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. Status of the Claims Claims 1-105 were originally filed February 21, 2023. The amendment received June 23, 2023 cancelled claims 1-105 and added new claims 106-125. The amendment received November 21, 2025 amended claim 106. Claims 106-125 are currently pending. Claim 106 is currently under consideration. Please note : one of skill in the art would presume that C (see X1 in independent claim 106 ) is cysteine. The originally filed specification does not define C as carbamidomethylcysteine (i.e. a specific definition section comprising defining C as carbamidomethylcysteine ) . Therefore, the limitation in withdrawn claim 107 is indefinite and fails to further limit independent claim 106 because it goes against the art recognized definition of C. Please note : not all of the peptides would have a lysine at residue 14. In fact, most of the peptides would be 12mers. Therefore, withdrawn claim 114 requires clarification. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 106-116) in the reply filed on November 21, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 117-125 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method (incorrectly designated as a composition on page 4 of the response received November 21, 2025 – see line 12), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 21, 2025. Applicant’s election without traverse of G WLAYPDSVPY RPK as the first subunit (the N-terminal G was elected for X1 as “a first spacer”; X2 is a combination of R and P-K ) , A WLAYPDSVPY RPK (X1 is A; X2 is a combination of R and P-K), and Q-Q and G-G as the additional components in the reply filed on November 21, 2025 is acknowledged. Applicants elected QQ GWLAYPDSVPYRPK GG AWLAYPDSVPYRPK as “the species of A, B and C collectively.” Claims 107-116 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 21, 2025. Please note : typically, applicants should supply a SEQ ID NO: for any sequences being discussed during prosecution. However, since GWLAYPDSVPYRPK is not part of the present sequence listing, this would be impossible. AWLAYPDSVPYRPK is present SEQ ID NO: 23. GWLAYPDSVPYRPK and AWLAYPDSVPYRPK (SEQ ID NO: 23) while being members of the Markush Group for independent claim 106, are not specifically claimed species per se. Thus, GWLAYPDSVPYRPK and AWLAYPDSVPYRPK (SEQ ID NO: 23) are not required for any rejection of record. Please note : QQ is not part of the Markush Group for X1 and is not part of the present claims. Therefore, QQ is not required for any rejection of record. QQ is also not disclosed in the originally filed specification and would be considered new matter if added to the claims. Please note : GG, as elected would be a combination of R, P-K, and “a second spacer” for X2 of the first subunit. GG is not part of the present claims. Thus, GG is not required for any rejection of record. Potential Rejoinder Applicant elected claims directed to a product. If a product claim is subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that depend from or otherwise include all the limitations of the allowable product claim will be rejoined in accordance with the provisions of MPEP § 821.04. Process claims that depend from or otherwise include all the limitations of the patentable product will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116; amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all the criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and 112. Until an elected product claim is found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowed product claim will not be rejoined. See “Guidance on Treatment of Product and Process Claims in light of In re Ochiai , In re Brouwer and 35 U.S.C. § 103(b),” 1184 O.G. 86 (March 26, 1996). Additionally, in order to retain the right to rejoinder in accordance with the above policy, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution either to maintain dependency on the product claims or to otherwise include the limitations of the product claims. Failure to do so may result in a loss of the right to a rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. Priority The present application is a CON of PCT/US2021/050294 filed September 14, 2021 which claims the benefit of 63/078,241 filed September 14, 2020. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 18, 2023 and October 17, 2023 are being considered by the examiner. Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures Summary of Requirements for Patent Applications Filed O n Or After July 1, 2022, T hat Have Sequence Disclosures 37 CFR 1.831(a) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.831(b) must contain a “Sequence Listing XML”, 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 1.831-1.835. This “Sequence Listing XML” part of the disclosure may be submitted: 1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 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”) in XML format, together with an incorporation by reference statement of the material in the XML file in a separate paragraph of the specification (an incorporation by reference paragraph) as required by 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) identifying: a. the name of the XML file b. the date of creation; and c. the size of the XML file in bytes; or 2. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(a) using the symbols and format requirements of 37 CFR 1.832 through 1.834 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 statement of the material in the XML format according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.835(a)(2) or 1.835(b)(2) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying: a. the name of the XML file; b. the date of creation; and c. the size of the XML file in bytes. SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES AND THE REQUIRED RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE 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 sequence disclosures are located Figures 8A-8C, 9, and 10A-10E ; paragraphs 5, 6, 10-15, 18, 24, 38, 41, 44, 45, 47, 48, 127, 133-136, 138-143, 145, and 159 ; Tables 2-4 and 6 . 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. Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the specification are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). See paragraphs 5, 6, 10-15, 18, 24, 38, 41, 44, 45, 47, 48, 127, 133-136, 138-143, 145, and 159 and Tables 2-4 and 6 . Required response – Applicant must provide: A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers, 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. Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). Sequence identifiers for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings. See Figures 8A-8C, 9, and 10A-10E . Required response – Applicant must provide: Replacement and annotated drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers; AND/OR A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers into the Brief Description of the Drawings, 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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Table 5 appears to be missing. No new matter may be added . Appropriate correction is required. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “SEQ ID No.” in Table 2a should read “SEQ ID NO:”. Appropriate correction is required. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: marked up copies of the amended specification filed on June 23, 2023 and August 28, 2023 were not provided. Marked up copies are required. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 106 is objected to because of the following informalities: the first and second subunits are the same sequence (i.e. X1WLAYPDSVPYX2). However, applicants have provided two separate SEQ ID NOs (i.e. SEQ ID NO: 9 and SEQ ID NO: 10) for the sequences. Appropriate correction is required. Sequence Interpretation The Office interprets claims comprising SEQ ID NOs: in the following manner: “comprising a sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires only a 2mer of SEQ ID NO: 1, “comprising the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 with any N-/C-terminal additions or any 5’/3’ additions, “consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 and the same length as SEQ ID NO: 1, and “selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, and 3” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, or 3 and the same length as SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, or 3. Any claim requiring a specific percent identity, necessarily requires at least the recited percent identity. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claim 106 is 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. This is a new matter rejection. SEQ ID NOs: 9 and 10 do not refer to X1 or X2 (i.e. X1 or X12) as having a “spacer” or a combination of the Markush Groups of X1 is A, b A, a first spacer, C, azido-lysine, or Pra and X2 is R, a second spacer, PK, C, or K. 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 106 is 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed composition. For example, it is unclear how SEQ ID NO: 9 can represent the first subunit of X1WLAYPDSVPYX2 wherein X1 is A, b A, a first spacer, C, azido-lysine, Pra or any combination thereof and X2 is R, a second spacer, PK, C, K, or any combination thereof. SEQ ID NO: 9 is X 1 WLAYPDSVPYX 12 wherein X 1 may be deleted and X 12 may be deleted. Therefore, it is unclear if the limitations in the claims are required or if the limitations of SEQ ID NO: 9 are required. Claim 106 is 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed composition. For example, it is unclear how SEQ ID NO: 10 can represent the second subunit of X1WLAYPDSVPYX2 wherein X1 is A, b A, a first spacer, C, azido-lysine, Pra or any combination thereof and X2 is R, a second spacer, PK, C, K, or any combination thereof. SEQ ID NO: 10 is X 1 WLAYPDSVPYX 12 X 1 3 wherein X 1 is A, b A, C, azido-lysine, or Pra ; X 1 2 is R, PK, C, or K; X 1 3 is R, PK, C, or K; and any one of X 12 or X 13 may be deleted. Therefore, it is unclear if the limitations in the claims are required or if the limitations of SEQ ID NO: 10 are required. Claim 106 is 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed composition. For example, it is unclear what the “first spacer” and “second spacer” are. All variable residues must be specifically defined in the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 106 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez-Soler et al . , May 31, 2019, Engineering nanomolar peptide ligands that differentially modulate EphA2 receptor signaling, J Biol Chem, 294(22): 8791-8805 (provided in the IDS; a clearer version of the NPL is provided with the present Office Action) and Duggineni et al., 2013, Design and Synthesis of Potent Bivalent Peptide Agonists Targeting the EphA2 Receptor, ACS Medical Chemistry Letters, 4: 344-348 (provided in the IDS; a clea r er version of the NPL is provided with the present Office Action) . For present claim 106, Gomez-Soler et al. teach EphA2 ligand binding domains comprising (A/ b A/X1)WLAYPDSVPY(K/SK/GSK/GSGK/R/RPK/SPK/X2) wherein G and S are linkers (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract; Table 1 – Identifier numbers 9-22; Figures 2, 4, 6). However, Gomez-Soler et al. do not teach dimers. For present claim 106, Duggineni et al. teach dimers of EphA2 ligand binding domains comprising S WLAYP GA V S YR (bold and underlined are the same as present SEQ ID NOs: 9 and 10) (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract; Figures 1-3) . All the claimed elements were known (e.g. EphA2 ligand binding domains comprising (A/ b A/X1)WLAYPDSVPY(K/SK/GSK/GSGK/R/RPK/SPK/X2) wherein G and S are linkers; dimers of EphA2 ligand binding domains) in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions (i.e. binding to EphA2 receptors) and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. higher binding affinity) to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (i.e. monomer) for another (i.e. dimer) would have yielded predictable results (i.e. higher binding affinity) to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. making dimers) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claim would have been obvious because “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. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). 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 106 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,398,179 in view of Duggineni et al., 2013, Design and Synthesis of Potent Bivalent Peptide Agonists Targeting the EphA2 Receptor, ACS Medical Chemistry Letters, 4: 344-348 (provided in the IDS; a cleaner version of the NPL is provided with the present Office Action). U.S. Patent No. 12,398,179 claims ( b A/present X1)(WL/X1)-AYPDSVP- (YK/YSK/YGSK/YGSGK/YR/X2) – present X2 wherein G and S are linkers (i.e. EphA2 ligand binding domains). Duggineni et al. teach dimers of EphA2 ligand binding domains comprising S WLAYP GA V S YR (bold and underlined are the same as present SEQ ID NOs: 9 and 10) (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract; Figures 1-3). All the claimed elements were known (e.g. EphA2 ligand binding domains comprising (A/ b A/X1)WLAYPDSVPY(K/SK/GSK/GSGK/R/RPK/SPK/X2) wherein G and S are linkers; dimers of EphA2 ligand binding domains) in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions (i.e. binding to EphA2 receptors) and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. higher binding affinity) to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (i.e. monomer) for another (i.e. dimer) would have yielded predictable results (i.e. higher binding affinity) to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. making dimers) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claim would have been obvious because “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. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). Future Communications Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AMBER D STEELE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5538 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-5 . 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 Melissa Fisher can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7430 . 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. /AMBER D STEELE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658