DETAILED ACTION 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 election without traverse of group I, claims 1- 13 in the reply filed on 11/3/25, is acknowledged. Applicant has further elected a species of CD99 binding domain having VH/VL of SEQ ID NO; 24/38 (which have CDRs of SEQ ID No; 2,6, 9, 13, 17 and 20) , and a species of CLEC12A binding domain having CDRs of VH/VL of SEQ I DNO; 124/130 (which have SEQ ID NO:109, 112, 115, 118, 121, and 123 ) . Applicant has elected 41BB as species of costimulatory domain, a fusion protein format of SP-CD99VL-CLVH-HG-TM-CSD-scp-SP-CD99VH-CLVL-HG-TM-CD3-SD and ab T cell as the species of immune cell. Claims 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1- 13 are being acted upon. REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures. 37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted: In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying: the name of the ASCII text file; ii) the date of creation; and iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes; In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying: the name of the ASCII text file; the date of creation; and the size of the ASCII text file in bytes; In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended). When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824. If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical. If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical. Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows: Specific deficiency - This application contains sequence disclosures in accordance with the definitions for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences set forth in 37 CFR 1.821(a)(1) and (a)(2). However, this application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. The specification, for example, on page 14, discloses the sequence “RVSNLAS” as SEQ ID NO: 17 . H owever, in the sequence listing SEQ ID NO: 17 has the sequence “NAKX”. The sequence of RVSNLAS is not present in the sequence listing at all. It is noted that SEQ ID NO: 16 of the sequence listing is also NAKX, i.e. SEQ ID NO: 16 and 17 are the same in the sequence listing . It appears that this is an inadvertent duplication . A new sequence listing must be provided, and it is suggested to correct SEQ ID NO: 17 in the sequence listing to correspond to RVSNLAS as disclosed in the instant specification. Required response – Applicant must provide: A "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure, as described above in item 1); as well as An amendment specifically directing entry of the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure into the application in accordance with 1.825(b)(2) ; A statement that the "Sequence Listing" includes no new matter in accordance with 1.825(b)(5); and A statement that indicates support for the amendment in the application, as filed, as required by 37 CFR 1.825(b)(4). If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) a) or b) above, Applicant must also provide: A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation-by-reference paragraph, consisting of: A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version); A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter; If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) b), c), or d) above, Applicant must also provide: A replacement CRF in accordance with 1.825(b)(6); and Statement according to item 2) a) or b) above. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.— Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim s 11- 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 recites specific fusion protein formulas , and in each construct at least one of the CAR have only a costimulatory domain or a CD3 domain. For example, in the first construct the costimulatory domain is between the t ransmembrane domain and the self - cleaving linker, with no separate intracellular domain indicated. However, in claim 1, from which the claim depends , each first and second CAR comprises both a costimulatory domain and in intracellular singling domain, and therefor e , claim 11 is broader in scope than claim 1, from which it depends . This is because in claim 1, two elements are required, an intracellular signaling domain and costimulatory region in the first and second CAR , while at least the first CAR formula in claim 11 only has a costimulatory domain (CSD) or CD3zeta, i.e. one element. Claim 12 is directed to particular fusion proteins comprising SEQ ID NO: 138 or SEQ ID NO: 140, which depends from claim 11, requiring a particular order of elements . However, all of the elements in claim 11 require a CD99 VH or VL immediately adjacent of a CL ec12a VL or VH. I n SEQ ID NO: 138 and 140 , the CD99VH is directly adjacent to a CD99VL, and the CLEC12a VH is immediately adjacent to CLEC12aVL . T herefore, the claim does not require all the limitations of claim 11, from which it depends. .Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 3, 9-11 and 13 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. Claims 3 is indefinite, since there is an inconsistency in the definition of SEQ ID NO: 17 between the specification and the sequence listing, which creates ambiguity as to the intended scope of the claims . The specification on page 14 discloses SEQ ID NO: 17 is “RVSNLAS” , however, in the sequence listing SEQ ID NO: 17 has the sequence “NAKX”. As SEQ ID NO; 17 in the sequence listing is a duplicate of SEQ ID NO: 16, it appears that the intended definition of SEQ ID NO: 17 is ”RVSNLAS ” as disclosed in the specification . Therefore, in the interest of compact prosecution , for the purposes of examination SEQ ID NO: 17 is being interpreted as referring to RVSNLAS. Claim 3 is indefinite since it recites three separate wherein clauses defin ing distinct CDR sequences, but they are not separated by an “or”. This renders the claims unclear and indefinite , since it is unclear if all three wherein clauses are intended to be required, or whether one could choose between them. For the purposes of examination the claim as being interpreted as the latter. Claim 9 is indefinite in the recitation of a costimulatory signaling region “mut06” because it is not an art recognized costimulatory domain and the specification does not define the scope of the term, other than to indicate it is described in prior art references. However, this is not sufficient to specifically define the scope of the claims, since “mut06” is merely a laboratory designation. Therefore the scope of the claims is unclear and indefinite. Claim 9 recites the limitation “the cytoplasmic domain” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is indefinite in recitation of “1XX” signaling domain. CD3 signaling domains in which the two C-terminal ITAM s (abbreviated 1xx) have been ablated , are known in the art. However, in the present claims, it is not clear if the 1XX is meant to be limited to such a CD3 variant having said mutate d ITAM s , are whether it i s intending to encompass other types of ITAM ablated signaling domains. Claims 9-10 are indefinite since they refer to “the costimulatory signaling region” and “the intracellular signaling domain” and depend from claim 1. However, claim 1 recites a two different recitations of a costimulatory and an intracellular signaling domain from the first and second CAR . It is not clear whether the limitation s of claims 9-10 would apply to either or both of said limitations in claim 1. For example, would claim 9 encompass a CD99 CAR with CD28, and a CLEC12a CAR with a different co-stimulatory domain than those recited in claim 9? Or would both costimulatory domains of the first and second CAR be required to be selected from the group in claim 9. The scope of the claims is unclear and indefinite . Claim 11 is indefinite since the constructs have, as a last element “SD”, which unlike the elements , is not defined in the claim. Therefore the scope of the claims is unclear. Claim 13 recites Markush language selected form the “group consisting of”, but then uses “or” to delineate the different options, which renders the claims unclear and indefinite , i.e. the claim would be read as from the group consisting of an ab T cell, or the group consisting of an NK cell, which are individual items and therefore not a group. It is suggested to replace “or” with “and” to clarify the claim. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification disclosure is insufficient to enable one skilled in the art to practice the invention as claimed without an undue amount of experimentation. Undue experimentation must be considered in light of factors including: the breadth of the claims, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, the level of predictability of the art, the amount of direction provided by the inventor, the existence of working examples, and the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention, see In re Wands , 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In re Fisher , 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970) states, “The amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art.” “The “amount of guidance or direction” refers to that information in the application, as originally filed, that teaches exactly how to make or use the invention. The more that is known in the prior art about the nature of the invention, how to make, and how to use the invention, and the more predictable the art is, the less information needs to be explicitly stated in the specification. In contrast, if little is known in the prior art about the nature of the invention and the art is unpredictable, the specification would need more detail as to how to make and use the invention in order to be enabling” (MPEP 2164.03). The MPEP further states that physiological activity can be considered inherently unpredictable. With these teachings in mind, an enabling disclosure, commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claimed invention, is required. Claim 6 encompass CLEC12A scF v comprising various CDRs, for example, VH CDR1 of SEQ ID NO; 109, 110, or 111, VH CDR2 of SEQ ID NO: 112, 113 or 114, etc. The CDR regions are derived from different parent antibodies, and have completely different sequences . For example , CDR3 of SEQ ID NO: 115, i.e. ARHSGYDGYYLYAMDY, is completely different than the CDR3 of SEQ ID N O : 117, i.e. PNYNYGGSWFAY. The state of the art is such that the 6 CDRs of an antibody are critically involved in antigen binding, that even single amino acid changes can alter antigen specificity of binding, and that CDR mutations are unpredictable in terms of affinity, specificity, and solubility, and are also context dependent (see Hall, 1992, and Rabia, 2018). T hus, making and using CLEC12a antigen binding regions comprising CDRs from different antibodies would be highly unpredictable. Given the unpredictability of the art, the instant specification must provide a sufficient and enabling disclosure commensurate in scope with the instant claim. The instant specification discloses certain combinations of CDRs, such as SEQ ID NO; 109, 112, 114, 118, 121, and 123 for a CLEC12A binding region, but this is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. Claim 11 recites various fusion protein formulas for expressing the first and second CAR. All of the formulas have two separate CAR constructs separate d by “ scp ” i.e. self-cleaving peptide. However, each CAR construct compris es a CD99 VL and a CL(CLEC12a) VH, or vice versa. In other words, the separate CAR constructs resulting after cleavage of the self-cleaving peptide would comprise a CD99VL and CLEC12a VH pair , a hinge, transmembrane and intracellular domain. C laim 1, from which the claim depends, requires that the first and second CAR bind to CD99 and CLEC12a, respectively. Paring a VH and VL from antibodies with different binding specificities , would not function to provide binding as claimed. The art does recognize that a single CAR having two antigen binding domains and one transmembrane domain can be constructed wherein a VL of one binding specificity is next to a VH of a different binding specificity , wherein the correspond ing VL and VH are brought together by folding (see Fig. 7 of 20240091356, in particular ). However, the present claims are not directed to such a construct with a single transmembrane domain, but rather to a first and second CAR each with a transmembrane domain, and the constructs in claim 11 are not a single polypeptide , but rather two separate CAR constructs that will be cleaved at the self-cleaving peptide site. It would require undue experimentation to practice the invention as claimed to use such a construct to express a first and second CAR that would function to bind to CD99 and CLEC12A, respectively . The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim s 1-2, 5, 9-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/133969 (of record) , in view of Majz n er , 2018 and Guadagnuolo , 2014 . WO2019/133969 teaches immunoresponsive cells genetically modified to express a first CAR and a second CAR, wherein the first CAR comprises an extracellular antigen binding domain that binds to a first antigen, a transmembrane domain, and an intracellular signaling domain, and the second CAR comprises an extracellular antigen binding domain that binds to a second antigen, a transmembrane domain, and an intracellular signaling domain ( see page 6, in particular ). WO2019/133969 teaches that the intracellular domain of the two CARS can both comprise a n intracellular CD3zeta signaling domain and a costimulatory domain (see pages 84-85, in particular ). WO2019/133969 teaches 4-1BB costimulatory domain and modified CD3zeta 1XX (see pages 84-86, in particular) . WO2019/133969 teaches that the first and second antigens targeted by the CAR are different (see page 7, in particular). WO2019/133969 teaches that the cell can be a T cell, such as a CTL or helper T cell, CD4+ or CD8+ T cells ( i.e. ab T cells, see page 8 and 89-90 , in particular ). WO2019/133969 teaches that the antigen s can be a tumor antigen s selected from a list that includes CD99, and CLEC12A (see page 8, in particular ). WO2019/ 133969 teaches that the antigen binding domain can be an scFV (see page 35, i n particular ). Although the reference does not explicitly teach combining CD99 and CLEC12A, selecting from the various combinations encompassed in the list disclosed by WO 2019/133969 would involve choosing among a finite number of predictable options which could be pursued with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (see KSR International Co. V. Telefex Inc 82 USPQ2d 1385). Additionally, the ordinary artisan would also be particular motivated to select CD99 and CLEC12a as the first and second CAR binding domain specificity based on the teachings of Guadagnuolo and Majzner . Guadagnuolo teaches that both CLEC12a and CD99 are highly expressed on leukemi a stem cells and that they represent good targets for leukemia stem cells. Furthermore, as explained by Majzner , it is desirable to express two different CAR to two different tumor antigens expressed by the same tumor cells in order to improve efficacy ( s ee page 12222 and Fig. 2, in particular ). Therefore , t he ordinary artisan at the time the invention was made would have been motivated to particularly select CD99 and CLEC112A as the first and second CAR in WO 2019/133969, in order to specifically target leukemia stem cells with improved efficacy based on the teachings of Guadagnuolo and Majzner . 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. Claims 1-10 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/866,630 (reference application) , in view of WO2019/133969, Ma j zner , 2018 and Guadagnuolo , 2014. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘630 application claims a method of using an immune effector cell expressing an anti-CLEC12a CAR, and anti-CD99 CAR, an anti-CD1234 CAR, an anti-MUC-1 CAR, and anti-CD33 CAR, or a “combination ther e of”. The specification of the ‘630 application defines said CD99 CAR as having scFV of SEQ ID NO : 128, and said CLEC12a CAR as having scFV of SEQ ID NO: 202, which are identical to SEQ ID NO: 56 and 135 of the instant application , respectively, and which also have the same CDRs as recited in claim 1 of the instant application . S ee MPEP 804 IIB1, the specification may be used as a dictionary and the parts of the specification that describe subject matter that falls within the scope of a reference claim may be relied upon to properly construe the scope of that claim s . Therefore, the claims in the ‘630 cover the same scFV sequences and CDR sequences as claime d in the instant application . Furthermore, it would be obvious to particular ly select a combination of a first anti- CD99 CAR with a first transmembrane domain and intracellular domain and a second anti- CLEC12a with a second transmembrane domain and intracellular domain as the combination based on the teachings WO2019/133969, Majzner , Guadagnuolo for the same reasons set forth above. Furthermore, selecting from known types of immune effector cells for CAR expressing, an d from known CD3 and costimulatory binding domains, as taught in WO 2019/133969, would involve choosing among a finite number of predictable options which could be pursued with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (see KSR International Co. V. Telefex Inc 82 USPQ2d 1385). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim s 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,951,129 in view of WO2019/133969, Majzner , 2014, Guadagnuolo 2014 . The ‘129 patent claims a CAR comprising a CLEC12a antigen binding scFV , a transmembrane domain, and an intracellular domain, wherein the CLECL12a binding scFV has the same CDRs as recited in the present claims. The specification of the ‘129 defines said CLEC12a scFV as having SEQ ID NO: 28 , which are identical to SEQ ID NO: 135 of the instant application. See MPEP 804 IIB1, the specification may be used as a dictionary and the parts of the specification that describe subject matter that falls within the scope of a reference claim may be relied upon to properly construe the scope of that claims. Therefore, the claims in the patent cover the same scFV sequences and CDR sequences as claimed in the instant application. The ‘129 patent further claims an intracellular region comprising a costimulatory domain 4-1BB and comprising CD3 zeta. The ‘129 patent claims that the CAR is expressed in an immune cells such as an ab T cell. Although the ‘129 patent does not specifically claim a second CAR that binds to CD99, it would be obvious to include a second CD99 CAR based on the teachings WO2019/133969, Majzner , Guadagnuolo for the same reasons set forth above. Claims 1- 5 , 9-10, and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 -17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,036,273 in view of WO2019/133969, Majzner , 2014, Guadagnuolo 2014. The ‘ 273 patent claims a CAR comprising a CD99 antigen binding scFV , a transmembrane domain, and an intracellular domain, wherein the CD99 binding scFV has SEQ ID NO: 56, which is identical to SEQ ID NO: 56 (and comprises the same CDRs) as the instant claims . The ‘ 273 patent further claims an intracellular region comprising a costimulatory domain 4-1BB and comprising CD3 zeta. The ‘ 273 patent claims that the CAR is expressed in an immune cells such as an ab T cell. Although the ‘ 273 patent does not specifically claim a second CAR that binds to CLECL12a , it would be obvious to include a second CLEC12a CAR based on the teachings WO2019/133969, Majzner , Guadagnuolo for the same reasons set forth above. Claims 1-7, 9 -10 , and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/860,458 (reference application), in view of WO2019/133969, Majzner , 2018 and Guadagnuolo , 2014. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘458 application claims a CAR comprising a ligand binding domain, a transmembrane domain, an intracellular signaling domain, wherein the CAR is expressed in a cell such as an ab T cell. The specification of the ‘458 application discloses that the ligand binding domain can have scFV of SEQ ID NO: 204, and SEQ ID NO: 2 83 , which are identical to identical to SEQ ID NO: 56 and 135 of the instant application, respectively, and which also have the same CDRs as recited in claim 1 of the instant application and bind CD99 or CLEC12a . See MPEP 804 IIB1, the specification may be used as a dictionary and the parts of the specification that describes subject matter that falls within the scope of a reference claim may be relied upon to properly construe the scope of that claims. Therefore, the claims in the ‘ 458 cover a CD99 CAR or a CLEC12a CAR having the same scFV and CDR sequences as claimed in the instant application. Although the ‘458 application does not specifically claim expressing a second CAR, it would be obvious to particularly combine said CD99 CAR or CLEC12a CAR with a second CLEC12a or CD99 CAR respectively, based on the teachings WO2019/133969, Majzner , Guadagnuolo for the same reasons set forth above. Furthermore, including a costimulatory binding domain from the intracellular domain , as taught in WO 2019/133969, would be obvious . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1- 3, 5-6, 9- 10, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 22-23 of copending Application No. 19/132,620 (reference application), in view of, Majzner , 2018. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘620 application claims a cell comprising a bispecific CAR comprising a CD99 antigen binding domain and a CLEC12a antigen binding domain . , The ‘620 application claims the CAR is expressed in a cell such as an ab T cell. The specification of the ‘620 application discloses that the antigen binding domain are scFV having the same CDRs as recited in claim 1 of the instant application. See MPEP 804 IIB1, the specification may be used as a dictionary and the parts of the specification that describes subject matter that falls within the scope of a reference claim may be relied upon to properly construe the scope of that claims. Therefore, the antigen binding domains claims in the ‘458 cover the same CDR sequences as claimed in the instant application. Although the ‘620 application does not specifically claim that the bispecific CAR is provided as a first and second CAR each with a transmembrane domain and intracellular domain, it would be obvious to do so based on the teachings of Majzner , which teaches that CAR can comprise CD3 and costimulatory intracellular domains such a s 4-1BB , and that bispecific CAR can be expressed either as a single CAR with two antigen binding domains , or as two separate CAR each with its own transmembrane and intracellular domain (See Figure 2 ). Therefore selecting from intracellular and costimulatory domains as well as the manner in which the bispecific is provided in the CAR cells claimed in the ‘620 application would involve choosing among a finite number of predictable options which could be pursued with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (see KSR International Co. V. Telefex Inc 82 USPQ2d 1385). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-2, 5- 6 , 9 -10 , and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 7, 9-10, and 15-16 of copending Application No. 18/865,823 (reference application), in view of WO2019/133969, Majzner , 2018 and Guadagnuolo , 2014. The ‘823 applications claims a CAR comprising a CLEC12A antigen binding domain, a transmembrane domain, an intracellular signaling domain and a costimulatory signaling domain , wherein the CLEC12A binding domain comprising same CDRs of SEQ ID NO: 109, 112, 115, 118, 121, and 123 (see SEQ ID Nos: 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of claim 1 of the ‘823 application). The ‘823 application claims a cell comprising said CAR, such as a cytotoxic lymphocyte. The ‘823 application claims that the intracellular domain comprises CD3zeta and the costimulatory domain is 4-1BB. Although the ‘129 patent does not specifically claim a second CAR that binds to CD99, or an ab T cell, it would be obvious to include a second CD99 CAR and ab T cell based on the teachings WO2019/133969, Majzner , Guadagnuolo for the same reasons set forth above. Claims 1-2, 5, 9-10 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 1 8 /713,845, or claims 1, 3-4, 8-12, 16-17 of 17/584,547 or claims 1-13 of 18/546,302, or claims 15-16, 18-19, 23-24 of 17/929,457 (reference application), in view of WO2019/133969, Majzner , 2018 and Guadagnuolo , 2014. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending applications all claim a CAR comprising a ligand binding domain that binds a tumor antigen, a transmembrane domain, an intracellular signaling domain and a costimulatory signaling domain , wherein the CAR is expressed in a cell such as an ab T cell. Although the applications do not specifically claim expressing a second CAR, or that the ligand binding domains bind to CD99 and CLEC12a, it would be obvious to do so based on the teachings WO2019/133969, Majzner , Guadagnuolo for the same reasons set forth above. Furthermore, selecting from known types of intracellular domains , costimulatory domains that could be included in a CAR and ligand binding domains ( scFV ) , as taught in WO 2019/133969, would also be obvious and would involve choosing among a finite number of predictable options which could be pursued with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (see KSR International Co. V. Telefex Inc 82 USPQ2d 1385). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-2, 5, 9-10 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,065,474 or claims 1-14 of 11,434,290 in view of WO2019/133969, Majzner , 2014, Guadagnuolo 2014. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patents all claim a CAR that binds a tumor antigen, a transmembrane domain, and intracellular signaling domain, wherein the CAR is expressed in a cell such as an ab T cell. Although the patents do not specifically claim expressing a second CAR, or that the ligand binding domains bind to CD99 and CLEC12a, it would be obvious to do so based on the teachings WO2019/133969, Majzner , Guadagnuolo for the same reasons set forth above. Furthermore, selecting from known types of intracellular domains comprising i ntracellular signaling domains and costimulatory domains, as well as ligand binding domains ( scFV ), as taught in WO 2019/133969, would involve choosing among a finite number of predictable options which could be pursued with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (see KSR International Co. V. Telefex Inc 82 USPQ2d 1385). No claim is allowed. The electe d species of CD99 and CLEC12a CDR s are free of the prior art. WO 2019/136419 and WO 2019/139888 (both of record) are published prior to the effective filing date of the instant application and disclose either CD99 or CLEC12a CAR, r espectively , with the same CDRs as those elected in the present claims. However, the references do not qualify under 102(a)(1) because they a re published within the 1 year grace period of the effective filing date of the i nstant inventio n and are by the same inventor of the instant application . T herefore , the 102(b)(1)(a) exception applies and the references are an inventor originated grace period disclosure . The references do not qualify under 102 (a)(2) since the applications are by the same inventor as the instant application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Value for firstName-middleName-lastName?" \* MERGEFORMAT AMY E JUEDES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Insert your individual area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4471 . The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7am to 3pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s name." \* MERGEFORMAT Dan Kolker , can be reached at telephone number FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3181 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of 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. Amy E. Juedes Patent Examiner Technology Center 1600 /AMY E JUEDES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1644