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. DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-15 are under examination on the merits. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Claims 1-15 have an effective filing date of 01/28/2014 , corresponding to PRO 61/932,589. Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), because the claim appears to recite a product (an anti-LAG-3 antibody) and a process (the administration of said anti-LAG-3 antibody) in the same claim. According to MPEP 2173.05(p), “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) .” 35 U.S.C. 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 . Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lonberg et al. (WO 2014/008218, international publication date: 01/09/2014) in view of Mathijssen et al. (The Oncologist, 12: 913-923, 2007). Lonberg et al. teach a human monoclonal antibody specific for LAG-3, 25F7, and the 25F7 antibody comprises the heavy chain of SEQ ID NO: 35 and the light chain of SEQ ID NO: 37. SEQ ID NO: 35 of Lonberg et al. shares 100% sequence homology with the heavy chain of SEQ ID NO: 1, which comprises the heavy chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 3 and the heavy chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 7-9. SEQ ID NO: 37 of Lonberg et al. shares 100% sequence homology with the light chain of SEQ ID NO: 2, which comprises the light chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 5 and the light chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 10-12. Lonberg et al. also teach that said antibodies may be administered at dosage ranges from about 0.0001 to 100 mg/kg of the host body weight, and Lonberg et al. teach that said antibodies may be administered once every two weeks until a desired plasma antibody concentration is achieved, see p. 38. Lonberg et al. additionally teach that said antibodies may be administered intravenously, see p. 36. Lonberg et al. further teach that said antibodies may be used to inhibit the growth of various cancers, such as melanoma (e.g., metastatic malignant melanoma), including refractory or recurrent malignancies, and Lonberg et al. teach that said antibodies may be used to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia, Hod g kin’s lymphoma, and non-Hod g kin’s lymphoma, all of which meet the limitations of a hematological malignancy, see p. 41 and 42. At p. 5, Lonberg et al. teach that antibodies of the invention may be full-length antibodies. Based upon the teachings of Lonberg et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success at the effective filing date of the invention to develop a method of treating a hematological malignancy in a human patient, the method comprising administering to the patient an effective amount of an anti-LAG-3 antibody that comprises the heavy chain of SEQ ID NO: 1, which comprises the heavy chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 3 and the heavy chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 7-9 , and the light chain of SEQ ID NO: 2, which comprises the light chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 5 and the light chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 10-12 , wherein the method comprises at least one administration cycle. Lonberg et al. do not teach or suggest a method of treating a hematological malignancy in a human patient, the method comprising administering to the patient an effective amount of an anti-LAG-3 antibody that comprises the heavy chain of SEQ ID NO: 1, which comprises the heavy chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 3 and the heavy chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 7-9 , and the light chain of SEQ ID NO: 2, which comprises the light chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 5 and the light chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 10-12 , wherein the method comprises at least one administration cycle, wherein the cycle is a period of eight weeks and wherein the anti-LAG-3 antibody is administered at (a) four doses of 20 mg, (b) four doses of 80 mg, (c) four doses of 240 mg, or (d) four doses of 800 mg. It is noted that the instant method recites the administration of flat doses, not body weight -based dosages . The deficiencies of Lonberg et al. are remedied by M athijssen et al. Mathijssen et al. teach that in addition to dosing based upon b ody-surface area (BSA) of patients, body-size may also be used to determine proper drug dosages, and dosages based upon body weight and body height have been tested, see p. 916. At p. 917, Mathijssen et al. suggest that body-size dosing may not be appropriate for particular patient populations, such as obese or frail patients. At p. 918, Mathijssen et al. suggest that flat-fixed dosing may offer advantages to conventional dosing strategies: Flat-fixed dosing refers to dosing strategies without correction for body size or other (pharmacological) parameters. This is very common in the medical world, outside oncology. For drugs characterized by a broad therapeutic window and/or small interindividual variability in exposure and/or limited toxicity (e.g., targeted drugs), flat-fixed dosing seems the best option. In addition, the use of this approach may have positive economic implications, because only a unit dose has to be produced and stored, while no time consuming dosing method is involved. There are also safety implications, because fewer errors will be made in calculating, preparing, and administering the proper individual dose. Moreover, patient adherence to oral anticancer drugs could be improved if, for instance, only one standard tablet had to be taken instead of, for example, two large ones and a smaller one [47]. Mathijssen et al. also teach that clinical trials are currently underway to determine the feasibility of replacing BSA-based dosing regimens with flat dosing strategies: In general, flat-dosing strategies are advised in the development of investigational drugs for the advantages mentioned earlier, and as long as no better alternatives exist. Flat dosing has been shown to be feasible for many anticancer compounds and may, in due time, fluently be replaced by more individual (or tailored) drug-dosing strategies. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Lonberg et al. with the teachings of Mathijssen et al. to develop a method of treating a hematological malignancy in a human patient, the method comprising administering to the patient an effective amount of an anti-LAG-3 antibody that comprises the heavy chain of SEQ ID NO: 1, which comprises the heavy chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 3 and the heavy chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 7-9 , and the light chain of SEQ ID NO: 2, which comprises the light chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 5 and the light chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 10-12 , wherein the method comprises at least one administration cycle, wherein the cycle is a period of eight weeks and wherein the anti-LAG-3 antibody is administered at (a) four doses of 20 mg, (b) four doses of 80 mg, (c) four doses of 240 mg, or (d) four doses of 800 mg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, because Lonberg et al. teach or suggest a method of treating a hematological malignancy in a human patient, the method comprising administering to the patient an effective amount of an anti-LAG-3 antibody that comprises the heavy chain of SEQ ID NO: 1, which comprises the heavy chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 3 and the heavy chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 7-9 , and the light chain of SEQ ID NO: 2, which comprises the light chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 5 and the light chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 10-12 , wherein the method comprises at least one administration cycle. Furthermore as indicated above, Mathijssen et al. teach that flat dosing regimens may be advantageous to conventional dosing regimens. For example if a particular drug exhibits small variability between individuals or has a favorable safety profile, a flat dosing regimen may be the preferred option. Furthermore flat dosing regimens may be more economically sound than a BSA-based dosing regimen, a nd flat dosing regimens may result in better patient adherence to oral anti-cancer drugs. Flat dosing regimens may also be safer than dosing regimens that include the calculation of a proper patient dose, because individual doses need not be calculated in a flat dosing regimen, resulting in fewer errors. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the invention of Lonberg et al. to comprise flat dosing as a method of administering the claimed anti-LAG-3 antibody , and said modification would reasonably be expected to result in an anti-cancer therapeutic regimen that offers multiple improvements over a therapeutic regimen that comprises conventional dosing strategies. With respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 13, and 15, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05(II)(B), section entitled “There is a Motivation to Optimize Result-Effective Variables”: In In re Antonie , 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because “obvious to try” is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court held that “obvious to try” was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a “design need” or “market demand” and there are a “finite number” of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421 (“The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o] bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, 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. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.”). Thus, after KSR , the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. As indicated above it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to administer an anti-LAG-3 antibody using a flat dosing regimen. In the instant case, claims 1, 3, 4, 13, and 15 are drawn to different flat dosages and administration times for the claimed anti- LAG-3 antibody. O ne of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the ability of an anti- LAG-3 antibody to treat cancer is a function of these variables, and therefore these variables achieve a recognized result. Accordingly the different flat dosages and administration times recited in claims 1, 3, 4, 13, and 15 are result-effective variables that achieve a recognized result, and it is submitted that since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine the optimum or workable ranges of said variables, the limitations recited in claims 1, 3, 4, 13, and 15 were prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention. The invention of Lonberg et al. and Mathijssen et al. meets the limitations of claims 1, 3, 4, 9-13, and 15. With respect to claim 2, Lonberg et al. teach that said antibodies may be administered intravenously, see p. 36. With respect to claim 5, given that the method of Lonberg et al. and Mathijssen et al. includes all of the active method steps of claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the method of Lonberg et al. and Mathijssen et al. and the instantly claimed method to demonstrate similar therapeutic effects, including a reduction in the number of malignant cells, inhibition of malignant cell infiltration, inhibition of malignant cell metastasis, prevention occurrence of malignant cells, and reduction of one or more of the symptoms associated with the malignancy. With respect to claims 6-8, Lonberg et al. teach that anti-LAG-3 antibodies may be used to inhibit the growth of various cancers, such as melanoma (e.g., metastatic malignant melanoma), including refractory or recurrent malignancies, and Lonberg et al. teach that said antibodies may be used to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia, Hod g kin’s lymphoma, and non-Hod g kin’s lymphoma, all of which meet the limitations of a hematological malignancy, see p. 41 and 42. With respect to claim 14, a t p. 5, Lonberg et al. teach that antibodies of the invention may be full-length antibodies. Therefore the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, as evidenced by the references. 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. Claim s 1-15 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim s 1-15, respectively, of copending Application No. 19/030,949 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented. 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 . Claim s 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of copending Application No. 19/029,969 in view of Lonberg et al. (WO 2014/008218, international publication date: 01/09/2014) and Mathijssen et al. (The Oncologist, 12: 913-923, 2007). Conflicting claim 22 recites an anti-LAG-3 antibody comprising the HCDRs of the VH of SEQ ID NO: 3 and the LCDRs of the VL of SEQ ID NO: 5. The teachings of Lonberg et al. and Mathijssen et al. are detailed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of the conflicting claim, Lonberg et al. , and Mathijssen et al. to develop a method of treating a hematological malignancy in a human patient, the method comprising administering to the patient an effective amount of an anti-LAG-3 antibody that comprises the heavy chain of SEQ ID NO: 1, which comprises the heavy chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 3 and the heavy chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 7-9 , and the light chain of SEQ ID NO: 2, which comprises the light chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 5 and the light chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 10-12 , wherein the method comprises at least one administration cycle, wherein the cycle is a period of eight weeks and wherein the anti-LAG-3 antibody is administered at (a) four doses of 20 mg, (b) four doses of 80 mg, (c) four doses of 240 mg, or (d) four doses of 800 mg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, because the conflicting claim recites an anti-LAG-3 antibody comprising the HCDRs of the VH of SEQ ID NO: 3 and the LCDRs of the VL of SEQ ID NO: 5. Lonberg et al. teach or suggest a method of treating a hematological malignancy in a human patient, the method comprising administering to the patient an effective amount of an anti-LAG-3 antibody that comprises the heavy chain of SEQ ID NO: 1, which comprises the heavy chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 3 and the heavy chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 7-9 , and the light chain of SEQ ID NO: 2, which comprises the light chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 5 and the light chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 10-12 , wherein the method comprises at least one administration cycle. Furthermore as indicated above, Mathijssen et al. teach that flat dosing regimens may be advantageous to conventional dosing regimens. For example if a particular drug exhibits small variability between individuals or has a favorable safety profile, a flat dosing regimen may be the preferred option. Furthermore flat dosing regimens may be more economically sound than a BSA-based dosing regimen, a nd flat dosing regimens may result in better patient adherence to oral anti-cancer drugs. Flat dosing regimens may also be safer than dosing regimens that include the calculation of a proper patient dose, because individual doses need not be calculated in a flat dosing regimen, resulting in fewer errors. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the conflicting claim to comprise flat dosing as a method of administering the claimed anti-LAG-3 antibody , and said modification would reasonably be expected to result in an anti-cancer therapeutic regimen that offers multiple improvements over a therapeutic regimen that comprises conventional dosing strategies. With respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 13, and 15, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05(II)(B), section entitled “There is a Motivation to Optimize Result-Effective Variables”: In In re Antonie , 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because “obvious to try” is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court held that “obvious to try” was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a “design need” or “market demand” and there are a “finite number” of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421 (“The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o] bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, 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. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.”). Thus, after KSR , the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. As indicated above it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to administer an anti-LAG-3 antibody using a flat dosing regimen. In the instant case, claims 1, 3, 4, 13, and 15 are drawn to different flat dosages and administration times for the claimed anti- LAG-3 antibody. O ne of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the ability of an anti- LAG-3 antibody to treat cancer is a function of these variables, and therefore these variables achieve a recognized result. Accordingly the different flat dosages and administration times recited in claims 1, 3, 4, 13, and 15 are result-effective variables that achieve a recognized result, and it is submitted that since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine the optimum or workable ranges of said variables, the limitations recited in claims 1, 3, 4, 13, and 15 were prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention. The invention of the conflicting claim, Lonberg et al. , and Mathijssen et al. meets the limitations of claims 1, 3, 4, 9-13, and 15. With respect to claim 2, Lonberg et al. additionally teach that said antibodies may be administered intravenously, see p. 36. With respect to claim 5, given that the method of Lonberg et al. and Mathijssen et al. includes all of the active method steps of claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the method of Lonberg et al. and Mathijssen et al. and the instantly claimed method to demonstrate similar therapeutic effects, including a reduction in the number of malignant cells, inhibition of malignant cell infiltration, inhibition of malignant cell metastasis, prevention occurrence of malignant cells, and reduction of one or more of the symptoms associated with the malignancy. With respect to claims 6-8, Lonberg et al. teach that anti-LAG-3 antibodies may be used to inhibit the growth of various cancers, such as melanoma (e.g., metastatic malignant melanoma), including refractory or recurrent malignancies, and Lonberg et al. teach that said antibodies may be used to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, all of which meet the limitations of a hematological malignancy, see p. 41 and 42. With respect to claim 14, at p. 5, Lonberg et al. teach that antibodies of the invention may be full-length antibodies. Therefore the claimed invention is prima facie obvious over the conflicting claim in view of the cited references . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 of copending Application No. 17/018,241 in view of Lonberg et al. (WO 2014/008218, international publication date: 01/09/2014) and Mathijssen et al. (The Oncologist, 12: 913-923, 2007). Conflicting claim 2 4 recites an anti-LAG-3 antibody comprising the HCDRs of the VH of SEQ ID NO: 3 and the LCDRs of the VL of SEQ ID NO: 5. The teachings of Lonberg et al. and Mathijssen et al. are detailed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of the conflicting claim, Lonberg et al., and Mathijssen et al. to develop a method of treating a hematological malignancy in a human patient, the method comprising administering to the patient an effective amount of an anti-LAG-3 antibody that comprises the heavy chain of SEQ ID NO: 1, which comprises the heavy chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 3 and the heavy chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 7-9, and the light chain of SEQ ID NO: 2, which comprises the light chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 5 and the light chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 10-12, wherein the method comprises at least one administration cycle, wherein the cycle is a period of eight weeks and wherein the anti-LAG-3 antibody is administered at (a) four doses of 20 mg, (b) four doses of 80 mg, (c) four doses of 240 mg, or (d) four doses of 800 mg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, because the conflicting claim recites an anti-LAG-3 antibody comprising the HCDRs of the VH of SEQ ID NO: 3 and the LCDRs of the VL of SEQ ID NO: 5. Lonberg et al. teach or suggest a method of treating a hematological malignancy in a human patient, the method comprising administering to the patient an effective amount of an anti-LAG-3 antibody that comprises the heavy chain of SEQ ID NO: 1, which comprises the heavy chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 3 and the heavy chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 7-9, and the light chain of SEQ ID NO: 2, which comprises the light chain variable region of SEQ ID NO: 5 and the light chain CDRs of SEQ ID NO(s): 10-12, wherein the method comprises at least one administration cycle. Furthermore as indicated above, Mathijssen et al. teach that flat dosing regimens may be advantageous to conventional dosing regimens. For example if a particular drug exhibits small variability between individuals or has a favorable safety profile, a flat dosing regimen may be the preferred option. Furthermore flat dosing regimens may be more economically sound than a BSA-based dosing regimen, and flat dosing regimens may result in better patient adherence to oral anti-cancer drugs. Flat dosing regimens may also be safer than dosing regimens that include the calculation of a proper patient dose, because individual doses need not be calculated in a flat dosing regimen, resulting in fewer errors. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the conflicting claim to comprise flat dosing as a method of administering the claimed anti-LAG-3 antibody, and said modification would reasonably be expected to result in an anti-cancer therapeutic regimen that offers multiple improvements over a therapeutic regimen that comprises conventional dosing strategies. With respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 13, and 15, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05(II)(B), section entitled “There is a Motivation to Optimize Result-Effective Variables”: In In re Antonie , 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because “obvious to try” is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court held that “obvious to try” was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a “design need” or “market demand” and there are a “finite number” of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421 (“The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o] bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, 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. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.”). Thus, after KSR , the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. As indicated above it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to administer an anti-LAG-3 antibody using a flat dosing regimen. In the instant case, claims 1, 3, 4, 13, and 15 are drawn to different flat dosages and administration times for the claimed anti-LAG-3 antibody. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the ability of an anti-LAG-3 antibody to treat cancer is a function of these variables, and therefore these variables achieve a recognized result. Accordingly the different flat dosages and administration times recited in claims 1, 3, 4, 13, and 15 are result-effective variables that achieve a recognized result, and it is submitted that since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine the optimum or workable ranges of said variables, the limitations recited in claims 1, 3, 4, 13, and 15 were prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention. The invention of the conflicting claim, Lonberg et al. , and Mathijssen et al. meets the limitations of claims 1, 3, 4, 9-13, and 15. With respect to claim 2, Lonberg et al. additionally teach that said antibodies may be administered intravenously, see p. 36. With respect to claim 5, given that the method of Lonberg et al. and Mathijssen et al. includes all of the active method steps of claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the method of Lonberg et al. and Mathijssen et al. and the instantly claimed method to demonstrate similar therapeutic effects, including a reduction in the number of malignant cells, inhibition of malignant cell infiltration, inhibition of malignant cell metastasis, prevention occurrence of malignant cells, and reduction of one or more of the symptoms associated with the malignancy. With respect to claims 6-8, Lonberg et al. teach that anti-LAG-3 antibodies may be used to inhibit the growth of various cancers, such as melanoma (e.g., metastatic malignant melanoma), including refractory or recurrent malignancies, and Lonberg et al. teach that said antibodies may be used to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, all of which meet the limitations of a hematological malignancy, see p. 41 and 42. With respect to claim 14, at p. 5, Lonberg et al. teach that antibodies of the invention may be full-length antibodies. Therefore the claimed invention is prima facie obvious over the conflicting claim in view of the cited references . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NELSON B MOSELEY II whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6221 . The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9:00-6:00 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samira Jean-Louis , can be reached at 571-270-3503 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /NELSON B MOSELEY II/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1642