DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority This application was filed on and is a U.S. national Stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371 of International Patent Application N o. PCT/CN2021/132337 filed 11/23/2021 , which claims the benefit of the priority of China Patent Application No. PCTCN2020131149 filed 11/24/2020 . Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements submitted on 0 5 / 22 /20 23 , 03/ 11 /202 5, 02/26/2026 and 0 2 /2 3 /202 6 have been considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions Claims 7-13, 15-18, 21-24, 26, 29-30, and 32-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2-10 or based on the elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 . Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I drawn to an isolated epitope or variant , in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant further elects the species of SEQ ID NO: 5. Claim Status Claims 1- 2, 4, 6-13, 15-18, 21-26, 29-33 are pending. Claims 7-13, 15-18, 21-24, 26, 29-30, and 32-33 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 25, and 31 are being examined on the merits in this office action . Specification The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Please see paragraph [0152] on page 35 of the instant specification. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Claim Objections Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 25, and 31 is objected to for the following minor informality: claim 1 contains several acronyms such as “MHC”, and an acronym in the first instance of claims should be expanded upon/spelled out with the acronym indicated in parentheses, i.e. major histocompatibility complex (MHC) . The abbreviations can be used thereafter. Claim s 2 and 25 have a similar issue. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-2, 4, 6, 25, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claims 1 , 6 and 25 , the phrase "for example or e.g. " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further, the claim s contain a parenthesis. It is unclear whether the limitations in the parenthesis are a required part of the claimed invention. Regarding claim s 4 , and 25 , the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 31 depends on a rejected claim 1 and thus rejected as well. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 25, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al . ( CN109550044A – hereinafter “ Fan ”) in view of Bras et al . ( FR3081870A1 – hereinafter “Bras”) . The teaching of the CN109550044A and FR3081870A1 publication are based on the English language translation of the CN109550044A and FR3081870A1 publication obtained by Espacenet and the citations are based on the English language translation. Fan teaches a vaccine that comprises the epitope peptide KRAS G12V which comprises the amino acid sequence T EYKLVVVGAVGV GKSALTIQLIQNHK (see Page 1). Examiner notes that the sequence of Fan comprises 2 7 consecutive amino acid residues of the RAS G12V mutant and comprises position 3-13 of the RAS G12V mutant of SEQ ID NO: 1. Fan teaches that the peptides can be presented by type I HLA, some can be presented by type II HLA, and in theory can be presented by different types of HLA, and have synergistic effects (Page 5, 5 th paragraph). Fan does not teach that the MHC-II molecule is HLA-DP. However, the use of peptide epitopes in complex with MHC-II molecule such as HLA-DP is known in the art as taught by Bras et al. Bras teaches epitope peptides in a complex with MHC-II molecule such as HLA-DP, and teaches that such complexes are recognized by T lymphocytes via a membrane receptor (TcR) (Page 6, 3 rd paragraph), and teaches specific MHC- II molecule such as HLA-DP and alleles such as HLA- DPB1*14:01 , DPB1*04:01 , HLA-DPA1*01:03 , HLA-DPA1*02:01 (Page 14, lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the complex of Fan and use the MHC-II molecule taught by Bras such as HLA-DP, specifically HLA- DPB1*14:01 , DPB1*04:01 , since these have been known to be used to form a complex with epitope peptides. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the MHC-II molecules taught by Bras since Brass teaches that such complexes are recognized by T lymphocytes via a membrane receptor (TcR) (Page 6, 3 rd paragraph). The disclosures render obvious claim 1. Regarding claim 2, Bras teaches epitope peptides in a complex with MHC-II molecule such as HLA-DP, and teaches that such complexes are recognized by T lymphocytes via a membrane receptor (TcR) (Page 6, 3 rd paragraph), and teaches specific MHC-II molecule such as HLA-DP and alleles such as HLA- DPB1*14:01 , DPB1*04:01 , HLA-DPA1*01:03 , HLA-DPA1*02:01 (Page 14, lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the complex of Fan and use the MHC-II molecule taught by Bras such as HLA-DP, specifically HLA- DPB1*14:01 , DPB1*04:01 , since these have been known to be used to form a complex with epitope peptides. Regarding claims 4 and 6, Fan teaches a vaccine that comprises the epitope peptide KRAS G12V which comprises the amino acid sequence T EYKLVVVGAVGV GKSALTIQLIQNHK (see Page 1). Examiner notes that the sequence of Fan comprises 27 consecutive amino acid residues of the RAS G12V mutant and comprises position 3-13 of the RAS G12V mutant of SEQ ID NO: 1. Regarding claim 25, Fan teaches a vaccine that comprises the epitope peptide KRAS G12V which comprises the amino acid sequence T EYKLVVVGAVGV GKSALTIQLIQNHK (see Page 1). Examiner notes that the sequence of Fan comprises 27 consecutive amino acid residues of the RAS G12V mutant and comprises position 3-13 of the RAS G12V mutant of SEQ ID NO: 1. Examiner notes that a vaccine reads on a pharmaceutical composition which comprises a carrier or excipient. Regarding claim 31, Fan teaches a vaccine that comprises the epitope peptide KRAS G12V which comprises the amino acid sequence T EYKLVVVGAVGV GKSALTIQLIQNHK (see Page 1). Examiner notes that the sequence of Fan comprises 27 consecutive amino acid residues of the RAS G12V mutant and comprises position 3-13 of the RAS G12V mutant of SEQ ID NO: 1. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ang et al . ( WO 2020205778 A1 – hereinafter “Ang”). Ang teaches epitope peptides that form a complex with MHC-II molecules or protein (Abstract; [0036, 0063, 0198]), and teaches that the epitopes include RAS G12V peptides [0131, 0135-0136, 0140-0151], such as TEYKLVVVGAVGVGK (See Fig. 12A) which has 15 residues and comprises amino acid residues at positions 3-13 of the RAS G12V mutant of SEQ ID NO: 1. Ang teaches that the MHC-II molecules include HLA-DPB1 [0327], which are known to include alleles such as HLA-DPB1*14:01 and HLA-DPB1*03:01 . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the epitope peptide in a complex with specific MHC-II molecule such as HLA-DP since Ang discloses that HLA-DP and specifically HLA-DPB1 as one of the options to use. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in picking the specific MHC-II molecule for the complex. The disclosures render obvious claim 1. Regarding claim 2, Ang teaches that the MHC-II molecules include HLA-DPA1 [0327], which are known to include alleles such as HLA-DP A 1* 02 :01 and HLA-DP A 1*0 2 :0 2. Regarding claims 4 and 6, Ang teaches epitope peptides that form a complex with MHC-II molecules or protein (Abstract; [0036, 0063, 0198]), and teaches that the epitopes include RAS G12V peptides [0131, 0135-0136, 0140-0151], such as TEYKLVVVGAVGVGK (See Fig. 12A) which has 15 residues and comprises amino acid residues at positions 3-13 of the RAS G12V mutant of SEQ ID NO: 1. Examiner notes the sequence of ng comprises the instant SEQ ID NO: 5 ( TEYKLVVVGAVGV ). Regarding claim 31, Ang teaches epitope peptides that form a complex with MHC-II molecules or protein (Abstract; [0036, 0063, 0198]), and teaches that the epitopes include RAS G12V peptides [0131, 0135-0136, 0140-0151], such as TEYKLVVVGAVGVGK (See Fig. 12A) which has 15 residues and comprises amino acid residues at positions 3-13 of the RAS G12V mutant of SEQ ID NO: 1. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Mercy H. Sabila whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2562 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 5:00 am - 3:00 pm . 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 G. 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. /MERCY H SABILA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1654