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. Applicant’s 11-6-25 election of the invention of Group I, and the species of peptide which is SEQ ID NO: 1, with traverse, is acknowledged. With respect to the restriction of the claims into multiple invention groups, applicant argues: “ Applicant respectfully argues for traverse of the restriction of Groups I - V. Traversal is made because the elected and non-elected inventions are believed to be patentably indistinct. All claimed subject matter is directed to peptide antigens identified by the same immunopeptidomics approach and intended for the same therapeutic use in cancer immunotherapy. Accordingly, the restriction requirement is respectfully traversed. ” Applicant’s argument has been considered but has not been found convincing for the reasons set forth in the restriction requirement mailed 8-26-25, e.g., at Section 3. Moreover, assuming the peptides of SEQ ID NOs: 1-20 were indeed “ identified by the same immunopeptidomics approach ” as applicant asserts, and further that these peptides are “ intended for the same therapeutic use in cancer immunotherapy ,” does not make inventions of these groups necessarily patentably indistinct . One reason this is so is because any given peptide of the claims may be associated with various cancers beyond CLL, see e.g., 20170165 337 (“Mahr , ” cited herewith ) at Table 4A on pages 20-31 , noting that SEQ ID NO: 2 of Mahr (“ALHRPDVYL”) which is expressed by both CLL (see Mahr at Fig. 1A) and NHL (Table 4A) , is the same as SEQ ID NO: 20 of the instant application. By contrast, while not encompassed by the instant claims, SEQ ID NO: 62 (“ G II DGSPRL ”) of Mahr, which is a CLL expressed peptide (see Mahr Fig. 2D) is expressed by yet another, unrelated cancer, NSCLC (see Mahr Table 12). Thus, the teachings of Mahr illustrate how the various inventions of, e.g., Groups I and II/III are patentably distinct in that the antibodies of Group II and the TCRs of Group III can bind to peptide epitopes that may be expressed by various unrelated cancers, dependent on the particular peptide of claim 1 to which the antibodies or TCRs of Groups II and III bind to. With respect to the election of species requirement, applicant argues: “… the elected peptide (SEQ ID NO: 1) is representative of the generic invention and not patentably distinct from the remaining peptide species (SEQ ID NOs: 2-20). Accordingly, the restriction requirement is respectfully traversed. ” Applicant’s traversal is acknowledged but not found convincing not only for the reasons set forth in the restriction requirement mailed 8-26-25, e.g., at Section 5, but also for the reasons set forth above which illustrate how CLL associated peptide epitopes, like SEQ ID NO: 20, may also be expressed by various other cancers. All that said, upon further consideration the species of peptide under examination has been extended to include SEQ ID NO: 20. Claims 1-16 are pending. C laims 1-3 and 12-15 are under examination as they read on a peptide comprising SEQ ID NOs: 1 or 20, wherein said peptide is not a full-length polypeptide. Claims 4-11 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11-6-25. 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 3, and by the principal of claim differentiation base claim 1, are rejected because the skilled artisan would not understand what exactly is meant by “the peptide or variant thereof according to claim 1” being having an amino acid sequence that “comprises a continuous stretch of amino acids according to any one of SEQ ID NO: 1 to SEQ ID NO: 20. ” The instant specification does not further explain in a clear way or define what precisely is meant by the language of claim 3 and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be unclear as to its meaning. T he ordinarily skilled artisan giving the language of base claim 1 its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the teachings of the instant specification and the knowledge in the prior art would interpret “ variant sequences thereof which are at least 88% homologous to SEQ ID NO: 1 to SEQ ID NO: 20 ” to refer to those sequences which have up to 12% of the amino acid residues of SEQ ID NO: 1 to SEQ ID NO: 20 being changed, e.g., for SEQ ID NO: 1 which has 18 amino acid residues, up to 2 amino acid residues could be changed; likewise, for SEQ ID NO: 20 which has 9 amino acid residues, up to 1 amino acid residue could be changed. That said, it would be unclear to the skilled artisan precisely where the metes and bounds of claim 3 lie. For example, some may argue that the language of claim 3 means that “ The peptide or variant thereof according to claim 1 ” must be a peptide or variant that comprises any one of SEQ ID NO: 1 to SEQ ID NO: 20, and that the qualifier “ wherein the amino acid sequence thereof comprises a continuous stretch of amino acids according to any one of SEQ ID NO: 1 to SEQ ID NO: 20 ” is simply another way of saying a peptide or variant that comprises any one of SEQ ID NO: 1 to SEQ ID NO: 20. However, others would rebut that such an interpretation of claim 3 cannot possibly be correct because, if true, then claim 3 could not be said to further limit the peptide of base claim 1 and thus claim 3 would not be a proper dependent claim. A further possibility is that the ordinarily skilled artisan may assert the qualifier “ wherein the amino acid sequence thereof comprises a continuous stretch of amino acids according to any one of SEQ ID NO: 1 to SEQ ID NO: 2 0” must instead mean something more than a peptide or variant that comprises any one of SEQ ID NO: 1 to SEQ ID NO: 20, but, if so , then what precisely does this mean? How could “ [a] peptide comprising an amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1 to SEQ ID NO: 20, and variant sequences thereof which are at least 88% homologous to SEQ ID NO: 1 to SEQ ID NO: 20 …” as recited in claim 1 be anything other than a peptide comprising a continuous stretch of amino acids according to any one of SEQ ID NO: 1 to SEQ ID NO: 20 or 88% variants thereof? One also could not argue that the peptide or variant thereof of claim 3 is limiting the genus of claim 1 to only those species that comprise any one of SEQ ID NO: 1 to SEQ ID NO: 20 since the preamble of claim 3 explicitly includes “ The peptide or variant thereof according to claim 1 ….” and by definition all variants have at least one amino acid difference when compared to SEQ ID NOs: 1-20. Given the uncertainty as to what precisely is included the breadth of claim 3 (and by the principal of claim differentiation base claim 1) set forth above, the ordinarily skilled artisan would be uncertain as to which species of peptides are contained in the breadth of claims 1 and 3. 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. Claim(s) 1-3 , 12, 14 and 1 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Mahr et al. (201701653 37 , cited herewith) . Mahr teaches a SEQ ID NO: 2 peptide (“ALHRPDVYL”) which is expressed by both CLL and NHL (see Fig. 1A and Table 4 A ). The SEQ ID NO: 2 peptide of Mahr binds HLA-A*02, meaning that it is capable of being recognized by CD8 T cells (see paragraph 52 and Table 1), and pharmaceutical compositions of SEQ ID NO: 2 (see for example paragraphs 1 90 , 2 3 2-2 3 4 and 2 6 4), including vaccines comprising SEQ ID NO: 2 (see for example paragraphs 1 31 , 206 , 2 3 5 and 2 3 6) , as well as kits comprising SEQ ID NO: 2, wherein said kits satisfy the element of instant claim 15 (see paragraphs 3 38 -3 48 ). Similar teachings are also found in claims 1-5, 10, 16-20 and 38. No claims are allowed. However, claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZACHARY S SKELDING whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9033 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9-5 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 Daniel E Kolker can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* 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 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. /ZACHARY S SKELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1644