral. Claim 13 is directed to t he method of claim 3 wherein CBLB502, an anti-PD1 antibody, and an anti- CTLA4 antibody are administered to the subject. Claim 14 is directed to t he method of claim 13 wherein the administration is intratumoral , peritumoral, intravenous, parenteral, subcutaneous, or intrathecal. Claim 15 is directed to t he method of claim 14 wherein the administration is intratumoral or peritumoral. Claim 16 is directed to t he method of claim 2 wherein the cancer is an ICT-refractory cancer or an ICT-refractory solid tumor. Claim 17 is directed to t he method of claim 2 wherein the cancer is a melanoma, a breast cancer, a lung cancer, a prostate cancer, a pancreatic cancer, a head and neck cancer, a liver cancer, an ovarian cancer, a nonpalpable cancer, or a lymphoma. Claim 18 is directed to the met hod of claim 17, wherein the cancer is a melanoma or a breast cancer. Claim 20 is directed to th e method of claim 2 wherein the subject is a human, dog, cat, horse, or cow. Claim 21 is directed to t he method of claim 20 wherein the subject is a human. Mulder et al is directed to compositions comprising flagellin polypeptides and CBLB502 (TLR5 agonists) (see entire document, especially, abstract; page 3, lines 10-11 ; page 26, lines 11-22 ). The TLR5 compositions may be administered subcutaneously, intravenously, or intraperitoneally (page 4, lines 19-20 ; page 52, lines 7-9 ). The compositions are used in the treatment of tumors/cancers. In some embodiments, the compositions are using in treating patients with solid tumors. In other embodiments the compositions are used for reducing or preventing angiogenesis in the treatment of cancer or altering the effect on immune or inflammatory systems (page 23, lines 16-24). The compositions may be used to treat melanoma as well as other cancers/tumors such as lymphoma, breast, renal (kidney), ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate (page 24, lines 25-31; page 25, lines 3-5; pages 28-29, bridging paragraph ; page 51, lines 3-20 ). The compositions may contain an immune-modulatory agent (therapeutic agents) such as pembrolizumab, MEDI4736, MPDL3280A, ipilimumab, nivolumab, and tremelimumab which are all immune checkpoint therapeutic agents appearing in Applicant’s claims (page 29, lines 9-17). The compositions of Mulder et al are used for treating humans, cats, dogs, and horses (pages 45, lines 4-7). Based on the disclosure of Mulder et al, the limitations of claims 1-6, 9, 11-18, 20, and 21 as set for herein. Claim 10 is directed to the method of claim 9, wherein about 5 µg/mL to 150 µg/mL of CBLB502 is administered to the subject. While Mulder et al do not specifically list the dosage of claim 10, the reference does disclose that polypeptide may be administered in a dose of about 0.1-10 mg/kg body weight. In addition, it is disclose that dosing may vary depend upon the host selected (page 51, lines 21-33; pages 51-52, bridging paragraph). Mulder et al conduct an experiment using various dosages of flagellin protein (see Figure 10; see also page 60, lines 8-33) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the pending invention to optimize the dosage administered to a particular patient based on their tumor/cancer being treated, weight, composition being administered, and dosing regimen to modify the composition concentration for that specific patient. In particular, according to MPEP 2144.05.II.A, wherein a document sets for the general conditions of a claim in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. The reference discloses possible dosages of the TLR5 substance. In addition, the cited prior art disclose that the compositions therein may be administered in various ways, in various amounts, and on various dosing schedules; thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to optimize the dosage amount for a subject specifically having melanoma or any other cancer/tumor. For the reasons set forth herein, the pending invention is rendered obvious by Mulder et al . Conclusion Claims 1-6, 9-18, 20, and 21 are rejected. Claims 7, 8, and 19 are withdrawn. Future Correspondences Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT D L Jones whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0617 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F . 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 Michael G. Hartley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0616 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /D. L. Jones/ Primary Patent Examiner Art Unit 1618 March 28, 2026