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. Response to Election/Restriction filed on November 12, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Restriction Applicant's election with traverse of 1 (Claims 1-11, 13-14 and 17-20) and the election without traverse of phosphorylation as the species of modification, micelle as the species of nanostructure, SEQ ID NO: 15 (RAMPNMLRIMASLVLARKH) from Formula I as the species of a antimicrobial peptide or peptide derivative, a solvent which may be sterilized isotonic aqueous solution as the species of pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, basal polymer as species of additional agent, and sterilized isotonic aqueous solution as the species of solvent in the reply filed on November 12, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no burden to the Office. This is not found persuasive because instant application is a 371 application. Therefore, burden is not applicable. Applicant’s arguments are moot . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 12 and 15-16 are withdrawn from consideration, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claims. A search was conducted on the elected species of SEQ ID NO: 15, and prior art was found. Claims 1 -11 , 13-14 and 17 - 20 are examined on the merits in this office action. Objections 5 . The abstract is objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. In the instant case, the abstract recites, “ An antimicrobial peptide (AMP) or peptide derivative…method and application of the AMP or peptide derivative composition.” at line s 1 -5 of the abstract. This appears to be an incomplete sentence. Applicant should correct these informalities. See MPEP 608.01(b). For example, the abstract is recommended to be amended to recite, “An antimicrobial peptide (AMP)…is described.” Please note, the specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible error. Applicant's cooperation is required in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01. Rejections U .S.C. 112(b) 6. 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. 7. Claim s 1 -11 , 13-14 and 17-20 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. 8. Claim 1 recites: . The metes and bounds of the claim is unclear. None of the variables have been defined. It is unclear what amino acids are required to have the structure and function relationship. Because claims 5- 8 and 10- 11 depend from indefinite claim 1 without clarifying the point of confusion, these claims also must be rejected. 9. Claim 13 recites: . The metes and bounds of the claim is unclear. None of the variables have been defined. It is unclear what amino acids are required to have the structure and function relationship. Because claim 14 depends from indefinite claim 13 without clarifying the point of confusion, these claims also must be rejected. 10. Claim 2 recites the limitation " at least one selected from " in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites, “…each are independently an amino acid.” Therefore, it is unclear how the variables can be “at least one”. Therefore, there is lack of antecedent basis. Because claim s 3- 4 and 20 depend from claim 2, thus, claim s 3- 4 and 20 are also rejected. 11. Claim 3 recites the limitation “…each are independently one, two, or three selected from…” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 depends from claim 2, and claim 2 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites, “…each are independently an amino acid.” Therefore, it is unclear how the variables can be “ one, two, or three ”. Therefore, there is lack of antecedent basis. 12. Claim 9 recites, “The antimicrobial peptide or peptide derivative according to claim 1, wherein the antimicrobial peptide or peptide derivative comprises amino acid sequences shown in SEQ ID NO: 1 to SEQ ID NO: 39.” The elected peptide species sequence (SEQ ID NO: 15, RAMPNMLRIMASLVLARKH) is a 19 residue peptide sequence. Claim 9 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites, . The peptide sequence of Formula I is a 10 residue amino acid sequence. The variables X a1 …C a2 each are independently “an amino acid”. Thus, each variable allows for a single amino acid. It is unclear how to arrive at instant SEQ ID NO: 15, for example, from the formula I when each variable can be one amino acid. 13. Claim 10 recites the limitation “ at least one peptide chain” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites, “An antimicrobial peptide or peptide derivative, comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of the following amino acid sequences…” Claim 1 does not recite the term “peptide chain”. Therefore, there is lack of antecedent basis. Because claim 11 depends from claim 10, thus, claim 11 is also rejected. 14. Claim 17 recites the limitation “…at least one selected from…” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 depends from claim 5, which depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites, “…each are independently an amino acid.” Therefore, it is unclear how the variables can be “at least one”. Therefore, there is lack of antecedent basis. Because claims 18-19 depends from claim 17, thus, claims 18-19 are also rejected. 15. Claim 18 recites, “…each are independently one, two, or three selected from the group…” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 depends from claim 17, and claim 17 depends from claim 5, which depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites, “…each are independently an amino acid.” Therefore, it is unclear how the variables can be “one, two, or three”. Therefore, there is lack of antecedent basis. 16. Claims 8 and 20 recite, “…wherein the antimicrobial peptide or peptide derivative is a multimer formed by the amino acid sequence I and/or the amino acid sequence II.” Claim 8 depends from claim 1; claim 20 depends from claim 2 which depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites, “Am antimicrobial peptide or peptide derivative, comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of the following amino acid sequences…” It is unclear how the multimer can be formed by amino acid sequence I and amino acid sequence II, since “at least one is selected from the group consisting of amino acid sequence I and amino acid sequence II”. U .S.C. 112(d) 17. 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. 18. Claim s 2- 4 , 9 and 17-18 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. 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. 19. Claim 2 recites, “The antimicrobial peptide or peptide derivative according to claim 1 wherein ” . Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites: . Claim 1 recites that . Claim 1 only allows each variable to be “an amino acid”. Claim 2 recites “at least one selected from” for the variables. Therefore, claim 2 is broader than instant claim 1. Thus, claim 2 does not further limit instant claim 1. 20. Claim 3 recites, “ ”. Claim 3 depends from claim 2, which depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites that . Claim 1 only allows each variable to be “an amino acid”. Claim 2 recites “each are independently one, two, or three selected from…” for the variables. Therefore, claim 3 is broader than instant claim 1. Thus, claim 3 does not further limit instant claim 1. 21. Claim 9 recites, “The antimicrobial peptide or peptide derivative according to claim 1, wherein the antimicrobial peptide or peptide derivative comprises amino acid sequences shown in SEQ ID NO: 1 to SEQ ID NO: 39.” Claim 9 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites that . As indicated by Applicant’s election, instant SEQ ID NO: 5 has the following: (see p. 3 of Applicant’s response to Election/Restriction) . Instant SEQ ID NO: 15 is broader than amino acid sequence I because variables X a3 , B a1 , B a3 , B a4 , Z a1 and Z a2 are more than a single amino acid allowed in instant claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is broader than instant claim 1. Thus, claim 9 does not further limit instant claim 1. 22. Claim 17 recites, “The antimicrobial peptide or peptide derivative according to claim 5, wherein…at least one selected from the group consisting of…” Claim 17 depends from claim 5, which depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites that . Claim 1 only allows each variable to be “an amino acid”. Therefore, claim 17 is broader than instant claim 1. Thus, claim 17 does not further limit instant claim 1. 23. Claim 18 recites, “The antimicrobial peptide or peptide derivative according to claim 17, wherein…each are independently one, two, or three selected from the group consisting of…” Claim 18 depends from claim 17, which depends from claim 5, which depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites that . Claim 1 only allows each variable to be “an amino acid”. Therefore, claim 18 is broader than instant claim 1. Thus, claim 18 does not further limit instant claim 1. U .S.C. 112(a) 2 4 . 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. 2 5 . Claim s 1- 8 , 10-11, 13-14 and 17-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. “To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc. , 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gosteli , 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (" [T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious," and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood , 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co ., 43 USPQ2d 1398. 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 “level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. 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. Further, for a broad generic claim, the specification must provide adequate written description to identify the genus of the claim. In Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co. , the court stated: “A written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a description of a chemical species, 'requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name,' of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials. Fiers , 984 F.2d at 1171, 25 USPQ2d at 1606; In re Smythe , 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 284-85 (CCPA 1973) ("In other cases, particularly but not necessarily, chemical cases, where there is unpredictability in performance of certain species or subcombinations other than those specifically enumerated, one skilled in the art may be found not to have been placed in possession of a genus. . . ."). Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co ., 43 USPQ2d 1398. The MPEP further states that if a biomolecule is described only by a functional characteristic, without any disclosed correlation between function and structure of the sequence, it is “not sufficient characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence.” MPEP 2163. The MPEP does state that for generic claim the genus can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus. MPEP 2163. If the genus has a substantial variance, the disclosure must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within that genus. See MPEP 2163. Although the MPEP does not define what constitute a sufficient number of representative, the Courts have indicated what do not constitute a representative number species to adequately describe a broad generic. In Gostelli , the Court determined that the disclosure of two chemical compounds within a subgenus did not describe that subgenus. In re Gostelli , 872 F.2d at 1012, 10 USPQ2d at 1618. In the instant case, the claims are drawn to an antimicrobial peptide or peptide derivative comprising at least one selected from the group consi sting of the following sequences: . The generic statements do not provide ample written description for the compounds since the claims do not describe a single structural feature. The specification does not clearly define or provide examples of what qualify as compounds of the claimed invention. As stated earlier, the MPEP states that written description for a genus can be achieved by a representative number of species within a broad generic. It is unquestionable claim 1 is broad generics with respect all possible compounds encompassed by the claims. The possible structural variations are limitless to any class of peptide or a peptide-like molecule that can form peptide bonds . It must not be forgotten that the MPEP states that if a peptide is described only by a functional characteristic, without any disclosed correlation between function and structure of the sequence, it is “not sufficient characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence.” MPEP 2163. Here, though the claims may recite some functional characteristics, the claims lack written description because there is no disclosure of a correlation between function and structure of the compounds beyond compounds disclosed in the examples in the specification. Moreover, the specification lack sufficient variety of species to reflect this variance in the genus since the specification does not provide any examples of derivatives. The specification is void of organic molecules that functions as a peptide-like molecule that qualify for the functional characteristics claimed as a peptide or a peptide-like molecule or other peptidic molecules that can form peptide bonds , and other synthetic peptide or peptide-like molecul es . The specification is limited to SEQ ID NOs: 1-39 . The working example describes SEQ ID NOs: 1-39 (see for example, paragraph [0107 ]). Instant SEQ ID NOs: 1-30 are linear peptides that appear to belong to amino acid sequence I; instant SEQ ID Nos: 31- 39 are cyclic peptides that appear to belong to amino acid sequence II. The specification does not describe any other decapeptides that belong to amino acid sequence I that have antimicrobial activity; and other 11mer residue peptides that belong to amino acid sequence II that have antimicrobial activity . Description of SEQ ID NOs: 1-39 is not sufficient to encompass numerous other peptides that belong to the same genus. For example, amino acid sequence I is a 10 residue peptide sequence, every position being an undefined variable. Therefore, each position can be every naturally occurring amino acid (20) and non-naturally occurring amino acids. Therefore, each amino acid sequence I can have varying amino acid compositions, and numerous distinct qualities that make up the genus. For example, 10 20 = 1 x 10 20 possibilities. When non-naturally occurring amino acids are factored into the equation, there are vast amount of different possibilities. Therefore, t here is not sufficient amount of examples provided to encompass the numerous characteristics of the whole genus claimed. Additionally, not every single decapeptides (10 residue) have antimicrobial activity. For example, Chen et al (International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 2021, 606: 1-10) teach a decapeptide having the sequence YRSRKYSSWY (see Fig. 1). Chen et al teach that the decapeptide has skin retention and permeation activity. Chen et al is silent as the antimicrobial activity of the decapeptide. Therefore, the art teaches that not all decapeptides have antimicrobial activity. Additionally, Yampolsky et al (Genetics, 2005, 170: 1459-1472) teach the unpredictability of the effect of amino acid substitution on the function and/or property of peptide/protein. Yampolsky et al teach even conservative substitution can significantly affect the function of the protein/peptide (see Table 3). The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder , 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming rejection because the specification does "little more than outlin[e] goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate"). Accordingly, it is deemed that the specification fails to provide adequate written description for the genus of the claims and does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the entire scope of the claimed invention. U .S.C. 102 2 6 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 2 7 . 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. 2 8 . Claim(s) 1 -3 , 9 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Srivastava et al (Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics, 2020, 1-20) . Srivastava et al teach the peptide of instant SEQ ID NO: 15 (RAMPNMLRIMASLVLARKH) (see p. 10, S.No. 39), meeting the limitation of instant claims 1 -3 , 9 , 13 and 14 . Srivastava et al teach Ag-patches comprising CTL epitope cluster (see Table 2), meeting the limitation of instant claim s 13 -14 . Since the reference teaches ALL of the active components of instant claims, the reference anticipates instant claims 1-3, 9 and 13-14. Improper Markush 29. Claim 9 is rejected on the judicially created basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch , 631 F. 2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hazumi , 3 USPQ 2d 1059, 1060 (BPAI 1984). The improper Markush grouping includes species of the claimed invention that do not share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. The members of the improper Markush grouping do not share a substantial feature and/or a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature for the following reasons: The compounds claimed do not share a common structural feature and a common use. For example, SEQ ID NO: 1 has the sequence HAVGNIMHIASAVLVRH; SEQ ID NO: 2 has the sequence HKAVGQIMHIASAVLVRH; SEQ ID NO: 3 has the sequence HRAMPNMLKIMASLVLAKR; SEQ ID NO: 10 has the sequence HKRAMPSIVKMIATLVLARKH; SEQ ID NO: 15 has the sequence RAMPNMLRIMASLVLARKH; SEQ ID NO: 39 has the sequence KHRAVCGNMLKIASLVLARHKC. The sequences have different amino acid contents. In response to this rejection, Applicant should either amend the claim(s) to recite only individual species or grouping of species that share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature , or present a sufficient showing that the species recited in the alternative of the claims(s) share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. This is a rejection on the merits and may be appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 134 and 37 CFR 41.31 (a)(1) (emphasis provided). CONCLUSION No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JULIE HA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5982 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 5:00 am- 6:30 pm EST . 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 LIANKO GARYU can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7367 . 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. /JULIE HA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1654 11/2 8 /2025