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 is a continuation of U.S. patent application serial no. 17/074,800, filed October 20, 2020, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application serial no. 16/283,190, filed Feb. 22, 2019, now U.S. Patent No. 10,835,525, which is a continuation-in- part of U.S. patent application serial no. 15/862,011 filed on January 4, 2018, now U.S. Patent No. 10,251,877 issued April 9, 2019, which is a continuation of patent application serial no. 15/255,912 filed on September 2, 2016, now U.S. Patent No. 9,889,127, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application serial no. 14/026,886 filed on September 13, 2013, now U.S. Patent No. 9,480,683 issued November 1, 2016, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 61/705,838, filed September 26, 2012 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 29, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Status Claims 1-25 are currently pending and subject to examination. 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.” Claims 1- 25 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. Claim 1 recites: :A method of inhibiting or reducing mutant C-KIT tyrosine kinase activity or expression in a subject suffering from a proliferative disease comprise of identifying the subject having a proliferative disease positive for a constitutively active mutant C-KIT or over expression of C-KIT comprising administering to the subject having or suspected to have the proliferative disease…” One of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claim because is unclear how the subject can be identified as having a proliferative disease and also suspected of having the proliferative disease. These are not the same subjects. The claim language is also unclear because it is written such that the identifying step comprises the administering step. Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 and do not resolve this discrepancy and are therefore also indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9 recites the limitation " the Crenolanib " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2 and 15 recite an improper grouping of alternatives. The alternatives are recited in the form of at least one of A, B and C. This language means that each of A, B and C are required by the claims. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc . (358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) . However, it is impossible that the C-KIT mutant is each one of D816E, D816 I , and D816V as required by claims 2 and 15. These are mutually exclusive. Claims 17-25 depend from claim 15 and do not resolve this discrepancy and are therefore also indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. ” Claims 1- 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Jain ( US 2019 / 0183880 A1 , published June 16, 2019) citing to Baird & Gotlib ( Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports , Volume 13, pages 407–416 , published August 28, 2018). Baird & Gotlib is cited to show an inherent disclosure by Jain. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is Oct. 20, 2020. This is the effective date of application no. 17/074,800. This is the earliest application which provides support for a mutation in exon 8. Claim 1 is directed towards a method of inhibiting or reducing mutant C-KIT kinase activity or expression in a subject suffering from a proliferative disease positive for a constitutively active mutant C-KIT or overexpression of C-KIT comprising administering to the subject having the proliferative disease a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of F ormula I: , wherein the C-KIT mutant is located in at least one of exon 8, exon 9, exon 11, exon 13, exon 14, or exon 17. Jain teaches the method of claim 1, comprising identifying and treating a patient with a proliferative disease positive for mutant C-KIT or overexpression of C-KIT comprising administering an effective amount of the compound of Formula I : a method of inhibiting or reducing mutant C-KIT tyrosine kinase activity or expression in a subject suffering from a proliferative diseas e comprised of identifying the subject having a proliferative disease positive for a constitutively active kinase domain mutant C-KIT or over expression of C-KIT comprising administering to the subject having or suspected to have the proliferative disease, a therapeutically effective amount of a crenolanib compound of Formula I: or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or solvate thereof, wherein the C-KIT mutant is at least one of Del 557-558, V559A, V559D, K642E, V560G, V654A, T670I, D816E, D816I, D816V, D820E, D820Y, D820V, N822H, N822K, Y823C, Y823D, A829P, V559D/T670I, V559D/V654A, V560G/D816V, and V560G/N822K mutant C-KIT. Jain, Specification, paragraphs 11-12. Jain also teaches the mutations: “ D816F, D816H, D816N, D816Y, D816V, K642E, Y823D, Del 550-558, Del 557-561, N822K, V654A, N822H, Del 550-558+V654A, Del557-561+V654A, Ins503AY, V560G, 55bNP, Del557-558, Del W559-560, F522C, Del579, R634W, K642E, T8011, C809G, D820Y, N822K, N822H, Y823D, Y823C and T670I ” (Jain, Specification, paragraph 16). While Jain does not teach the exons these mutations are found in, the exon the mutations are found in is an inherent characteristic of the mutations. Baird teaches that the mutations listed above are found in for example, exons 9, 11 and 17: Baird, Fig. 1, p. 2. Therefore, claim 1 is anticipated. Claim 2 is directed towards the method of claim 1, wherein the C-KIT mutant is at least one of T417I, Del 418, Del 418-419, T417I, T417V, T417R, T417N, Y418R, Y418A, Y418G, R420W, W420G, L421G, L421F, D496V, Ins A504_Y505, Del 557-558, V559A, V559D, K642E, V560G, V654A, T670 I , D816E, D816 I , D816V, D820E, D820Y, D820V, N822H, N822K, Y823C, Y823D, A829P, V559D/T670I, V559D/V654A, V560G/D816V, and V560G/N822K . Jain teaches the mutations such as Del 557-558 , V559A, V559D, K642E, V560G, V654A, T670 I , D816E, D816 I , D816V, D820E, D820Y, D820V, N822H, N822K, Y823C, Y823D, A829P, V559D/T670I, V559D/V654A, V560G/D816V, and V560G/N822K (Jain, Specification, paragraph 12). Therefore, claim 2 is anticipated. Claim 3 is directed towards the method of claim 1, wherein the compound is provided for the treatment of secondary mutations, wherein secondary mutations is at least one of T670I, V654A, D816V, and N822K. Jain teaches that “ the compound is provided for a treatment of secondary mutations, wherein secondary mutations is at least one of T670I, V654A, D816V, and N822K. ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 3 is anticipated. Claim 4 is directed towards the method of claim 1, wherein the proliferative disease is selected from at least one of mastocytosis , acute myeloid leukemia, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, sinonasal NK/T-cell lymphoma, seminomas, dysreminomas , melanomas, and thymic carcinomas. Jain teaches that “ the proliferative disease is selected from at least one of mastocytosis , acute myeloid leukemia, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, sinonasal NK/T-cell lymphoma, seminomas, dysgerminomas, melanomas, and thymic carcinomas. ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 4 is anticipated. Claim 5 is directed towards the method of claim 1, wherein the therapeutically effective amounts are from about 15 to 500, 25 to 450, 50to 400, 100 to 350, 150 to 300, 200 to 250, 15, 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 400, 450, or 500 mg per day. Jain teaches that “ the therapeutically effective amount is from about 15 to 500, 25 to 450, 50 to 400, 100 to 350, 150 to 300, 200 to 250, 15, 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 400, 450, or 500 mg per day .” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 5 is anticipated. Claim 6 is directed towards the method of claim 1, wherein the compound is administered at least one of continuously, intermittently, systemically, or locally. Jain teaches that “ the compound is administered at least one of continuously, intermittently, systemically, or locally. ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 6 is anticipated. Claim 7 is directed towards the method of claim 1, wherein the mutant C-KIT is further defined as constitutively active. Jain teaches that “ In another aspect, the mutant C-KIT is defined further as constitutively active. ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 7 is anticipated. Claim 8 is directed towards the method of claim 1, wherein the compound is administered orally, intravenously or intraperitoneally. Jain teaches that “ the compound is administered orally, intravenously, or intraperitoneally. ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 8 is anticipated. Claim 9 is directed towards the method of claim 1, wherein the Crenolanib is Crenolanib Besylate, Crenolanib Phosphate, Crenolanib Lactate, Crenolanib Hydrochloride, Crenolanib Citrate, Crenolanib Acetate, Crenolanib Toluenesulphonate or Crenolanib Succinate. Jain teaches that “ the Crenolanib is Crenolanib Besylate, Crenolanib Phosphate, Crenolanib Lactate, Crenolanib Hydrochloride, Crenolanib Citrate, Crenolanib Acetate, Crenolanib Toluenesulphonate or Crenolanib Succinate. ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 9 is anticipated. Claim 10 is directed towards t he method of claim 1, wherein the therapeutically effective amount of compound is administered up to three times or more a day for as long as the subject is in need of treatment for a proliferative disease. Jain teaches that “ the therapeutically effective amount of compound is administered up to three times or more a day for as long as the subject is in need of treatment for a proliferative disease ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 10 is anticipated. Claim 11 is directed towards the method of claim 1, wherein the compound is provided at least one of sequentially or concomitantly, with another pharmaceutical agent in a newly diagnosed proliferative disease subject, to maintain remission, or a relapsed/refractory proliferative disease subject. Jain teaches that “ the compound is provided at least one of sequentially or concomitantly, with another pharmaceutical agent in a newly diagnosed proliferative disease subject, to maintain remission, or a relapsed/refractory proliferative disease subject. ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 11 is anticipated. Claim 12 is directed towards the method of claim 1, w herein the compound is provided as a single agent or in combination with another pharmaceutical agent in a newly diagnosed proliferative disease subject, to maintain remission, or a relapsed/refractory proliferative disease subject. Jain teaches that “t he compound is provided as a single agent or in combination with another pharmaceutical agent in a newly diagnosed proliferative disease subject, to maintain remission, or a relapsed/refractory proliferative disease subject. ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 12 is anticipated. Claim 13 is directed towards the method of claim 1, wherein the compound is provided as a single agent or in combination with another pharmaceutical agent in a newly diagnosed proliferative disease pediatric subject, to maintain remission, or a relapsed/refractory proliferative disease pediatric subj e ct. Jain teaches that “ the compound is provided as a single agent or in combination with another pharmaceutical agent in a newly diagnosed proliferative disease pediatric subject, to maintain remission, or a relapsed/refractory proliferative disease pediatric subject. ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 13 is anticipated. Claim 14 is directed towards the method of claim 1, further comprising the step of determining if the subject is relapsed/refractory to interferon alpha, 2-chlorodoxyadenosine or Imatinib mesylate prior to providing the compound. Jain teaches that “ the method further comprises the step of determining if the subject is relapsed/refractory to interferon alpha, 2-chlorodoxyadenosine or Imatinib mesylate prior to providing the compound. ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 14 is anticipated. Claim 15 recites: A method for treating a subject suffering from a C-KIT mutated proliferative disease comprising: administering to the subject in need of such treatment a therapeutically effective amount of Crenolanib or a salt thereof, wherein the cell proliferative disorder is characterized by mutant or double mutant C-KIT receptor tyrosine kinase activity, proliferative disease is selected from at least one of a mastocytosis , acute myeloid leukemia, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, sinonasal NK/T-cell lymphoma, seminomas, dysgerminomas, melanomas, and thymic carcinomas wherein the mutant or double mutant is at least one of: mutations in exons 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, or 17, T417I, Del 418, Del 418-419, T417I, T417V, T417R, T417N, Y418R, Y418A, Y418G, R420W, W420G, L421G, L421F, D496V, Ins A504_Y505 Del 557-558, V559A, V559D, K642E, V560G, V654A, T670I, D816E, D816I, D816V, D820E, D820Y, D820V, N822H, N822K, Y823C, Y823D, A829P, V559D/T670I, V559D/V654A, V560G/D816V, and V560G/N822K mutant C-KIT. Jain teaches a method for treating a subject suffering from a C-KIT mutated proliferative disease comprising: administering to the subject in need of such treatment a therapeutically effective amount of Crenolanib or a salt thereof, wherein a cell proliferative disorder is characterized by mutant or double mutant C-KIT receptor tyrosine kinase activity and the C-KIT mutated proliferative disease is selected from at least one of a mastocytosis , acute myeloid leukemia, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, sinonasal NK/T-cell lymphoma, seminomas, dysgerminomas, melanomas, and thymic carcinomas, wherein the mutant or double mutant is at least one of: Del 557-558, V559A, V559D, K642E, V560G, V654A, T670I, D816E, D816I, D816V, D820E, D820Y, D820V, N822H, N822K, Y823C, Y823D, A829P, V559D/T670I, V559D/V654A, V560G/D816V, and V560G/N822K mutant C-KIT. Jain, Specification, paragraph 13. Therefore, claim 15 is anticipated. Claim 16 is directed towards the method of claim 15, wherein the compound is provided for the treatment of secondary mutations from at least one of the following mutations T670I, V654A, D816V, and N822K. Jain teaches that “ the compound is provided for the treatment of secondary mutations from at least one of the following mutations T670I, V654A, D816V, and N822K .” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 16 is anticipated. Claim 17 is directed towards the method of claim 15, wherein the compound is administered orally, intravenously, or intraperitoneally. Jain teaches that “ the compound is administered orally, intravenously, or intraperitoneally. ” ( Id. ). Claim 18 is directed towards the method of claim 15, wherein the Crenolanib is Crenolanib Besylate, Crenolanib Phosphate, Crenolanib Lactate, Crenolanib Hydrochloride, Crenolanib Citrate, Crenolanib Acetate, Crenolanib Toluenesulphonate or Crenolanib Succinate. Jain teaches that “ the Crenolanib is Crenolanib Besylate, Crenolanib Phosphate, Crenolanib Lactate, Crenolanib Hydrochloride, Crenolanib Citrate, Crenolanib Acetate, Crenolanib Toluenesulphonate or Crenolanib Succinate. ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 18 is anticipated. Claim 19 is directed towards t he method of claim 1 5 , wherein the therapeutically effective amount of compound is administered up to three times or more a day for as long as the subject is in need of treatment for a proliferative disease. Jain teaches that “ the therapeutically effective amount of compound is administered up to three times or more a day for as long as the subject is in need of treatment for a proliferative disease ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 19 is anticipated. Claim 20 is directed towards the method of claim 15, wherein the Crenolanib is provided at least one of sequentially or concomitantly, with another pharmaceutical agent in a newly diagnosed C-KIT mutated proliferative disease, to maintain remission, or a relapsed/refractory C-KIT mutated proliferative disease. Jain teaches that the “ the Crenolanib is provided at least one of sequentially or concomitantly, with another pharmaceutical agent in a newly diagnosed C-KIT mutated proliferative disease, to maintain remission, or a relapsed/refractory C-KIT mutated proliferative disease. ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 20 is anticipated. Claim 21 is directed towards the method of claim 15, “ wherein the Crenolanib is provided as a single agent or in combination with another pharmaceutical agent for treatment of a pediatric subject with the proliferative disease. ” Jain teaches that “t he Crenolanib is provided as a single agent or in combination with another pharmaceutical agent for treatment of a pediatric subject with the C-KIT mutated proliferative disease. ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 21 is anticipated. Claim 22 is directed towards the method of claim 15, “ wherein the Crenolanib is provided as a single agent to at least one of post chemotherapeutic or targeted therapy in newly diagnosed C-KIT mutated proliferative disease. ” Jain teaches that “ the Crenolanib is provided as a single agent to at least one of post chemotherapeutic or targeted therapy in newly diagnosed C-KIT mutated proliferative disease. ” ( Id. ) Therefore, claim 22 is anticipated. Claim 23 is directed towards t he method of claim 15, wherein the Crenolanib is provided as a single agent in treatment of subjects with the C-KIT mutated proliferative disease that is either refractory to or has relapsed after treatment with another chemotherapeutic or targeted therapy. Jain teaches that “ the Crenolanib is provided as a single agent in treatment of subjects with the C-KIT mutated proliferative disease that is either refractory to or has relapsed after treatment with another chemotherapeutic or targeted therapy .” ( Id. ) Therefore, claim 23 is anticipated. Claim 24 is directed towards the method of claim 15, wherein the subject is refractory to at least one of interferon alpha, 2 chlorodoxyadenosine or Imatinib mesylate. Jain teaches that “ the subject is refractory to at least one of interferon alpha, 2 chlorodoxyadenosine or Imatinib mesylate. ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 24 is anticipated. Claim 25 is directed towards the method of claim 15, further comprising the step of determining identifying a subject in need of cancer therapy caused by uncontrolled C-KIT tyrosine kinase activity or expression. Jain teaches that “ the method further comprises the step of determining identifying a subject in need of cancer therapy caused by uncontrolled C-KIT tyrosine kinase activity or expression. ” ( Id. ). Therefore, claim 25 is anticipated. Statutory Double Patenting A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-25 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,642,340 B2 . This is a statutory double patenting rejection. Claims 1-25 are identical in wording to claims 1-25 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,642,340 B2 . Nonstatutory 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. Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 9 , 480 , 683 B2 (herein “the ‘638 patent”) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and the ‘638 patent are directed towards methods of treating mutant c-kit positive cancers, wherein the mutation is D816, D816F, D816H, D816N, D816Y or D816V , the method comprising administering an effective amount of a compound of formula , to a subject in need thereof. The dependent claims of both the instant application and the ‘638 patent recite the same patient populations and dosages. Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 9 , 889 , 127 B2 (herein “the ‘127 patent”) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and the ‘127 patent are directed towards methods of treating mutant c-kit positive cancers, wherein the mutation is D816, D816F, D816H, D816N, D816Y or D816V , the method comprising administering an effective amount of a compound of formula , to a subject in need thereof. The dependent claims of both the instant application and the ‘127 patent recite the same patient populations and dosages. Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 10 , 251 , 877 B2 (herein “the ‘877 patent”) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and the ‘877 patent are directed towards methods of treating mutant c-kit positive cancers, wherein the mutation is D816, D816F, D816H, D816N, D816Y, D816V, K642E, Y823D, N822K, V654A, N822H, V560G, F522C, R634W, K642E, T8011, C809G, D820Y, N822K, N822H, Y823D, Y823C or T670I. , the method comprising administering an effective amount of a compound of formula , to a subject in need thereof. The dependent claims of both the instant application and the ‘877 patent recite the same patient populations and dosages. Claims 1-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10 , 835 , 525 B2 (herein “the ‘525 patent”) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and the ‘525 patent are directed towards methods of treating mutant c-kit positive cancers, wherein the mutation is Del 557-558, V559A, V559D, K642E, V560G, V654A, T670I, D816E, D816I, D816V, D820E, D820Y, D820V, N822H, N822K, Y823C, Y823D, A829P, V559D/T670I, V559D/V654A, V560G/D816V, or V560G/N822K , the method comprising administering an effective amount of a compound of formula , to a subject in need thereof. The dependent claims of both the instant application and the ‘525 patent recite the same patient populations and dosages. Conclusion No claim is found to be allowable. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HEATHER DAHLIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0436 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9-5 . 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, Jeffrey Lundgren can be reached on (571) 272-5541 . 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 86-217-9197 (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. /HEATHER DAHLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1629 /JEFFREY S LUNDGREN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1629