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/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 1-31, 36-37, and 39-46 in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged. Claim s 3 2 -35, 38, and 47 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 . Claims 1-31, 36-37, and 39-46 are pending and are examined on the merits. Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures Summary of Requirements for Patent Applications Filed O n Or After July 1, 2022, T hat Have Sequence Disclosures 37 CFR 1.831(a) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.831(b) must contain a “Sequence Listing XML”, as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.831-1.835. This “Sequence Listing XML” part of the disclosure may be submitted: 1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter “Legal Framework”) in XML format, together with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML file in a separate paragraph of the specification (an incorporation by reference paragraph) as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) identifying: a. the name of the XML file b. the date of creation; and c. the size of the XML file in bytes; or 2. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML format according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying: a. the name of the XML file; b. the date of creation; and c. the size of the XML file in bytes. SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES AND THE REQUIRED RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Specific deficiency - Sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(c). Sequence identifiers for sequences (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings. Required response – Applicant must provide: Amended drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers; AND/OR A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3), and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of: • A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version); • A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and • A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter. Specification The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. The hyperlink can be found at ¶0152 of the specification. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-2 , 8-9 , 31, 39-4 1, and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a product of nature without significantly more. Claims 1-2 are drawn to an antigen-presenting extracellular vesicle wherein the membrane of said vesicle contains an antigen-presenting MHC molecule and a T-cell stimulatory cytokine , and Claim 31 further specifies the extracellular vesicle is an exosome. However, Viaud et al. 2009 ( PloS one , 4(3), e4942. ; PTO-892 ) teaches that naturally occurring exosomes produced by dendritic cells comprise functional MHC/peptide complexes as well as functional IL-15R α (Abstract) capable of binding and trans-presenting the cytokine IL-15 (Fig. 3), which is naturally present in abundance in vivo (Pg. 8, last ¶). Claim 8 is further drawn to the extracellular vesicle of C laim 1 wherein the T-cell stimulatory cytokine is TGF- β . However, Dimitris et al. 2002 ( Molecular immunology , 38(16-18), 1359-1362. ; PTO-892) and Shelke et al. 2019 ( Journal of extracellular vesicles , 8(1), 1650458. ; PTO-892) , respectively, teach that naturally occurring exosomes produced by mast cells contain MHC/peptide complexes and TGF- β . Claim 9 is further drawn to the extracellular vesicle containing a protein containing a T-cell costimulatory molecule capable of interacting with T cells . However, Levy and Shoham 2005 ( Nature Reviews Immunology , 5(2), 136-148. ; PTO-892) teaches that exosomes can further comprise the costimulatory molecules CD80 or CD86 alongside MHC class II in complex with tetraspanin CD81. Accordingly, an exosom e comprising an antigen-presenting MHC molecule (e.g. MHC/peptide) and a T-cell stimulatory cytokine (e.g. IL-15 or TGF- β ) and a costimulatory protein (e.g. CD80, CD86) wherein the cytokine is presented outside the membrane of the vesicle and capable of interacting with T cells (as would be the case in for membrane-bound IL-15R α in complex with and trans-presenting naturally occurring IL-15) is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Because Claims 1-2 and 8-9 do not recite any additional structural elements sufficient to differentiate the claimed extracellular vesicles from their naturally occurring counterparts, Claims 1-2 , 8-9 , and 31 are drawn to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 39-4 1 and 45-46 are further drawn to pharmaceutical compositions comprising the extracellular vesicle of claim 1. However, w ell-understood, routine and conventional limitations are not enough to qualify the claimed method as reciting something “significantly more” than the judicial exception(s) (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). In the instant case, a “pharmaceutical composition” – examples of which according to ¶0198 of the instant specification include a solvent or buffer – does not convey any structural or functional difference to the claimed exosomes relative to their natural counterpart. Indeed, dendritic cell derived exosomes containing MHC II molecules and costimulatory proteins are already in use in clinical trials ( Besse et al. 2016, Oncoimmunology , 5(4), e1071008. ; PTO-892), and their preparation as a “pharmaceutical composition” would be routine and conventional to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 5-7, 1 3 -1 7, 20-21, 27-30 , and 36-37 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. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claims 5-7 recite “a fusion protein comprising an amino acid sequence consisting of...” and similar phrases throughout which mix narrow closed language (e.g. “consisting of”) and broader open language (e.g. comprising, containing). Moreover, several of the options following the closed “consisting of” language further recite additional “open” options (e.g. “(A-6) a protein comprising an amino acid sequence...”). The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to which features of the claim are required and whether the claimed structures allow for additional structure or sequences . Claim 13 depends from Claim 2 and recites “the protein complex” of (A) and “the protein complex” of (B) – however, Claim 2 does not recite a “protein complex”, and accordingly the phrase lacks antecedent basis. In addition, regarding Claim 13, it is unclear what is meant for a protein complex of (A) and a protein complex of (B) to be “fused to each other”. A “protein complex” is understood to be a group of multiple discrete proteins, whereas a protein fusion is understood to be different proteins or domains thereof fused as part of the same polypeptide chain. It is therefore unclear how a “complex” could be fused to another protein or another protein complex or which proteins therein are part of the resulting fusion. Claims 14-16 are rejected for insufficient antecedent basis. Each of Claims 14-16 depend from Claim 9 and require a protein complex as defined in “(C)” fused to proteins defined in “(A)” and/or “(B)”. However, neither Claim 9 nor Claim 1 from which Claim 9 depends defines a protein “(A)” or “(B)”. Accordingly, the scope of Claims 14-16 could not be determined and the claims have not been treated further on the merits. Claim 17 recites the limitation “at least one of the T-cell stimulatory cytokines or subunits thereof”, which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 17 depends from Claim 1, which recites the limitation “a T-cell stimulatory cytokine” in the singular, not plural, and does not recite any “subunits thereof”. It is therefore unclear to what “at least one of the T-cell stimulatory cytokines” refers. Dependent Claims 18-30 are rejected for the same reason. For the purposes of examination, “at least one of the T-cell stimulatory cytokines” is construed to read “the T-cell stimulatory cytokine”. Claim s 20 - 21 is rejected for reciting “MFG-E8 or a transmembrane domain thereof”. MFG-E8 is a secreted protein that does not contain a transmembrane domain ( see Fig. 1 of Delcayre et al. 2005; PTO-892 ). It is therefore unclear to what “transmembrane domain” the claims refer. Dependent Claims 24-25 are rejected for the same reason. Claims 27-30 depend from Claim 26 and recite “the protein capable of interacting with T cells”, which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 26, however, recites “a protein which contains at least one T-cell costimulatory molecule and is capable of allowing the T-cell costimulatory molecule to interact with T cells”, and so it is unclear to what “the protein capable of interacting with T cells” refers. Claims 36-37 depend from Claim 34 and require “the fusion protein or the protein complex of (A)” and “the fusion protein of (B)” a s defined in Claim 2. However, these limitations lack antecedent basis as Claim 2 specifies neither a “fusion protein” nor “protein complex” in items (A) or (B). Because the scope of Claims 36-37 could not be determined, they have not been treated further on the merits. 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. Claim s 17-30 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 17 depends from Claim 1 which requires a “T-cell stimulatory cytokine”. Claim 17, however, recites “T-cell stimulatory cytokines or subunits thereof ”. Accordingly, Claim 17 fails to incorporate all of the limitation of Claim 1, which requires a cytokine – not a “subunit thereof”. Dependent Claims 18-30 are rejected for the same reason. 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. 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. Claims 3, 10, 18, 26-27, and 29 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 claims contain 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. Scope of the claimed genus Each of Claims 3, 10, 18, 26-27, and 29 require a fusion protein or proteins wherein the protein is described only by its function: 1) “a membrane protein capable of being localized to membrane of an extracellular vesicle” and/or 2) “protein capable of binding to membrane of an extracellular vesicle”. The claims do not specify any particular structure to these fusion scaffolds, and thus the claims are drawn to a potentially vast array of fusion proteins provided they are “capable” of the claimed function. State of the prior art The prior art teaches several different exosome-display technologies including lactadherin (also known as MFG-E8) fusions, wherein domains of MFG-E8 known to bind exosomes are fused to proteins of interest to drive exosome-bound extracellular display ( Delcayre et al 2005 , Blood Cells, Molecules, and Diseases , 35(2), 158-168. ; PTO-892 ), and fusion proteins utilizing four-pass transmembrane tetraspanins CD81, CD63, or CD9 – transmembrane proteins known to be enriched in exosomes – to force exosome-localization of the resulting fusions (Stickney et al. 2016, Biochemical and biophysical research communications , 472(1), 53-59. ; PTO-892 ) . In addition, however, the prior art teaches that exosomes are host to a very large variety of proteins which can vary according to cell type , signaling responses, disease state, etc. For example, Deng and Miller 2019 ( Journal of histotechnology , 42(4), 226-239. ; PTO-892 ) highlights that over 9,000 proteins have been identified in exosomes, and the particular exosomal cargo may be indicative of a variety of disease states. Accordingly, the full scope genus of a protein that is “capable” of binding or being expressed in the membrane of an exosome is vast and under active investigation. Description of representative species in the specification MPEP § 2163 states that a “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. Similar to the teachings of Stickney and Delcayre referenced above, the instant specification employs the same two technologies ( tetraspanins CD81, CD63, or CD9 and MFG-E8) to drive exosome display of the disclosed fusion proteins (e.g. Fig. 2) – encompassing only three similar species of exosome membrane proteins and but a single species of protein “capable of binding to membrane of an extracellular vesicle”. Given the vast breadth of the claims, such a limited disclosure would not reasonably be considered representative of the claimed genus. Identifying characteristics and structure/function correlation In the absence of a representative number of species, the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics; i.e., 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 applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. To meet this requirement in the instant case, the specification must describe structural features that the skilled artisan as of the effective filing date would have expected to convey the claimed exosome-localizing activity. While the specification suggests multiple potential species of a “membrane protein capable of being expressed in membrane of an extracellular vesicle” or “protein capable of binding to membrane of an extracellular vesicle” by virtue of their being a “marker of an extracellular vesicle” as described by the prior art (¶0055-0058), t here is no discussion of the structural elements necessary for such a function, nor have any protein or fusion thereof beyond the MFG-E8 and CD9, CD63, CD81 of the examples been demonstrated to support the claimed function. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize or envisage the invention commensurate in scope with the claims. Claim s 4- 7, 11-1 3 , 17, 19-25, 28 , and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for fusion proteins comprising the tetraspanins CD9, CD81, or CD63 and wherein the fusion protein comprises a transmembrane protein fused to the N-terminus of the tetraspanin or a soluble protein fused to second extracellular loop of the tetraspanin does not reasonably provide enablement for “ tetraspanin ” fusions in the generic. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Each of the claims 4-7, 11-12, 19-25, 28, and 30 requires a tetraspanin fusion that localizes to the membrane of an extracellular vesicle and preserves the function of the fused protein which is “presented” outside the membrane to a T cell (e.g. cytokine, costimulatory protein, MHC-peptide). Claim s 13 and 17 requires the same function (MHC-peptide and cytokine presentation), but fail to specify any additional structure to the encompassed fusion protein s . The specification discloses several species of tetraspanin fusions fitting broadly into two categories, as illustrated in Fig 2E Fusions in which a soluble cytokine (IL-2; IL-4) is situated in the second extracellular loop of the tetraspanin between the third and fourth transmembrane domains: Fusions in which a transmembrane protein (single-chain MHC or CD80) and a signal sequence are joined N-terminal to the tetraspanin : Tetraspanins as a scaffold for exosome display is known in the prior art. Stickney et al. 2016 ( Biochemical and biophysical research communications , 472(1), 53-59. ; PTO-892 ) previously described an exosome display technology wherein proteins can be displayed at the exosome surface via fusion with exosome-specific tetraspanins CD9, CD63, and CD81 (Abstract, Fig. 1). Stickney identified a site within the large extracellular loop that was amenable to fusion and validated that soluble proteins such as GFP can be expressed and exposed to the exterior surface of exosomes (§3.3; Fig. 3). Stickney highlights the challenges associated with developing such a platform : “ successfully displaying a candidate protein onto the surface of exosomes requires a sound strategy and the ability to overcome a number of technical hurdles (§ Discussion) ”. Similar to the teachings of Stickney, the exemplary species of the instantly claimed invention were structured exclusively on the same three tetraspanin scaffolds (CD9, CD63, and CD81), all of which contained the full-length sequences of said proteins including all four transmembrane domains (not “at least two” as recited in Claim 4 or a single “transmembrane domain thereof” as recited in Claims 20-22 ), and all of which comprised either 1) a transmembrane protein fused to the N-terminus of a full length tetraspanin , or 2) a soluble protein fused in the second extracellular loop of the tetraspanin (e.g. CD63-IL-2; Fig. 1E), similar to the fusions taught by Stickney. No tetraspanins beyond those known in the art to support exosome localization were tested, and no additional guidance is provided on where within CD9, CD63, or CD81 additional acceptable fusion sites could be nor the minimum structure required to support the claimed function. Owing to the challenges highlighted by the prior art in constructing functional exosome-display fusion proteins and the limited amount of working examples in the instant disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would be subject to an undue amount of experimentation to make the instant invention commensurate in scope with the claims. Further, regarding Claim 21, the claimed structure requires that a single-chain MHC and peptide is fused C-terminal to a cytokine- tetraspanin fusion, which would place the MHC/peptide following the C-terminal cytoplasmic domain of the tetraspanin . Because the claims and function of the MHC/peptide require extracellular localization, it is unclear how such a fusion molecule could function. In addition, there is no guidance or working examples of such a C-terminal MHC fusion disclosed, and the skilled artisan would be subject to an undue amount of experimentation to make such a fusion protein having all of the claimed function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1-2, 9, 31, 39 -41, and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. 2018 (WO 2018/101782 A1 ; IDS dated 8/26/2022 ) , as evidenced by Levy and Shoham 2005 ( Nature Reviews Immunology , 5(2), 136-148.; PTO-892) , herein “Levy”, and the instant specification . Note: US 2020/0071668 A1 (PTO-892) is used as the English translation for WO 2018/101782 A1, and all reference s made herein are to US 2020/0071668 A1. Regarding instant Claims 1-2, 9, and 31, Kim teaches exosomes expressing HLA ( an MHC molecule as evidenced by ¶0031 of the instant specification ), costimulatory protein s (including CD32, CD80, and CD83) , and 4-1BBL (Abstract; Kim claim 1). 4-1BBL is a cytokine as evidenced by Goodwin et al. 1993 ( European journal of immunology , 23(10), 2631-2641. ; PTO-892). Regarding Claims 39-41 and 45, Kim teaches “...the present invention provides a vaccine for preventing tumors, pathogen infections or autoimmune diseases, or a pharmaceutical composition for treating tumors, pathogen infections, or autoimmune diseases including the exosome” (¶0050). Further, regarding Claim 46, the limitation recited in the preamble (e.g. “...for treating or preventing an allergic disease...”) is directed to an intended use and does not require additional structural elements that differentiate the claimed pharmaceutical composition from that of the prior art. Claims 1-4, 9, 31, 36-37, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delcayre et al 2005 ( Blood Cells, Molecules, and Diseases , 35(2), 158-168. ; PTO-892 ) , as evidenced by Levy and Shoham 2005 ( Nature Reviews Immunology , 5(2), 136-148.; PTO-892), herein “Levy” and the instant specification. Delcayre teaches a fusion protein comprising the T-cell stimulating cytokine interleukin 2 (IL2) fused to the C1C2 domains of lactadherin (also known as MFG-E8), which directed IL2 to the exosome compartment (Fig. 3) and resulted in exosomes presenting functional IL2 (Fig. 4) Regarding Claim s 3- 4 and 9 , Delcayre teaches that exosomes comprise functional antigen-presenting MHCI and MHCII molecules in the membrane (Introduction, Pg. 158, Col. 2) as well as CD81 (Fig. 5). As evidenced by Levy , MHC molecules form a complex with CD81 in exosomes , which further comprise costimulatory proteins such as CD80 ( Levy Fig. 4 ; reproduced below ). Accordingly, the exosomes of Delcayre containing the IL-2/MFG-E8 fusion proteins inherently comprise “a protein complex which comprises an antigen-presenting MHC molecule and a tetraspanin ” according to Claims 3-4 and a “T-cell costimulatory molecule” according to Claim 9 . Regarding claims 39-41 and 45-46, Delcayre teaches that the purified exosomes are stored in a PBS buffer (§ Exosome preparation) which can be injected in mice (Pg. 161, Col. 2, ¶1), thereby satisfying the limitation of a “pharmaceutical composition”. Further, r egarding Claims 40-41 and 45-46, the limitations recited in the preambles (e.g. “...for treating or preventing...”) are directed to intended uses and do not require additional structural elements that differentiate the claimed pharmaceutical composition from that of the prior art. 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 1-31, 36-37, and 39-46 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over : claims 1-38 of copending Application No. 17/802,871 claims 1-57 of copending Application No. 18/687,485 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other becaus e: The claims of ‘871 and ‘485 are drawn to polynucleotides encoding fusion proteins comprising antigen-presenting MHC molecules, T cell stimulatory cytokines, and/or T-cell costimulatory molecules wherein the fusion proteins are expressed “outside membrane of an extracellular vesicle”. The claims of ‘871 and ‘485 are further drawn to each of the particular fusion protein architectures of the instant claims (e.g. ‘871 claims 5, 7, 10, 12, 18, 21-24 ; ‘485 claims 8-15, 20-23, 28, 32-35 ), the particular species of cytokines (‘871 claim 15 ; ‘485 claim 24 ), and pharmaceutical compositions (‘871 claims 33-37 ; ‘485 claims 52-56 ). ‘871 claim 38 and ‘485 claim 57 are drawn in part to a method of producing antigen-presenting extracellular vesicles comprising introducing the claimed polynucleotides into cells. The claims of ‘871 and ‘485 are not drawn directly to the extracellular vesicles themselves, however, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claims of ‘871 and ‘485 could further comprise extracellular vesicles comprising the fusion proteins expressed by the claimed polynucleotides. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the claims of ‘871 and ‘485 are drawn to a method of producing such extracellular vesicles. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRYAN WILLIAM HECK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4701 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8:00am - 5:30pm . 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 Julie Wu can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-5205 . 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. /BRYAN WILLIAM HECK/ Examiner, Art Unit 1643 /GARY B NICKOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1643