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. Claims 1-19 are pending. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I ( now claims 1-10, 15 and 16) in the reply filed on January 9, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that t he term "hypoimmunogenic cell" is defined in the patent application as encompassing any cell modified to be protected initially from the adaptive immune response, thus allowing for survival for a longer period in vivo and a prolonged time period for foreign antigen presentation but which is eventually recognized as foreign by the innate immune response and attacked, thereby undergoing so that antibodies are generated against antigens expressed by or administered with the cells. Applicant respectfully disagree with the Examiner with respect to these cells not providing a contribution over the cited reference of Meissner (US20190309259). This is not found persuasive because claim 1 re cites a composition comprising a cell modified to be hypoimmunogenic and to express one or more foreign molecules. Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a composition comprising a cell modified to be hypoimmunogenic and to express one or more foreign molecules, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art of Meissner (US20190309259, published September 10, 2019; PTO 1449). Consistent with the search report, Meissner teaches a composition (para. [0004], [0216]) comprising stem cells in which the expression of NLRC5, CIITA and B2M were knockout to eliminate the expression of MHC class I, e.g., HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-C and MHC class II to make the cell hypoimmunogenic (aka protected initially from the adaptive immune response ) , see para. [0374] to [0375], [0378]. Meissner further teaches that the HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-C and MHC class II knockout hypoimmunogenic stem cells are then modified by knock-in to express one or more foreign molecules, e.g., CD47 protein, PD-L1 or HLA-G, see para. [0387] to [0389], reference claim 53. Therefore, the technical feature that links th e groups is not special, as it does not make a contribution over the prior art and unity of invention is lacking in the instant c ase. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 11-14 and 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 C.F.R. 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected inventions. Claims 1-10, 15 and 16 , drawn to a composition comprising a cell modified to be hypoimmunogenic and to express one or more foreign molecules , are being acted upon in this Office Action. Priority Applicant’ claim priority to provisional application 63/025,351 , filed May 15, 2020 , is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) submitted on July 14, 2025, September 24, 2024 and January 5, 2023 have been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is included with this Office Action. Abstract The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract provided herein is a copy of front page of Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) publication. Abstract must commence one separate sheet, under the heading "Abstract" or "Abstract of the Disclosure", the sheet or sheets presenting the abstract may not include other parts of the application or other material. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim objection Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality: plural cytokines should be singular. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: “an antigen against tumor epitopes” should have been “an antibody against a tumor epitope”. Clarification is required. Claim rejections under - 35 U.S.C. 112 The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph: 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 1-10, 15 and 16 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 claim(s) contains 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the Application. These include : ( 1) Actual reduction to practice, (2) Disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas, (3) Sufficient relevant identifying characteristics (such as: i . Complete structure, ii. Partial structure, iii. Physical and/or chemical properties, iv. Functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed, and correlation between function and structure), (4) Method of making the claimed invention, (5) Level of skill and knowledge in the art, and (6) Predictability in the art. “Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the applicant was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient.” MPEP § 2163. MPEP § 2163 states that the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, or 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. An adequate written description must contain enough information about the actual makeup of the claimed products – “a precise definition, such as structure, formula, chemic name, physical properties of other properties, of species falling with the genus sufficient to distinguish the gene from other materials”, which may be present in “functional terminology when the art has established a correlation between structure and function” ( Amgen page 1361). Claim 1 encompasses a composition comprising a cell modified to be hypoimmunogenic and to express one or more foreign molecules. Claim 2 encompasses the composition of claim 1 wherein the foreign molecule is a protein, carbohydrate, nucleotide, cytokines, chemokine, antibody or lectin. Claim 3 encompasses the composition of claim 2 wherein the protein is antigenic. Claim 4 encompasses the composition of claim 3 wherein the antigenic protein is a viral antigen or an antigen against tumor epitopes. Claim 5 encompasses the composition of claim 2 wherein the foreign molecule is an antibody. Claim 6 encompasses the composition of claim 1 wherein the cell is modified to be hypoimmunogenic by eliminating or lowering expression of Class I epitopes and Class II epitopes. Claim 7 encompasses the composition of claim 1 wherein the cell is a mesenchymal stem cell. Claim 8 recites a vaccine comprising the composition of claim 1 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Claim 9 encompasses the vaccine of claim8 further comprising an additional activation agent. Claim 10 encompasses the vaccine of claim 9 wherein the activation agent is foreign viral DNA or Poly I:C ( Polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid). Claim 15 recites a vaccine comprising a cell modified to be hypoimmunogenic and an antigenic peptide or protein. Claim 16 encompasses the vaccine of claim 15 wherein the cell is modified to be hypoimmunogenic by eliminating or lowering expression of Class I epitopes and Class II epitopes. The specification defines term “hypoimmunogenic cell” as follow: [0035] By the term “hypoimmunogenic cell” as used herein it is meant to encompass any cell modified to be protected initially from the adaptive immune response, thus allowing for survival for a longer period in vivo and a prolonged time period for foreign antigen presentation but which is eventually recognized as foreign by the innate immune response and attacked, thereby undergoing so that antibodies are generated against antigens expressed by or administered with the cells. [0036] In one nonlimiting embodiment of the present invention, the hypoimmunogenic cell line is an iPSC or an immortalized line. In one nonlimiting embodiment, the hypoimmunogenic cells are HLA Class I and Class II null cells. A nonlimiting example is HLA Class I and II KO (HLA-null) mesenchymal stem cells (MSC). [0038] In one nonlimiting embodiment, Class I and/or Class II knockout cell lines of the present invention, such as, but not limited to, B2M and CTIIA cell lines, are created which express a foreign antigen. Foreign antigen expression can be created using either a safe harbor locus integration (targeted integration) or via random integration for expressing one or more foreign antigens. The specification exemplifies : Example 1: Nucleic Acid Construct for Foreign Antigen Expression of C O V ID- 19) [0060] Details of a nonlimiting example of a construct for insertion/integration of a gene for the foreign antigen CoV219 are provided below: Example 2: Production of COVID-19 Antigen iPSC Lines and MSC Derived Therefrom [0061] Several COVID-19 antigen iPSC lines expressing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, N protein and RNA polymerase were produced. In particular, 3 HLA-KO iPSC lines RCL-BC1-S, RCL-BC1-RNAPol and RCL-BC1-N, expressing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, N protein and RNA polymerase and 3 control iPSC lines (paternal lines) NCL2-S, NCL2-RNAPol and NCL2-N, expressing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, N protein and RNA polymerase were produced. [0062] MSCs were then derived from the iPSC lines. Example 3: In Vitro Experiments with MSC Derived from HLA-KO iPSC and its Parental iPSC Lines Expressing SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein (RCL-BC1-S and NCL2-S) [0063] The hypoimmunogenic status and activation of the innate immune response to the MSCs is confirmed. [0064] ELISA-based and PCR-based assays are performed to confirm expression of antigen or antibody. [0065] In vitro challenge assays using sera from immunized mice or expressed antibody using pseudo virus or competitive CFU assays are performed. Example 4: In Vivo Experiments with MSC Derived from HLA-KO iPSC and its Parental iPSC Lines Expressing SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein (RCL-BC1-S and NCL2-S) [0066] The immune response to MSC engineered to express COVID antigens is assessed in mice. Antibody production in mice is tested by ELISA and CFU assays. [0067] Mice (n=5/group) are injected as follows: [0068] Group 1: MSC derived from HLA-null iPSC line stably expressing spike protein; [0069] Group 2: MSC derived from HLA unmodified iPSC stably expressing spike protein; [0070] Group 3: HLA-null MSC transfected with SAM encoding spike protein gene; [0071] Group 4: Unmodified MSC transfected with SAM encoding spike protein gene; and [0072] Group 5: SAM encoding spike protein gene alone. However, this is not sufficiently representative of the broad range of hypoimmunogenic modified cell to express foreign molecules encompassed by the instant claims, which might encompass any and all possible protein, carbohydrate, nucleotide, cytokines, chemokine, antibody, lectin, viral antigen, antigen against tumor epitope , for example. The specification does not describe any and all possible modified cells to be hypoimmunogenic and expressed any and all possible foreign molecules, such as any protein, carbohydrate, nucleotide, cytokines, chemokines, antibody or lectin. The specification does not describe structure-identifying information about all possible hypoimmunogenic cell expressing foreign molecules, or proteins. The specification does not describe a representative number of species falling with the scope of the genus or structural common to the members of the genus so the one of skill in the art can visualize or recognize the member of the genus of the actual claimed hypoimmunogenic cell expressing one or more foreign protein themselves for inducing any immune response against all foreign antigen or protecting a mammal from any disease or infection. Thus one of skill in the art cannot "visualize or recognize" most members of the genus. Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 782 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that an “adequate written description must contain enough information about the actual makeup of the claimed products”). Citing its decision in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., the court also stressed that the "newly characterized" test could not stand because it contradicted the quid pro quo of the patent system whereby one must describe an invention in order to obtain a patent. Amgen, 872 F.3d at 1378-79, quoting Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar , 19 USPQ2d 1111, makes clear that “applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed.” (see page 1117). The specification does not “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” (see Vas-Cath at page 1116). Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it. See Fiers v. Revel , 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. , 18 USPQ2d 1016. One cannot describe what one has not conceived. See Fiddles v. Baird , 30 USPQ2d 1481, 1483. In Fiddles v. Baird , claims directed to mammalian FGF’s were found unpatentable due to lack of written description for the broad class. The specification provided only the bovine sequence. Therefore, only (1) a composition comprising a hypoimmunogenic pluripotent stem cell ( iPSC ) expressing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein wherein the iPSC is modified to eliminating the expression of MHC class I and MHC class II epitopes, wherein the iPSC comprises the nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 13, (2) a vaccine comprising said cell, and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, (3) the vaccine above further comprises foreign viral DNA or polyinsosinicpolycytidylic acid (poly I:C) , but not the full breadth of the claims meets the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Applicant is reminded that Vas-Cath makes clear that the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is severable from its enablement provision (see page 1115). 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 2 ) as being anticipated by Meissner et al (US20190309259, published Oct 10, 2019 , claimed earliest priority to 62/158,999, filed May 8, 2015 ; PTO 892 ) as evidenced by Malik et al (Regenerative Medicine 14(11): 983-989, 2019; PTO 892). The claims are drawn to a composition comprising a cell modified to be hypoimmunogenic and to express one or more foreign molecules (claim 1), wherein the foreign molecule is a protein (claim 2), wherein the hypoimmunogenic is by eliminating or lowering expression of class I epitopes and Class II epitopes (claim 6). Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, Meissner teach a composition (para. [0216]) comprising a modified cell, e.g., hypoimmunogenic human pluripotent stem cells ( hPSCs , para. [0003] ) using multiplex CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing or TALEN (see entire document, para. [0006]) to specifically knockout (aka eliminate) the expression of the highly polymorphic HLA-A/-B/-C (aka MHC class I epitopes) and HLA class II (MHC class II epitopes) in human pluripotent stem cells to remove HLA-A/-B/-C proteins and CIITA gene (see para. [0006], [0245], reference claims in particular), which renders the hPSC hypoimmunogenic , see para. [0245], reference claims 21, 70 ) . The hypoimmunogenic hPSCs are then knock-in foreign protein, e.g., PD-L1, human CD47, see para. [0057]. Evidentiary reference Malik teaches that CD47 and PD-L1 are immune checkpoint proteins, which are being exploited in the generation of universal cells. CD47, which is expressed on all human cells, plays a key role in self-recognition by acting as a “ don’t eat me ” signal to macrophages to protect cells from phagocytosis. PD-L1, also known as CD274 or B7-H1, is expressed physiologically mainly on placental tissue and pathologically on cancer cells [25 ] . PD-L1 delivers a ‘don’t find me’ signal to T cells, whereby it binds to the PD-1 receptor located on T cells to inhibit them. Thus, the reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Welstead (US20190062735, published February 28, 2019; PTO 892). The claims are drawn to a composition comprising a cell modified to be hypoimmunogenic and to express one or more foreign molecules (claim 1), wherein the foreign molecule is a protein (claim 2) or .wherein the foreign molecule is an antibody (claim 5) . Welstead teaches a composition (see para. [0003], [0058]) comprising a modified hypoimmunogenic T cells engineered to express chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) comprising an antibody for adoptive immunotherapy and improve T cell persistence by altering the B2M gene , see para. [0129]. The absent expression of beta-2-microglobulin (encoded by B2M) results in the loss of MHC class I surface expression on T cells. R emoval of beta-2 microglobulin may reduce the possibility of host rejection of the transfused engineered T cells resulting in hypoimmunogenic cells for adoptive immunotherapy , see para. [0129]. The Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) genes encode artificial T cell receptors comprising an extra-cellular tumor antigen binding domain, typically derived from the single-chain antibody variable fragment (scFv) domain of a monoclonal antibody, fused via hinge and transmembrane domains to a cytoplasmic effector domain. The effector domain is typically derived from the CD3-zeta chain of the T cell co-receptor complex, and can also include domains derived from CD28 and/or CD137 receptor proteins , see para. [0006]. CAR-T cells engineered to target the B cell antigen, CD19 , see para. [0007]. Thus, the reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schrepfer et al. ( WO2018/132783, published July 19, 2018; PTO 892 ) . The claims are drawn to a composition comprising a cell modified to be hypoimmunogenic and to express one or more foreign molecules (claim 1), wherein the foreign molecule is a protein (claim 2). Regarding claims 1, 2, Schrepfer teaches modified hypoimmune pluripotent (HIP) cells by eliminating the activity of both alleles of human B2M gene and human CIITA gene using CRISPR (para. [0012], [00153] to [0154]) and increasing the expression of a foreign protein, e.g., CD47 in the HIP or iPSC cells, see entire document, para. [0010] to [0014]. This is done in several ways as will be appreciated by those in the art using "knock in" or transgenic technologies. In some cases, increased CD47 expression results from one or more CD47 transgene , see para. [00172]. Examples of cell include mouse iPSCs (para. [00197] to [00198]) or human iPSCs (see para. [00199] to [00201]). Thus, the reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention. Claim s 1, 8 -9, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 2 ) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US20190309260, filed December 1, 2017; PTO 892 ) . Claim 1 (original): A composition comprising a cell modified to be hypoimmunogenic and to express one or more foreign molecules. Claim 8 recites a vaccine comprising the composition of claim 1 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Claim 9 encompasses the vaccine of claim8 further comprising an additional activation agent. Claim 15 recites a vaccine comprising a cell modified to be hypoimmunogenic and an antigenic peptide or protein. Claim 16 encompasses the vaccine of claim 15 wherein the cell is modified to be hypoimmunogenic by eliminating or lowering expression of Class I epitopes and Class II epitopes. Regarding claim s 1 , 8 , and 15, Kim teaches a pharmaceutical composition (para. [0013] , [0060] ) or vaccine (para. [0060]) comprising artificial antigen presenting cell, wherein the HLA class I null-293 cell is prepared from 293 cell line using a CRISPR-Cas9 system to completely eliminate HLA-A, -B, -C genes in genomes to produce HLA class I null-293 cell ; the HLA class I null-293 cell is inherently hypoimmunogenic, see para. [ 0015] , Example 1, reference claims 1, 3 , para. [0095] ) . The HLA class I null-293 cell is then expressing various foreign protein using lentiviruses encoding the respective foreign molecules (HLA-A*02:01, A*02:06, B*07:02, B*40:06, CD80-T2A-CD32, CD83-T2A-CD137L, CD54, and CD70 to express one or more of said molecules, see para. [0087]. The null-293T(H1E-45) cell line-based artificial antigen presenting cell can stimulate CTLs, meaning that the null-293T(H1E) cell line can be utilized as a source of novel artificial antigen presenting cells , see para. [0103] . Regarding claim s 8 , 9 , Kim teaches vaccine (para. [0060]) comprising the reference artificial antigen presenting cell, wherein the HLA class I null-293 cell is prepared from an HLA null-293 cell line using a CRISPR-Cas9 system in a human cell line to completely eliminate HLA-A, -B, -C genes in genomes (see para. [0015], Example 1, reference claims 1, 3, para. [0095]) and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, e.g., buffer, see para. [0065] , [0066], additional activation agent, e.g., adjuvant, see para. [0066]. Claim 16 is included as the HLA null-293 cell line is modified using a CRISPR-Cas9 system in a human cell line to completely eliminate HLA-A, -B, -C genes in genomes ( aka eliminating expression of HLA-A, -B, -C comprising epitopes, see para. [0015], Example 1, reference claims 1, 3, para. [0095]). Thus, the reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Claim s 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner et al (US20190309259, published Oct 10, 2019, claimed earliest priority to 62/158,999, filed May 8, 2015; PTO 892 ) in view of Deuse et al. (Nat Biotechnol : 37(3):252-258, 2019 ; PTO 892 ) and Tomchuck et al (Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 140(1): 1, 2012; PTO 1449). The teachings of Meissner have been discussed supra. Meissner does not teach the cell is a mesenchymal stem cell as per claim 7. However, Deuse et al. teach both mouse and human iPSCs lose their immunogenicity when major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I and II genes are inactivated and CD47 is over-expressed (Abstract). Regarding claim 7, Deuse et al. teach t o mouse and human iPSCs cell lines which lose their immunogenicity when major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I and II genes are inactivated . To achieve hypoimmunogenicity , these iPSCs from mice ( miPSCs ) underwent a three-step gene-editing process. First, CRISPR guide RNAs targeting the coding sequence of the mouse β2-microglobulin ( B2m ) gene were ligated into vectors containing the Cas9 expression cassette and subsequently transfected into miPSCs . B2m is a structural component of MHC class I. Second, B2m−/− miPSCs were transfected with a CRISPR-Cas9 vector targeting Ciita , the master regulator of MHC class II molecules. Third, the Cd47 gene sequence was synthesized and cloned into a lentivirus with blasticidin resistance, which was used to transduce B2m−/− Ciita −/− miPSC clones followed by antibiotic selection and expansion of B2m−/− Ciita −/− Cd47 transgene ( tg )-expressing miPSCs . Both Meissner and Deuse do not teach the cell is a mesenchymal stem cell as per claim 7 and the foreign molecule is a protein as per claim 3 or wherein the antigenic protein is a viral antigen as per claim 4 . However, Tomchuck teaches mesenchymal stem cells are unique bone marrow-derived multipotent progenitor cells that are being exploited as a vaccine platform for delivery of antigens for a variety of conditions, including anti-cancer and autoimmune diseases and anti-microbial diseases. These progenitor cells are known to migrate to sites of inflammation, infection, tissue injury, and tumors where they immunomodulate the microenvironment through cell-to-cell contact and the release of soluble factors, see p. 3, in particular. Modified MSC are useful and feasible vehicle for protein expression and delivery to target various diseases and tissues, see p. 3, right col. Tomchuck further teaches that MSC modified to express a foreign antigen, e.g., gp120, the glycoprotein from HIV, can be readily to express high levels of gp120 protein, and sufficient to induce an immunological response from a vaccine standpoint, see p. 4, in particular. Modified MSC expressing gp120 promote serum anti-gp120 antibody response, see p. 5, in particular. Modified MSCs vaccination besides antigen delivery, including cytokine secretion and anti g en presentation, p. 6, Figure 1B, in particular. In view of the combined teachings of the references, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Meissner , Deuse and Tomchuck by substituting Meissner ’s human pluripotent stem cells ( hPSCs ) or Deuse’s human iPSC for another, e.g., Tomchuck’s mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and then modified the cells to become hypoimmunogenic using Meissner or Deuse’s multiplex CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing to specifically ablate (aka eliminate) the expression of the highly polymorphic HLA-A/-B/-C (aka MHC class I epitopes) and HLA class II (MHC class II epitopes) and then express foreign protein, e.g., viral antigen gp120 of Tomchuck with a reasonable expectation of success, e.g., as a novel antigen delivery vaccine platform. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success to do so because Deuse et al. taches that the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology can eliminate MHC class I and Class II protein expression in any cell to evade immune detection and then express one or more foreign molecules of interest, e.g., gp120 from HIV because Tomchuck teaches that these progenitor cells are known to migrate to sites of inflammation, infection, tissue injury, and tumors where they immunomodulate the microenvironment through cell-to-cell contact and the release of soluble factors (see p. 3, right col). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Deuse teach the pluripotent stem cells have an inherent property that undergoes sufficient cell divisions to allow insertion and selection of cells which exhibit Class I and Class II epitope eliminatio n and Meissner teaches that the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology can eliminate MHC class I and Class II protein expression in the cell to evade immune detection. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Tomchuck teaches that modified mesenchymal stem cells can be used as a novel antigen delivery vaccine platform when express foreign antigen, including but not limited to viral antigen such as gp120 and the multipotent progenitor cells have unique abilities that could enable their use as a novel vaccine delivery method include protection from allogenic host response (GvHD), ease of production, ability to act as delivery vehicle depot for antigen release over several days and direct stimulation of antigen specific immune response when modified to express a bacterial or viral TLR ligand in conjunction with pertinent microbial antigens, see p. 6, in particular. In this case, the s imple substitution of one known element , e.g., human pluripotent stem cells ( hPSCs ) for another , e.g., mesenchymal stem cells using known method of CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology can eliminate MHC class I and Class II protein expression and then transfect with protein of interest, e.g., gp120 viral antigen would obtain predictable results, e.g., hypoimmunogenic cells expressing viral antigen to migrate to sites of inflammation or infection . KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “The test of obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all of the references but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them.” See In re Rosselet 146 USPQ 183, 186 (CCPA 1965). “There is no requirement (under 35 USC 103(a)) that the prior art contain an express suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed invention. Rather, the suggestion to combine may come from the prior art, as filtered through the knowledge of one skilled in the art.,” Motorola, Inc, v. Interdigital Tech . Corn., 43 USPQ2d 1481, 1489 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the claimed invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Claim s 1, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US20190309260, filed December 1, 2017 ; PTO 892 ) in view of Kooreman et al (US20190290697, published September 26, 2019 , claimed earliest priority to 62/312,826 filed Oct 2, 2018 ; PTO 892). The teachings of Kim have been discussed supra. Kim does not teach the activation agent is foreign viral DNA as per claim 10. However, Kooreman teaches IPSC-based vaccine for treatment of cancer, see entire document, abstract, in particular. The vaccine comprises adjuvant e.g., CpG repeat (foreign DNA) combines with iPSCs, see para. [0006], [0008], [0015]. The pluripotent stem cells are genetically engineered to over-express one or more cancer antigens (e.g., CEA, MAGE-1, survivin , p53, HER2-neu, AFP, ras ), pro-inflammatory proteins and/or pro-immunogenic protein s, see para. [0010]. The adjuvant includes those disclosed in the specification and those known in the art for boosting the immunological response of the recipient’s immune system to target the pluripotent stem cells, see para. [0063]. In view of the combined teachings of the references, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim and Kooreman by including any known adjuvant, e.g., CpG of Kooreman with Kim’s hypoimmunogenic HLA class I null-293 cell expressing the desire molecule using lentiviruses encoding the respective foreign molecules (HLA-A*02:01, A*02:06, B*07:02, B*40:06, CD80-T2A-CD32, CD83-T2A-CD137L, CD54, and CD70 ) or any of Kooreman’s tumor antigen to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success, e.g., boosting the immunological response of the recipient’s immune system to target cancer antigen expressed on hypoimmunogenic HLA class I null-293 cell or iPSCs cell. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Kooreman teaches CpG has been used as adjuvant in vaccine comprising iPSCs cell expressing tumor antigen and Kim teaches that HLA null-293 cell line can be used to express one or more molecule of interest HLA-A*02:01, A*02:06, B*07:02, B*40:06, CD80-T2A-CD32, CD83-T2A-CD137L, CD54, and CD70 as a vaccine. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Kooreman teaches that CpG is a potent adjuvant that induces tumor degradation upon near-tumor injection and lower tumor recurrence, see para. [0093], in particular. “The test of obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all of the references but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them.” See In re Rosselet 146 USPQ 183, 186 (CCPA 1965). “There is no requirement (under 35 USC 103(a)) that the prior art contain an express suggestion to combine known elements to achieve the claimed invention. Rather, the suggestion to combine may come from the prior art, as filtered through the knowledge of one skilled in the art.,” Motorola, Inc, v. Interdigital Tech . Corn., 43 USPQ2d 1481, 1489 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the claimed invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1- 10 and 15-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-9 and 15 of copending Application No. 17/913,535 (Reference) . This is a provisional double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced copending application and would be covered by any patent granted on that copending application since the referenced copending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Reference Claim 1 (currently amended): A hypoimmunogenic cell line which does not express Class I epitopes or Class II epitopes and which overexpresses interleukin-10 (IL-10) factor or migration inhibitory factor (MIF) factor, wherein cells of said cell line undergo sufficient cell division to allow insertion and selection of cells which exhibit Class I or Class II epitope elimination and/or an increase in expression of IL-10 factor or MIF factor (species), whereas instant claim 1 is generic with respect to the foreign molecule. Claim 2 (original): The hypoimmunogenic cell line of claim 1 which does not express Class I epitopes and does not express Class II epitopes (aka hypoimmunogenic), which corresponds to instant claim 6). Claim 3 (original): The hypoimmunogenic cell line of claim 1 which overexpresses IL-10 factor and MIF factor (species). Claim 4 (currently amended): The hypoimmunogenic cell line of claim 1 which is an induced pluripotent stem cell (IPSC) or an immortalized cell line, which corresponds to instant claim 7. Claim 6 (previously presented): The hypoimmunogenic cell line of claim 1 wherein the cells are induced pluripotent stem cells, mesenchymal stem cells, neural stem cells or hematopoietic stem cells , which corresponds to instant claim 7. Claim 7 (previously presented): The hypoimmunogenic cell of claim 1 produced by knocked in safe harbor sites or transfection by transposon. Claim 8 (original): A hypoimmunogenic cell line in which expression of IL-10 factor or MIF factor or both is increased and an additional factor which mimics the loss of Class I and/or Class II activity is added. Claim 9 (previously presented): The hypoimmunogenic cell of claim 8 wherein the additional factor is an antisense oligonucleotide or siRNA or modifications for translation that reduces expression of HLA antigens on a surface of the cell or a factor that blocks T and B cell function or alters an inflammatory response. Claim 15 (new): The hypoimmunogenic cell line of claim 1 which produces tolerance via instructing cells to change their phenotype to a T-reg or regulatory macrophage phenotype. Thus, independent claims in the present application subject to this rejection (claim 1, 9 ) are drawn to a composition or vaccine comprising a cell modified to be hypoimmunogenic and to express one or more foreign molecule, such as protein, carbohydrate, nucleotide, cytokines, chemokine, antibody or lectin generically whereas the independent reference claims (claims 1, 8) are limited to specific interleukin-10 (IL-10) or migration inhibitory factor (MIF) . Otherwise claims 1- 10 and 15-16 are anticipated or rendered obvious by the copending claims. Allowable Subject Matter Nucleic acid sequence comprising SEQ ID NO: 1 3 is free of prior art. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0846 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Insert start time." \d "[ 4 ]" 9:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. The examiner can also be reached on alternate alternative Friday from FILLIN "Insert start time." \d "[ 4 ]" 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Misook Yu, can be reached at 571-270-3497. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-0839. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /PHUONG HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1641