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. Election/Restriction A Requirement for Restriction/Election Office Action was mailed 18 August 2025. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 149, 188, 194-196, 216, and 219, in the reply filed on 28 October 2025 is acknowledged. Claim Status Claims 1-220 were pending in this application. As a result of a Preliminary Amendment, filed by Applicant on 02 March 2023, claims 1, 59, 60, 69, 70, 71, 92, 93, 95, 96, 140, 141, 148, 149, 188, 194, 195, 196, 216, and 219 were pending. In response to a Restriction/Election Office Action, Applicant elected Group III without traverse in the reply filed 28 October 2025. Therefore, claims 1, 59, 60, 69, 70, 71, 92, 93, 95, 96, 140, 141, 148 are withdrawn from further examination and claims 149, 188, 194-196, 216, and 219 are currently under examination . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority based on a parent application filed on 28 February 2020. The instant application filed on 08 August 2022 is a 371 of PCT/US2021/019972 filed 26 February 2021, which is a provisional of application 63/983,412 filed 28 February 2020 and which finds full support for the instant claims. Therefore, the effective filing date of the instant application is 28 February 2020. Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) The IDSs (2) filed on 02 March 2023 and 28 October 2025 have been considered by the examiner. Signed copies are enclosed. Applicant is reminded of their duty to disclose to the Office all information known to the person to be material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56. As stated therein, “[e]ach individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b) 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. Claim 149 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. Claim 149 is directed to a composition used in the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of cancer wherein the composition comprises: (a) a radioimaging agent comprising a fibronectin based scaffold (FBS) polypeptide which binds to a target expressed by the cancer and a radionuclide; and (b) a radiotherapeutic agent comprising the FBS polypeptide and a radionuclide, wherein the FBS polypeptide of the radioimaging agent and the radiotherapeutic agent bind to the target . It is unclear whether the radioimaging agent and radiotherapeutic agent bind to the same target or the radioimaging agent binds to both a target expressed by the cancer and another target with which the radiotherapeutic agent also binds. For purposes of claim interpretation, Examiner assumes this is a typographical error as other claims recite the limitation “wherein the radioimaging agent and radiotherapeutic agent bind to the same target” (e.g., see claim 216). Therefore, it is assumed the radioimaging agent binds to a target expressed by the cancer and the radiotherapeutic agent binds to that same target. Further clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (d) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.— Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 194 and 195 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 194 recites: “A pharmaceutical composition comprising the radioimaging agent of claim 149.” However, claim 149 from which claim 194 depends, requires a combination of both a radioimaging agent and a radiotherapeutic agent. Therefore, claim 194 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Similarly, claim 195 recites: “A pharmaceutical composition comprising the radiotherapeutic agent of claim 149,” which fails to require the limitations of claim 149 from which claim 195 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 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. Claim s 149, 194-196, and 216 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cojocaru (US 2017/0233473; published: 17 August 2017) in further view of Turner (“An introduction to the clinical practice of theranostics in oncology,” published: 19 October 2018). Cojocaru discloses C1ORF32-specific antibodies, antibody fragments, alternative scaffolds, conjugates, and compositions comprising the same, for treatment of cancer (abstract). Regarding the limitations set forth in instant claim 149: Cojocaru discloses embodiments of the invention that relate to protein scaffolds with specificities and affinities in a range similar to specific antibodies ([0286]) that are specific to C1ORF32 (abstract) . Embodiments include an antigen-binding construct comprising a protein scaffold linked to one or more epitope-binding domains and can include fibronectin scaffolds used as therapeutic agents for the treatment of cancer as well as for in vivo diagnostics ([0286]) , [0328]) . Furthermore, Cojocaru discloses fibronectin is a scaffold that can be engineered to bind to an antigen consisting of repeating units of human fibronectin type III (FN3) ([0294]). Of note, the disclosure of Cojocaru defines antibody as optionally referring to alternative scaffolds ([0018]). Cojocaru contemplates conjugates with the alternate protein scaffolds, disclosing embodiments that are conjugates for use in immune therapy wherein the scaffold is conjugated to a therapeutic moiety such as a cytotoxin, a drug, or a radiotoxin ([0299]). Examples of radioactive isotopes that can be conjugated to the scaffold include: iodine 131, indium 111, yttrium 90, and lutetium 177 ([0305]). Cojocaru further contemplates conjugates with the alternate protein scaffolds administered to a subject for use as di agnostic imaging wherein the scaffold is covalently or noncovalently attached to the imaging agent ([0414]). Suitable imaging agents, Cojocaru discloses, include radionuclides ([0415]). Cojocaru differs from instant claim 149 in that Cojocaru does not explicitly disclose the fibronectin scaffold in combination with a radioimaging agent and a radiotherapeutic agent. However, Cojocaru does contemplate the disclosed embodiments for use in theranostics ([0474]) . To cure this deficit, Turner reviews theranostics in oncology (title). Specifically, Turner teaches theranostics is the epitome of personalized medicine whereby a specific tumor biomarker is quantitively imaged on positron emission tomography or single photon emission computed tomography (abstract). Turner further teaches if it is clearly demonstrated that a tumoricidal radiation absorbed dose can be delivered, the theranostic beta or alpha-emitting radionuclide pair, coupled to the same targeted molecule, is then administered to control advanced metastatic cancer in the individual patient (abstract). Thus, Turner provides evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would find the combination of elements disclosed by Cojocaru successful in theranostics and the treatment of cancer. Regarding instant claim 194, Cojocaru discloses the radioimaging agent conjugated to the scaffold in a diagnostic composition ([0099], [0152]). Furthermore, Cojocaru discloses the administration of the diagnostic agent comprising the labeled scaffold to a subject in need of diagnostic imaging ([0414]). Since Cojocaru’s diagnostic composition is suitable for administration to a human subject ([0184]), it is presumed ‘diagnostic composition’ is synonymous with ‘pharmaceutical composition’ considering what was known and accepted in the art at the time. Regarding instant claim 195, Cojocaru discloses the radiotherapeutic agent conjugated to the scaffold in a pharmaceutical combination ([0113]). Regarding instant claim 196, Cojocaru discloses a kit comprising the scaffold , additional reagents such as a radiotoxic reagent , and instructions for use ([0410]). Cojocaru further discloses formulations include chelating agents ([0398]) and that in certain instances, the radionuclide is attached directly to the polypeptide or the radionuclide is bound to a chelating agent or chelating agent-linker attached to the polypeptide ([0415]). Regarding instant claim 216, Cojocaru describes both a method for diagnosing cancer (see [0068]) and treating cancer (see [0021]) in a subject comprising the following steps: (a) administering to the subject a radioimaging agent comprising a fibronectin-based scaffold polypeptide which binds to a target expressed by cancer cells and a radionuclide suitable for imaging (“ According to at least some embodiments, the present invention provides a method for imaging an organ or tissue, the method comprising: (a) administering to a subject in need of such imaging, a labeled polypeptide … When used in imaging applications, the labeled polypeptides according to at least some embodiments of the present invention typically have an imaging agent covalently or noncovalently attached thereto. Suitable imaging agents include, but are not limited to, radionuclides …” ([0414])). (b) obtaining a radioimage of all or a portion of the subject to determine the presence of the target in the subject (“ and (b) detecting the labeled polypeptide to determine where the labeled polypeptide is concentrated in the subject … Any device or method known in the art for detecting the radioactive emissions of radionuclides in a subject is suitable for use in the present invention ” ([0414] and [0419])). (c) administering a radiotherapeutic agent comprising an FBS polypeptide and a radionuclide suitable for radiotherapy (“ In another aspect, the present invention features immunoconjugates comprising an anti-C1ORF32 antibody, or a fragment thereof, conjugated to a therapeutic moiety, such as a cytotoxin, a drug (e.g., an immunosuppressant) or a radiotoxin . Such conjugates are referred to herein as “ immunoconjugates ” … Examples of radioactive isotopes that can be conjugated to antibodies for use diagnostically or therapeutically include, but are not limited to, iodine 131, indium 111, yttrium 90 and lutetium 177. Method s for preparing radioimmun o conjugates are established in the art ” ([0300] and [0305])). wherein the radioimaging agent and radiotherapeutic agent bind to the same target (“ Surprisingly, C1ORF32-Ig protein was shown to enhance the differentiation of CD4 T cells to iTregs , suggesting that the C1ORF32 pathway is involved in iTregs induction and differentiation. According to at least some embodiments of the present invention, targeting ClORF32 with blocking monoclonal antibodies inhibits iTregs accumulation and immunosuppressive function. According to at least some embodiments of the present invention, such blocking C1ORF32 antibodies enhance effector T cell activity. According to at least some embodiments, the present invention provides blocking antibody that specifically binds any one of C1ORF32 (ILDR2) proteins, selected from the group consisting of any one of SEQ ID NOs: 1, 7, 9, 13, 17, 103, and/or their corresponding extracellular domains, selected from the group consisting of any one of SEQ ID NOs: 14, 10, 11, 15, and/or fragments, and/or epitopes thereof, may optionally and preferably be specifically applied to cancer immunotherapy, alone or in combination with a potentiating agent(s), which increase an endogenous anti-tumor responses ” ([0019]) ). A combination of Cojocaru and Turner disclose the limitations of instant claims 149, 194-196, and 216. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the combined teachings of the references to arrive at the currently claimed invention. Cojocaru discloses fibronectin scaffolds used as therapeutic agents for the treatment of cancer, in vivo diagnostics, and theranostics . The teachings of Turner provide motivation to use the embodiments disclosed in Cojocaru for use in theranostics , explicitly outlining that if qualitative imaging of a specific tumor biomarker demonstrates that a tumoricidal radiation absorbed dose can be delivered, the theranostic radionuclide coupled to the same targeted molecule is then administered to control advanced cancer in a patient. In light of the teachings of Turner, one of ordinary skill in the art could improve upon the methods, compositions, and kits disclosed in Cojocaru for both in vivo diagnostics and therapy in combination for theranostics , rather than separately, with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim s 188 and 219 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cojocaru (previously cited) in further view of Turner (previously cited) and Donnelly (“Synthesis and biologic evaluation of a novel 18 F-labeled Adnectin as a PET radioligand for imaging PD-L1 expression,” published: 12 October 2017). The teachings of Coj o caru and Turner are discussed above. While the combined teachings of Cojocaru and Turner disclose a method of diagnosing and treating cancer in a subject by administering a radionuclide-labeled the fibronectin scaffold, Adnectin , consisting of a backbone of the natural amino acid sequence of the 10 th domain of the 15 repeating units of human fibronectin type III (FN3) engineered to target a therapeutic target of interest ([0294]) , neither reference explicitly discloses the Adnectin targets PD-L1 expressing cancer. Donnelly teaches a novel anti-PD-L1 Adnectin labeled with 18 F (abstract). Donnelly further teaches the 18 F labeled anti-PD-L1 Adnectin is a useful PET radioligand for assessing PD-L1 expression on tumors in vivo (abstract). Finally, Donnelly teaches the 18 F labeled anti-PD-L1 Adnectin demonstrated rapid delivery to PD-L1-expressing tumors, rapid clearance from non-PD-L1 expressing tumors and tissues, was highly stable in vivo , and suitable for human administration (p. 534). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the combined teachings of the references to arrive at the currently claimed invention in claims 188 and 196 . Cojocaru and Turner teach a radionuclide-labeled anti-C1ORF32 Adnectin to image and treat cancer. While Cojocaru contemplates use of the invention with a PD-L1-targeting antibody (see claim 5), it is unclear if the Adnectin disclosed by Cojocaru targets PD-L1 cancers as required by instant claim 219. However, Donnelly cures this deficiency by discloses a radionuclide-labeled anti-PD-L1 Adnectin proven optimized for PET imaging and suitable for administration to humans. Therefore, in light of Donnelly, one of ordinary skill could easily envision substituting the Adnectin disclosed by Cojocaru with the Adnectin taught by Donnelly to specifically target PD-L1-expressing tumors. A simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another obtains predictable results and a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common sense (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)). Conclusion Claims 149, 194-196, 188, 216, and 219 are rejected. No claim is allowed. Communication Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Julia A Rossi whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0138 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30-5:00 . 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 Daniel E Kolker can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-3181 . 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. /JULIA A ROSSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1644 /DANIEL E KOLKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1644