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 Group I , claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-13, 16, 23, 24, 33, 43, 53, & 54 , and the species election s of Clostridia in claim 1( i ), of Enterococcus in claim 1(ii), of therapeutic bacterium in claim 11, of Clostridia in claim 12, and of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in claims 53 & 54 in the reply filed o n 12/18/2025 is acknowledged. Group II , claim s 25, 27, 30, & 45 , and Group III , claim s 50 & 52 , are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Newly added claims 53 and 54 are withdrawn due to species election of therapeutic bacterium in claim 11. The cancellation of claims 25, 27, 30, 33, 45, 50, & 52 in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 without prejudice to the prosecution of the subject matter is acknowledged. A first office action on the merits of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-13, 16, 23, 24, & 43 is set forth herein and claims 53 & 54 are withdrawn from consideration. Specification The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code at pages 88, 90, & 91 . 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 § 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. Claim s FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-13, 16, 23, 24, & 43 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. Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “if the level of the diagnostic bacterium or spore thereof is lower than the reference diagnostic bacterium or spore thereof, wherein the diagnostic bacterium is a bacterium of the taxonomic group selected from the group consisting of Clostridia, Streptococcaceae , Lactobacillaceae , …” in ( i ) of claim 1 followed by the recitation of “if the level of the diagnostic bacterium or spore thereof is higher than the reference diagnostic bacterium or spore thereof, wherein the diagnostic bacterium is a bacterium of the taxonomic group consisting of … Lactobacillus delbriekii subsp. Bulgaricus, … Streptococcus mutans, … Clostridium leptum …” in (ii) of claim 1 is unclear. It is unclear how to specifically identify a subject as not likely to exhibit cancer survival as, for example, it is recited that a lower amount of the broader class of Streptococcaceae indicates identifying the subject as not likely to exhibit cancer survival while it is also recited that a higher amount of the more specific Streptococcus mutans (a bacterium that is a part of the Streptococcaceae family) indicated identifying the subject as not likely to exhibit cancer survival. Regarding claim 3 , the recitation of “determining that a level of the diagnostic bacterium or spore thereof is lower than the reference diagnostic bacterium or spore thereof, wherein the diagnostic bacterium is a bacterium of the taxonomic group selected from the group consisting of Clostridia, Streptococcaceae , Lactobacillaceae , …” in ( i ) of claim 3 followed by the recitation of “ determining that a level of the diagnostic bacterium or spore thereof is higher than the reference diagnostic bacterium or spore thereof, wherein the diagnostic bacterium is a bacterium of the taxonomic group consisting of … Lactobacillus delbriekii subsp. Bulgaricus, … Streptococcus mutans, … Clostridium leptum …” in (ii) of claim 3 is unclear. It is unclear how to specifically identify a subject as not likely to exhibit cancer survival as, for example, it is recited that a lower amount of the broader class of Streptococcaceae indicates identifying the subject as not likely to exhibit cancer survival while it is also recited that a higher amount of the more specific Streptococcus mutans (a bacterium that is a part of the Streptococcaceae family) indicated identifying the subject as not likely to exhibit cancer survival. Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the limitation “the relative abundance” in line 2 of the claim and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 16 , the claim recites the limitations of “the therapeutic bacterium” in line 2 of the claim and of “the HCT” in line 3 of the claim and there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Regarding claim 43 , the recitation of “if the level of the diagnostic bacterium or spore thereof is higher than the reference diagnostic bacterium or spore thereof, wherein the diagnostic bacterium is a bacterium of the taxonomic group selected from the group consisting of Clostridia, Streptococcaceae , Lactobacillaceae , …” in ( i ) of claim 43 followed by the recitation of “if the level of the diagnostic bacterium or spore thereof is lower than the reference diagnostic bacterium or spore thereof, wherein the diagnostic bacterium is a bacterium of the taxonomic group consisting of … Lactobacillus delbriekii subsp. Bulgaricus, … Streptococcus mutans, … Clostridium leptum …” in (ii) of claim 43 is unclear. It is unclear how to specifically identify a subject as likely to exhibit cancer survival as, for example, it is recited that a higher amount of the broader class of Streptococcaceae indicates identifying the subject as likely to exhibit cancer survival while it is also recited that a lower amount of the more specific Streptococcus mutans (a bacterium that is a part of the Streptococcaceae family) indicated identifying the subject as likely to exhibit cancer survival. Claims 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 23, 24, are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1. 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 FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-13, 16, 23, 24, & 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural correlation/law of nature and abstract idea s without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons set forth below. 35 U.S.C. § 101 requires that to be patent-eligible, an invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception. M.P.E.P. § 2106. Regarding judicial exceptions, “[p]henomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); see also M.P.E.P. § 2106. The unpatentability of abstract ideas was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme court in Bilski v. Kappos , 561 U.S. 593, 601 (June 28, 2010) and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l , 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) . See also Myriad v Ambry, CAFC 2014-1361, -1366, December 17, 2014. The unpatentability of laws of nature was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc ., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012). “[L]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Dia mond v. Diehr , 450 U. S. 175, 185 (1981); see also Bilski v. Kappos , 561 U. S. at 601 (2010). Claims Analysis: As set forth in MPEP 2106, the claims have been analyzed to determine whether they are directed to one of the four statutory categories ( STEP 1 ) . The instant claims are directed to methods and therefore are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. The claims are then analyzed to determine if they recite a judicial exception (JE) ( STEP 2A, prong 1 ) [ Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012) , Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)]. The claimed invention recites a method for treating a subject having a cancer comprising determining a level of a diagnostic bacterium, comparing the level of the diagnostic bacterium to a reference, identifying the subject as not likely to exhibit cancer survival if the diagnostic bacterium is lower than the reference selected from a group of diagnostic bacterium or higher than a reference selected from a different group of diagnostic bacterium, and treating the subject identified as not likely to exhibit cancer survival with a cancer treatment. This recitation is a natural correlation between level of a diagnostic bacterium and not likely to exhibit cancer survival . With regard to the natural correlation, as in Mayo , the relationship is itself a natural process that exists apart from any human action. The claimed invention also recites “determining a level of a diagnostic bacterium” which broadly encompasses reading a report with the results and the claimed invention recites “comparing the level of the diagnostic bacterium or spore thereof to a reference diagnostic bacterium or spore thereof level” and “identifying the subject t as not likely to exhibit cancer survival … if the level of the diagnostic bacterium .. is lower than … or the level of the diagnostic bacterium is higher than” which is a recitation of an abstract idea s because it encompasses conclusions and determinations which can occur entirely within the mind and are directed towards mathematical concepts and calculations . It is therefore determined that the claims are directed to judicial exceptions. The claims are then analyzed to determine whether they recite an element or step that integrates the JE into a practical application ( STEP 2A, prong 2 ) [ Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals , 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ]. The claims recite steps of determining the level of a diagnostic bacterium, comparing to a reference diagnostic bacterium, identifying the subject is not likely to exhibit cancer survival, and treating with a cancer treatment, however this does not integrate the JE into a practical application because it is a mere data gathering step to use the correlation and does not add a meaningful limitation to the method. Although the claims recite “ treating … with a cancer treatment ” to the subject identified as not likely to exhibit cancer survival , this step is conditional as it is based on the determined level of the diagnostic bacterium compared to a reference . Accordingly, these generally recited elements are considered nothing more than instructions to apply the law of nature because no particular conditions are required by the step of detecting gene expression or. As such, the “administering” step is merely a generalized “treat” limitation with no particularity that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The Supreme Court does acknowledge that it is possible to transform an unpatentable law of nature, but one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words "apply it.” CLS BankInt’l, 134 S.Ct. at 2358; Prometheus, 132 S. Cl, at 1294. In the absence of steps or elements that integrate the JE into a practical application, the additional elements/steps are considered to determine whether they add significantly more to the JE either individually or as an ordered combination, to “’transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent eligible application” [ Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012) , Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)] ( STEP 2B) . In the instant situation, t he steps of determining the level of a diagnostic bacterium are generally recited and do not provide any particular reagents that might be considered elements that transform the nature of the claims into a patent eligible application because no specific elements/steps are recited. This step is not only a mere data gathering step, but the general recitation of detection of known nucleic acids is well understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Applicant is reminded that in Mayo , the Court found that “[ i ]f a law of nature is not patentable, then neither is a process reciting a law of nature, unless that process has additional features that provide practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the law of nature itself." Further "conventional or obvious" "[pre]solution activity" is normally not sufficient to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law”. Flook , 437 U. S., at 590; see also Bilski , 561 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 14) (“[T]he prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by’ . . . adding ‘insignificant post-solution activity’” (quoting Diehr , supra , at 191–192)). The Court also summarized their holding by stating “[t]o put the matter more succinctly, the claims inform a relevant audience about certain laws of nature; any additional steps consist of well understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by the scientific community; and those steps, when viewed as a whole, add nothing significant beyond the sum of their parts taken separately.” Therefore these limitations/steps do not “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.’” Alice , 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo , 132 S. Ct. at 1297). When viewed as an ordered combination, the claimed limitations are directed to nothing more than the determination that a natural correlation/phenomena exists. Any additional element consists of using well understood, routine and conventional activity, and those steps, when viewed as a whole, add nothing significant beyond the sum of their parts taken separately. Accordingly, it is determined that the instant claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter. 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. Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-13, 16, 23, 24, & 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Van Den Brink (United States Patent Application Publication US 2018/0274036 A1, September 2018), as cited on the IDS dated 10/16/2024 . Regarding claim 1, Van Den Brink teaches a method of diagnosing a subject having a risk of cancer relapse by determining the level of a bacteria (diagnostic bacterium) comprising determining the level of Enterococcus faecium , comparing to a reference bacteria level (reference diagnostic bacterium) and diagnosing the subject as having a risk for cancer relapse when the level of the bacteria is greater than the bacteria reference level (reference diagnostic bacterium) ( if the level of the diagnostic bacterium of Enterococcus is higher than the reference diagnostic bacterium identifying the subject as not likely to exhibit cancer survival) and further administering a cancer therapy to the subject diagnosed as having a risk for cancer relapse (claim 13 lines 1-22; claim 15 lines 1-3). Regarding claim 3, Van Den Brink teaches a method of diagnosing a subject having a risk of cancer relapse by determining the level of a bacteria (diagnostic bacterium) comprising determining the level of Enterococcus faecium , comparing to a reference bacteria level (reference diagnostic bacterium) and diagnosing the subject as having a risk for cancer relapse when the level of the bacteria is greater than the bacteria reference level (reference diagnostic bacterium) (if the level of the diagnostic bacterium of Enterococcus is higher than the reference diagnostic bacterium identifying the subject as not likely to exhibit cancer survival) and further administering a cancer therapy to the subject diagnosed as having a risk for cancer relapse (claim 13 lines 1-22; claim 15 lines 1-3). Regarding claim s 5 & 7 , Van Den Brink teaches the subject has had a hematopoietic stem cell transplant, such as an allogenic stem cell transplant ( allo -HSCT) ( paragraph [0006] lines 1-9; claim 14 lines 1-2). Regarding claim 9 , Van Den Brink teaches determining the level of a bacteria present in a sample compared to a bacteria reference level (level of the diagnostic bacterium is a relative abundance as compared to other bacteria (reference bacteria) in the sample) (paragraph [0014] lines 1- 12 ; claim 13 lines 1-22). Regarding claim 1 0 , Van Den Brink teaches the sample is a fecal sample or an intestinal microbiota sample from the subject (paragraph [0012] lines 1-2). Regarding claim s 1 1 & 12 , Van Den Brink teaches administering cancer therapy wherein the therapy is a probiotic bacteria (therapeutic bacterium) comprising SEQ ID NO. 16 which corresponds to Clostridium glycyrrhizinilyticum (treatment comprises administering to the subject a therapeutic bacterium of Clostridia ) (claim 15 lines 1-3; claim 16 lines 1-6; sequence listing). Regarding claim 1 3 , Van Den Brink teaches administering the probiotic bacteria (therapeutic bacterium) comprising SEQ ID NO. 16 which corresponds to Clostridium glycyrrhizinilyticum (treatment comprises a therapeutic bacterium of Clostridia ) in an effective amount to decrease the presence of Enterococcus faecium in the subject (decrease the amount of the diagnostic bacterium of (c)(ii) in the subject) ( claim 7 lines 1-10; claim 9 lines 1-4; claim 15 lines 1-3; claim 16 lines 1-6; sequence listing). Regarding claim 1 6 , Van Den Brink teaches the subject has had a hematopoietic stem cell transplant and further teaches administering cancer therapy wherein the therapy is a probiotic bacteria (therapeutic bacterium) (cancer treatment comprises combination of administering to the subject the therapeutic bacterium and the HCT) (paragraph [0006] lines 1-9; paragraph [0014] lines 1-12; claim 13 lines 1-22; claim 14 lines 1-2). Regarding claim 23 , Van Den Brink teaches administering the probiotic bacteria (therapeutic bacterium) comprising SEQ ID NO. 16 which corresponds to Clostridium glycyrrhizinilyticum (treatment comprises a therapeutic bacterium of Clostridia ) in an effective amount to decrease the presence of Enterococcus faecium in the subject (decrease the amount of the diagnostic bacterium of (c)(ii) in the subject) (claim 7 lines 1-10; claim 9 lines 1-4; claim 15 lines 1-3; claim 16 lines 1-6; sequence listing). Regarding claim 24 , Van Den Brink teaches the overall survival of the subject is 25 months (at least about 2 years) in the subject following cancer treatment (Fig. 29). Regarding claim 43, Van Den Brink teaches a method of diagnosing a subject having a risk of cancer relapse by determining the level of a bacteria (diagnostic bacterium) comprising determining the level of Enterococcus faecium , comparing to a reference bacteria level (reference diagnostic bacterium) and diagnosing the subject as having a risk for cancer relapse when the level of the bacteria is greater than the bacteria reference level (reference diagnostic bacterium) (if the level of the diagnostic bacterium of Enterococcus is lower than the reference diagnostic bacterium identifying the subject as likely to exhibit cancer survival) and further administering a cancer therapy to the subject (claim 13 lines 1-22; claim 15 lines 1-3). Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) of the present application." \d "[ 1 ]" 1, 3, 10, & 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) of the copending application." \d "[ 2 ]" 34, 44, & 45 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference application." \d "[ 3 ]" 18/656,397 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because FILLIN "Provide appropriate explanation for anticipation or rationale for obviousness of claims being rejected over the claims of the cited application." \d "[ 4 ]" both applications are directed to method of determining likelihood of cancer survival through determining a level of a bacteria compared to a reference bacteria level and administering a cancer treatment . Regarding claim s 1, 3, & 43 , the instant application claims a method for treating a subject having cancer comprising determining a level of a diagnostic bacterium, comparing the level of the diagnostic bacterium to a reference diagnostic bacterium, identifying the subject as not likely to exhibit cancer survival if the level of the diagnostic bacterium comprising Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron , Veillonella , etc. is higher than the reference, and treating the subject with a cancer treatment . Copending application 18/656,397 claims a method for treating a cancer with a CAR T cell therapy (cancer therapy) comprising determining a level of bacterium in a sample of a subject, comparing the level to a reference level, identifying the subject as having decreased likelihood of cancer survival when the bacterium comprising Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron , a species of the Veillonellaceae family, etc. is higher than the reference level (see claim 34). Regarding claim 10 , the instant application claims the sample is a fecal sample or an intestinal content sample of the subject . Copending application 18/656,397 claims the sample is a fecal sample or an intestinal content sample of the subject (see claim 44). Regarding claim 11 , the instant application claims the cancer treatment comprises administering surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, stem cell therapy, cellular therapy, a probiotic bacteria, a probiotic yeast, a prebiotic, a postbiotic, an antibiotic, or a combination thereof . Copending application 18/656,397 claims further administering to the subject chemotherapy, immunotherapy, stem cell therapy, cellular therapy, a probiotic bacteria, a probiotic yeast, a prebiotic, a postbiotic, an antibiotic, or a combination thereof (see claim 45). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) of the present application." \d "[ 1 ]" 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, & 43 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) of the copending application." \d "[ 2 ]" 13-16 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference application." \d "[ 3 ]" 18/118,072 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because FILLIN "Provide appropriate explanation for anticipation or rationale for obviousness of claims being rejected over the claims of the cited application." \d "[ 4 ]" both applications are directed to method of determining likelihood of cancer survival through determining a level of a bacteria compared to a reference bacteria level and administering a cancer treatment . Regarding claims 1, 3, 10, 11, & 43, the instant application claims a method for treating a subject having cancer comprising determining a level of a diagnostic bacterium, comparing the level of the diagnostic bacterium to a reference diagnostic bacterium, identifying the subject as not likely to exhibit cancer survival if the level of the diagnostic bacterium comprising Clostridia, Streptococcaceae , etc. is lower than the reference or identifying the subject as not likely to exhibit cancer survival if the level of the diagnostic bacterium comprising Enterococcus , etc. is higher than the reference, and treating the subject with a cancer treatment . Copending application 18/118,072 claims a method for diagnosing a subject with a cancer relapse comprising determining the level of a bacteria, comparing the level with a reference bacteria level, diagnosing the subject as having risk of cancer relapse of the level of Enterococcus faecium bacteria is greater than the bacteria reference level or the level of Streptococcus anginosus , Clostridium glycyrrhizinilyticum , etc. is lower than the bacteria reference level , and administering cancer therapy to the subject diagnosed as having a risk of cancer relapse (see claims 13 & 15). Regarding claim 5 , the instant application claims the subject has previous received a hematopoietic cell transplantation . Copending application 18/118,072 claims the subject has had a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (see claim 14). Regarding claims 11 & 12 , the instant application claims the cancer treatment comprises administering to the subject a therapeutic bacterium comprising Clostridia or surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, stem cell therapy, cellular therapy, a probiotic bacteria, a probiotic yeast, a prebiotic, a postbiotic, an antibiotic, or a combination thereof . Copending application 18/118,072 claims administering surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, stem cell therapy, cellular therapy, a probiotic bacteria, a probiotic yeast, a prebiotic, a postbiotic, an antibiotic, or a combination thereof wherein the probiotic bacteria comprises a Streptococcus anginosus , Clostridium glycyrrhizinilyticum , etc. bacteria (therapeutic bacterium) (see claims 15 & 16). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-13, 16, 23, 24, & 43 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BAILEY C BUCHANAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1315 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm ET . 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 Winston Shen can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-3157 . 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. /BAILEY BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1682 /JEHANNE S SITTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682