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 .
Applicant’s amendment and argument of 2/12/26 are entered.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 1, 7-15, 17, and 19-22 remain pending and are considered herein.
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.
Patents:
Method of Expanding TILs
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,344,581 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,639,330 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,639,330 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,918,666 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,007,226 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,040,070 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,168,303 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,168,304 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,254,913 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,273,180 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,291,687 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,304,979 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,527,372 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,541,077 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent No. 11,939,596 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,529,372 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 12,280,140 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 12,188,048 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 12,226,434 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 12,024,718 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
Claims 1, 7-15, 17, and 19-22 are maintained on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims, each separately, of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,639,330; 10,918,666; 11,007,226; 11,040,070; 11,168,303; 11,168,304; 11,254,913; 11,273,180; 11,291,687; 11,304,979, 11,344,581; 11,529,372; 11,541,077; 12,024,718; 11,939,596; 12,280,140; 12,188,048 and 12,226,434.
Despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent even more clearly infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
TILs
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,865,140 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,398,734 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against 10,537,595 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,695,372 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,894,063 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,052,115 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,052,116 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,337,998 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,344,579 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 12,194,061 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent No. 12,031,157 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
Claims 1, 7-15, 17, and 19-22 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of each, separately, of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,398,734; 10,537,595; 10,695,372; 10,894,063; 11,052,115; 11,052,116; 11,337,998; 11,344,579; 12,031,157; 12,194,061; and 11,865,140.
Despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
Method of Treating Cancer
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,130,659 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,166,257 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,272,113 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,363,273 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,905,718 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,363,273 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos.10,925,900 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,933,094 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,846,044 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,846,045 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,846,045 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,846,047 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,007,225 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,013,770 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,083,752 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,202,803 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,202,804 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,241,456 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,273,181 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,364,266 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,517,592 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,998,568 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 12,121,541 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,463,697 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,646,517 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
The rejections against U.S. Patent Nos. 10,653,723 are maintained, despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
Claims 1, 7-15, 17, and 19-22 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims, each separately, of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,130,659; 10,166,257; 10,272,113; 10,363,273; 10,463,697; 10,646,517; 10,653,723; 10,905,718; 10,925,900; 10,933,094; 10,946,044; 10,946,045; 10,953,046; 10,953,047; 11,007,225; 11,013,770; 11,083,752; 11,202,803; 11,202,804; 11,241,456; 11,273,181; 11,364,266; 11,517,592; 11,401,507; 12,121,541; and 11,998,568.
Despite Applicant’s amendment that removes the requirement for expanding at least 14 days (Claim 1) and argument that such overcomes the rejection (argument of 2/12/26, p. 7, penultimate paragraph). Such is because now, if anything, the patent still infringes. Applicant’s statement that the rejection should be held in abeyance (Id.), are not persuasive, because rejections against patents are never held in abeyance.
Applications:
Method of Expanding TILs
Claims 1, 7-15, 17, and 19-22 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims, independently, of copending Application Nos. 17/147,412*; 17/997,648; 17/997,731; 18/262,365; 18/262,843; 18/291,536; 18/337,454; 18/429,006; 18/551,138; 18/551,586; 18/555,513; 18/560,898; 18/609,772; 18/619,119; 18/661,510; 18/668,092; 18/690,067; 18/693,508; 18/707,719; 18/781,928; 18/832,901; 18/849,440; 18/858,710; 18/957,327; 18/957,327 and 18/984,595. (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the references are drawn to methods of expanding TILs, but do not necessarily contain the same steps and structure. On the other hand, the essential written description for the subject matter claimed provides for the limitations such that the same subject matter is claimed. Thus, in light of the patents, the Artisan would make the invention, as it is claimed, and provided the same essential written description, and would expect success for the same reasoning. Further there is no restriction excluding the rejections.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Argument – NSDP rejections, pending Applications
Applicant’s argument of 2/12/26 has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are not obvious variants, broadly averring the same, without particularity (pp. 5-6) and they should be withdrawn as being to earlier filed Applications (p. 7).
Such is not persuasive. The claims are properly rejected as NSDP, requiring a terminal disclaimer. As far as being the earlier filed Application, they will not be withdrawn, unless no other issue exist, including all the rejections against the patents for NSDP, addressed above.
TILs
Claims 1, 7-15, 17, and 19-22 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims, independently, of copending Application Nos. 17/817,226*; 17/817,239*; 17/817,247*; 17/817,273*; 17/823,419*; 17/823,448*; 17/856,806*; 18/555,513; and 18/984,525. (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the references are drawn to TILs themselves, including product by process in instances, which requires, in the claims or as part of the essential written description for the claimed subject matter, providing the same steps. Thus, in light of each of the references, the invention is obvious. One would make the subject matter in process of making the TILs, and expect success, as it is claimed or provided as essential written description for the making of the TILs claimed. Further there is no restriction excluding the rejections.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Argument – NSDP rejections, pending Applications
Applicant’s argument of 2/12/26 has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are not obvious variants, broadly averring the same, without particularity (pp. 5-6) and they should be withdrawn as being to earlier filed Applications (p. 7).
Such is not persuasive. The claims are properly rejected as NSDP, requiring a terminal disclaimer. As far as being the earlier filed Application, they will not be withdrawn, unless no other issue exist, including all the rejections against the patents for NSDP, addressed above.
Method of Treating Cancer
Claims 1, 7-15, 17, and 19-22 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims, independently, of copending Application Nos. 16/969,362; 17/050,552; 17/110,179; 17/810,540; 17/817,217*; 17/817,276*; 17/823,454*; 17/856,793*; 18/247,877; 18/256,421; 18/256,798; 18/256,853; 18/291,536; 18/410,900; 18/674,562; 18/707,719; 18/745,958; 18/781,928; 18/810,044; 18/832,901; 18/858,710; and 18/886,988. (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims are drawn to treating cancers. However, the same either claims the same process of making the TILs, or claims the TILs in the use, of which the essential written description fills in those portions not directly claimed. Thus, the Artisan would have found the invention obvious in light of these patents. The Artisan would make the invention, in the process of treating the cancer. The Artisan would expect success, as it is claimed, or provided by way of essential written description for the claims. Further there is no restriction excluding the rejections.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Argument – NSDP rejections, pending Applications
Applicant’s argument of 2/12/26 has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are not obvious variants, broadly averring the same, without particularity (pp. 5-6) and they should be withdrawn as being to earlier filed Applications (p. 7).
Such is not persuasive. The claims are properly rejected as NSDP, requiring a terminal disclaimer. As far as being the earlier filed Application, they will not be withdrawn, unless no other issue exist, including all the rejections against the patents for NSDP, addressed above.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KELLY whose telephone number is (571)272-0729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8a-5p.
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, Tracy Vivlemore can be reached on 571-272-2914. 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.
ROBERT M. KELLY
Examiner
Art Unit 1638
/ROBERT M KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1638
Prosecution Insights