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. Application Status The claims filed on February 10, 2023 are acknowledged. Claims 1-16 are pending and under examination herein. It is noted that a Power of Attorney is not on record for the instant application. Applicant is encouraged to file a Power of Attorney in the event that the Examiner needs to communicate with an authorized representative for the Applicant during the prosecution of the case. Priority The present application , filed February 10, 2023, is a continuation-in-part (CIP) of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/480,831, filed September 21, 2021, which is a continuation (CON) of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/303,846 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,124,571), filed November 21, 2018, which is a 371 of PCT/US2017/034285, filed May 24, 201 7 , which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos. 62/432,131, filed December 9, 2016, and 62/341,459, filed May 25, 2016. The priority dates of each claim are summarized in the table below: Claims Earliest Supporting Document Earliest Priority Date 1, 6 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/341,459 May 25, 2016 2 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/432,131 December 9, 2016 3-5, 9 PCT/US2017/034285 May 24, 2017 7-8, 10-16 U.S. Patent Application No. 18/167,438 February 10, 2023 Specification The disclosure is objected to for the following informalities: Recitations of “CYC O 65” throughout the disclosure should instead recite “CYC 0 65” (zero instead of letter O at underlined position). Recitations of “milci d ib” should instead recite “milci cl ib” (lowercase “CL” instead of lowercase “D”). Recitations of “Merck 3 74 5” should instead recite “Merck 3 47 5” (or “MK-3475”). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 2 -3 , 5, 7, 11-12, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim s 2 and 11 should recite “CYC 0 65” (with a zero) instead of “CYC O 65” ( with an uppercase letter O) , and “milci cl ib” (with a lowercase “CL”) instead of “milci d ib” (with a lowercase “D”). Claim 3 recites, in lines 2-3, “wherein the PD-1 binding antagonist and/or a PD-L1 binding antagonist inhibits PD-1/PD-L1 interaction”. It is suggested for clarity that “a PD-L1 binding antagonist” in the wherein clause should instead recite “the PD-L1 binding antagonist”, referring back to “a PD-L1 binding antagonist” as recited in line 2. Claims 5 and 14 should recite “Merck 3 47 5” (or “MK-3475”) instead of “Merck 3 74 5”. Claim 7 , at line 7, should recite “C d K5” instead of “C k k5”. Claim 12 recites, in lines 2-3, “the PD-1 binding antagonist and/or a PD-L1 binding antagonist in inhibiting PD-1/PD-L1 interaction”, which is not grammatically correct . For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim should recite similar language to claim 3, which includes “wherein the PD-1 binding antagonist and/or a PD-L1 binding antagonist inhibits PD-1/PD-L1 interaction”. Appropriate correction is required. It is also noted that CdK5/Cdk5 ( with an uppercase K or lowercase K , respectively ) are used interchangeably throughout the claims and disclosure. The use of a single format throughout is generally prefer able. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b) 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 7-8 and 10-16 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 c laim 7 , t he term “ threshold level” or “threshold value ” as it relates to expression or phosphorylation of IRF2BP2 is a relative term which render s the claim indefinite. The term “ threshold level ” or “threshold value” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To the extent that the specification defines a “threshold level” of CdK5 expression, the specification states that the “predetermined threshold value relating to cell surface PD-L1 expression or Cdk5 expression … is based on a proportion of tumor cells in a test tissue sample that expresses PD-L1 and/or Cdk5. In certain embodiments, the predetermined threshold is at least 0.001% of tumor cells expressing PD-L1 and/or Cdk5 as determined by IHC”, or “at least 0.01%, at least 1%, at least 5% of tumor cells expressing” PD-L1 and/or Cdk5 as determined by IHC (¶ 0157). No such guidance is provided for defining what constitutes a “threshold” level of expression or phosphorylation of IRF2BP2 as necessary to determine whether the administration step should or should not be performed as set forth in the claim. Further regarding claim 7 , the claim recites the method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of “detecting the expression level(s) of Cdk5, IRF2BP2, and/or the phosphorylation of IRF2BP2 in cancer cells of the subject prior to administration of the Cdk5 inhibitor ” and “administering to the subject an amount of the CdK5 inhibitor effective to enhance an immune response to the cancer cells, if the detected expression level of Ckk5 [sic] is above a threshold value, and/or the expression level of IRF2BP2 is below a threshold level and/or phosphorylation of IRF2BP2 is below a threshold level ”. The previous method of claim 1 required the step of administering an amount of a CdK5 inhibitor effective to suppress immune checkpoint PD-L1 expression in cancer cells of [ a ] subject. The intended scope of claim 7 is indefinite because the dependent claim recites that administering the CdK5 inhibitor is conditional upon if the detected expression level of C dK 5 is above a threshold value, and/or the expression level of IRF2BP2 is below a threshold level , and/or phosphorylation of IRF2BP2 is below a threshold level . It is unclear with the conditional limitations whether the administration step is no longer performed if the conditional limitations are not met. Claim 8 , which depends from claim 7 and does not remedy these deficiencies, is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 10 , t he term “ threshold level” as it relates to expression level and/or phosphorylation of IRF2BP2 is a relative term which render s the claim indefinite. The term “ threshold level ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. No guidance is provided for defining what constitutes a “threshold” level of expression or phosphorylation of IRF2BP2 necessary to determine whether the administration step should or should not be performed as set forth in the claim. Claims 11-16 , which depend directly or indirectly from claim 10 and do not remedy this deficiency, are similarly rejected. Claim 13 recites the limitation that “ the PD-1 binding [antagonist] and/or PD-L1 binding antagonist is an antibody”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 depends from claim 10, which does not recite “ a PD-1 antagonist” and “ a PD-L1 antagonist” to which this limitation could refer. For the purpose of compact prosecution and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103, claim 13 is interpreted as depending from claim 12, which does recite “a PD-1 binding antagonist and/or a PD-L1 binding antagonist” in lines 1-2. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (d) 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 7-8 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. As previously set forth in the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection above, claim 7 recites the method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of “detecting the expression level(s) of Cdk5, IRF2BP2, and/or the phosphorylation of IRF2BP2 in cancer cells of the subject prior to administration of the Cdk5 inhibitor ” and “administering to the subject an amount of the CdK5 inhibitor effective to enhance an immune response to the cancer cells, if the detected expression level of Ckk5 [sic] is above a threshold value, and/or the expression level of IRF2BP2 is below a threshold level and/or phosphorylation of IRF2BP2 is below a threshold level ”. The previous method of claim 1 required the step of administering an amount of a CdK5 inhibitor effective to suppress immune checkpoint PD-L1 expression in cancer cells of [ a ] subject. In view of the indefiniteness issues raised above, it is unclear whether claim 7 includes all of the limitations set forth in the previous claim, because the claim sets forth that administering the CdK5 inhibitor is conditional upon if the detected expression level of C dK 5 is above a threshold value, and/or the expression level of IRF2BP2 is below a threshold level , and/or phosphorylation of IRF2BP2 is below a threshold level . If the administration step is no longer performed when the conditional limitations are not met, then the dependent claim does not include all of the required limitations of the previous claim. Claim 8 , which depends from claim 7 and does not remedy these deficiencies, is similarly rejected. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim s 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) without significantly more. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, mental processes (including concepts performed in the human mind), and certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). Laws of nature and natural phenomena, as identified by the courts, include naturally occurring principles/relations and nature-based products that are naturally occurring or that do not have markedly different characteristics compared to what occurs in nature. See MPEP § 2106.04(b). Claims 10-16 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more because the claims are drawn to an abstract idea and a natural phenomenon , and the judicial exception s are not integrated into a practical application if the detected expression level and/or phosphorylation of IRF2BP2 are not below a threshold level . The abstract idea is the mental step of “detecting” expression or phosphorylation levels of the biomarker IRF2BP2 in cancer cells from a subject who has cancer, as recited in the first step, and “comparing” whether the detected expression/phosphorylation levels to a threshold level, as recited in the second step. The claim is drawn to an abstract idea because “comparing” is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. The courts have previously found that determining the level of a biomarker in a biological sample, to be used in a diagnosis, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity or mere data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). MPEP § 2106.04(d) states that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The natural phenomenon is a correlation between the presence or phosphorylation state of a specific biomarker, IRF2BP2, and association with sensitization to immunotherapy or to tumor immunity. Dorand ( Science (2016) 353(6297): 399-403) teaches, “ … cyclin-dependent kinase 5 (Cdk5), a serine-threonine kinase that is highly active in postmitotic neurons and in many cancers, allows medulloblastoma (MB) to evade immune elimination. Interferon-γ (IFN-γ)–induced PD-L1 up-regulation on MB requires Cdk5, and disruption of Cdk5 expression in a mouse model of MB results in potent CD4+ T cell–mediated tumor rejection ” (Abstract). Dorand further teaches that IRF2BP2 expression and phosphorylation are elevated at baseline in Cdk5-deficient cells (e.g., “MM1 crCdk5”) and persist up to 48 hours after IFN-γ exposure, whereas non-Cdk5-deficient cells (e.g., “MM1 WT”, “MM1 crNeg”) show comparatively lower levels of Cdk5 (e.g., page 403; Figure 3). In summary, Dorand provides that MB cell lines display relatively lower levels of IRF2BP2, the expression or phosphorylation of which can be increased by decreasing expression of Cdk5 . Based on the relationship between Cdk5 expression and IRF2BP2 expression/phosphorylation and the fact that decreased Cdk5 levels (as shown in a mouse model of MB) are associated with increased CD4 + T cell-mediated tumor rejection, it can be said that the claim limitations are drawn to a naturally observed phenomenon. A claim that focuses on judicial exception(s) can be shown to recite something “significantly more” than the judicial exception(s) by reciting a meaningful limitation beyond the judicial exceptions. By way of example, applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment for a disease may constitute a practical application that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106(d). However, in the instant case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. While the claim further recites the step of “administering to the subject an amount of a Cdk5 inhibitor effective to enhance an immune response to the cancer cells”, this administration step is conditional upon whether the detected expression level and/or phosphorylation of IRF2BP2 is below the threshold level . Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims encompasses a method in which the administration step is not performed (because the detected IRF2BP2 expression and/or phosphorylation is not below the threshold level) , and the administration step is not required to meet the limitations to the claim. Consider the analysis raised in the precedential decision of Ex parte Schulhauser et al. (attached in Office Action Appendix). Accordingly, the instant claims – under the conditional limitations set forth – do not recite “significantly more” than the judicial exceptions and do not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103 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. 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. 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. Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Strack (WO 2015/026634 A1; published February 26, 2015) . Strack discloses combination therapies comprising a programmed death 1 receptor (PD-1) antagonist and the cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) inhibitor dinaciclib for use in treating cancers that are characterized by overexpression of PD-L1 and/or PD-L2 (e.g., Abstract ; ¶ 0049 ). Regarding claims 1- 3 , Strack discloses a cancer treatment method that comprises administering dinaciclib with an anti-PD-1 antagonist (e.g., ¶ 0006-0017; claim 1). Regarding claims 4-5 , Strack teaches that the anti-PD-1 antagonist is an anti-PD-1 antibody such as nivolumab (MDX-1106), MK-3475, or pidilizumab (CT-011), or an anti-PD-L1 antibody such as MPDL3280A, BMS-936559 (MDX-1105) , MEDI - 4736, or MSB0010718C (e.g., ¶ 0073-0082; claims 1-13). Regarding claim 9 , Strack further provides that the combination therapy of the invention may be combined with an additional therapeutic agent, e.g., chemotherapeutic agents, surgery to remove a tumor, or radiation therapy (¶ 0097-00106). However, strictly in the alternative, if the prior art is not anticipatory of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the instantly claimed invention, that administration of the CDK5 inhibitor dinaciclib (as taught by Strack) would inhibit IFN-γ-induced PD-L1 overexpression of cancer cells. Although Strack does not expressly teach inhibiting IFN-γ-induced PD-L1 expression, any observed pharmacological responses observed in responses to the treatment of PD-L1-overexpressing cancers as described by Strack would necessarily have occurred as a result of dinaciclib administration. MPEP § 2112.01 sets forth that products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties , and that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, if the prior art teaches an identical chemical structure, the resulting properties disclosed or claimed by the Applicant are necessarily present. Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 2(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dorand ( Cancer Immunology Research (2016) 4 (11_Supplement): Abstract A050 ; published November 1 , 2016) . As set forth in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection above, the conditional step of “administering to the subject an amount of a CdK5 inhibitor effective to enhance an immune response to the cancer cells” is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim s . Dorand investigated the role of Cdk5, which is expressed in both murine and human medulloblastoma (MB) cell lines, in the ability of MB to avoid immune detection. Following knockdown of expression of Cdk5 in murine MB cells, Dorand describes using a phosphoproteomics approach and detecting increased phosphorylation of serine 440 and serine 443 on IRF2BP2 , relevant to claims 10 and 15-16 . Implicitly, it is understood that the increased phosphorylation is compared to MB cells in which Cdk5 is not knocked down, reading on comparing the phosphorylation to a threshold (or reference or control) level, as best understood in view of the indefiniteness concerns raised in the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection above. Dorand further teaches that i ncreased phosphorylation of IRF2BP2 corresponded with a concomitant decrease in surface expression of PD-L1 , and that inhibition of PD-L1 can lead to potent anti-tumor responses. Regarding claims 11-14 , the administration step is not required by the method of claim 10 under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. T he dependent claims serve to further limit the claimed method only under the condition that the detected expression or phosphorylation is below threshold levels and the Cdk5 inhibitor is administered to the subject . The further administration of the PD-1 binding antagonist or PD-L1 binding antagonist is only required if the Cdk5 inhibitor is also administered. Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Strack (WO 2015/026634 A1; supra ) as applied to claims 1-5 and 9 above, further in view of Machacek (US 2013/0225591 A1; published August 29, 2013). The teachings of Strack are recited in the 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection above. However, Strack does not expressly teach that the cancer treated in the method is medulloblastoma or rhabdomyosarcoma. Machacek discloses a kinase inhibitor of Formula ( I ), which inhibits CDK5, and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof, as well as uses thereof in treating diseases or disorders in which cell cycle regulation is implicated, such as cancer (e.g., Abstract ; ¶ 0013, 0263-0267). In embodiments of the invention, Machacek discloses that compounds of the invention are useful for treating cancers including, inter alia , medulloblastoma and myosarcoma (e.g., ¶ 0172-0174). In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to carry out a method of administering a CDK5 inhibitor such as that set forth by Strack to suppress IFN-γ-induced PD-L1 expression in medulloblastoma or rhabdomyosarcoma cancer cells based on the further teachings of Machacek . The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Machacek teaches that medulloblastoma and rhabdomyosarcoma are among several cancers in which cell cycle regulatory kinases are implicated and which could benefit from treatment with a CDK5 inhibitor . There would have been a reasonable expectation of success be cause one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that that the therapeutic inhibitors disclosed by Strack and Machacek are functional equivalents known for the same purpose (i.e., inhibiting CDK5), and it would be prima facie obvious to administer a CDK5 inhibitor (as disclosed by Strack) for a specific cancer such as medulloblastoma or rhabdomyosarcoma. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the 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. Claim s 1-7 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,124,571 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the instantly claimed invention. Relevant to claims 1-2 and 6-7 , the reference patent claims a method of sensitizing medulloblastoma to immunotherapy in a subject, comprising the same steps of: detecting the expression level of Cdk5 in medulloblastoma cancer cells of the subject, comparing the detected expression level of Cdk5 to a threshold level, and administering to the subject an amount of a Cdk5 inhibitor effective to suppress PD-L1 in the cancer cells, if the detected expression level of Cdk5 exceeds the threshold level, wherein the Cdk5 inhibitor is selected from a group consisting of identical members to those recited in claim 2 . Regarding claims 3-5 , the method further comprises administering a PD-1 and/or PD-L1 binding antagonist, e.g., an antibody, e.g., selected from a group consisting of identical members to those recited in claim 5 . Regarding claim 9 , the reference patent claims recite that the subject is treated with at least one of the alternative treatments recited in the instant claim. Claim s 1-7 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,884,730 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the instantly claimed invention . Regarding claims 1 and 6-7 , the reference patent claims a method of inhibiting interferon (IFN)-γ induced PD-L1 expression in medulloblastoma or rhabdosarcoma cancer cells of a subject, comprising the steps of: detecting the expression level of Cdk5 in the medulloblastoma or rhabdomyosarcoma cancer cells, comparing the detected Cdk5 expression level to a threshold level, and administering to IFN-γ induced PD-L1 overexpressing cancer cells of the subject an amount of Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Elizabeth A Shupe whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703) 756-1420 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm 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 Julie Wu can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-5205 . 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. /ELIZABETH A SHUPE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1643 /Brad Duffy/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1643