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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2025, 04/29/2024, 08/07/2023, and 04/04/2023 w ere filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement s are being considered by the examiner. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-4, drawn to an ADP-ribose binding peptide) and SEQ ID NO: 11 as a single ADP-ribose binding peptide, TAT as a cell-penetrating peptide, and SEQ ID NO: 25 in the reply filed on 02/03/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 5-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group of inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/03/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 1- is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a naturally occurring peptide without significantly more. The claim s recite a fragment of a naturally occurring ADP- ribose binding peptide . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite the naturally occurring peptide without additional modifications or integration into a practical application . The claim s do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the ADP-ribose binding peptide is claimed as the peptide itself , which is naturally occurring, rather than as a formulation or practical application of the peptide. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim s 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites an ADP-ribose binding peptide consisting of SEQ ID NO: 11. Here, t he transitional phrase "consisting of" excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. In re Gray, 53 F.2d 520, 11 USPQ 255 (CCPA 1931); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) ("consisting of" defined as "closing the claim to the inclusion of materials other than those recited except for impurities ordinarily associated therewith"). As such, the invention of claim 1 consists only of an ADP-ribose binding peptide. Claims 2-4 add additional components, namely a cell-penetrating peptide, which can be TAT or SEQ ID NO: 25, and claim 2 introduces an open transition, “comprising.” Given that claims 2-4 add additional components that the closed transition of claim 1 excludes, the claims fail to incorporate or further limit all of the limitations of the claims upon which they depend. Moreover, the use of an open transition in claim 2 broadens the scope of the invention of claim 1, rather than further limiting. It is advised that applicant revise the transition phrase “consisting of” to an open transition. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 1-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 of copending Application No. 18/857102 (reference application) , hereinafter Jeong et al. (102) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. With regard to claim 1, Jeong et al. (102) claim a method for preventing or treating cancer comprising administering to a subject in need thereof a therapeutically effective amount of: a) an adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose binding peptide or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; and b) ADP-ribose, a precursor thereof, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof (see claim 1) . Moreover, they claim the method discussed above, wherein the ADP-ribose binding peptide can have the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 11 of the instant application (see claim 2, SEQ ID NO: 2 of the reference). With regard to claim 2, Jeong et al. (102) claim the method discussed above wherein the peptide further comprises a cell-penetrating peptide at the N-terminus, C-terminus, or both termini (see claim 4) . With regard to claim 3, Jeong et al. (102) claim the method discussed above wherein the cell-penetrating peptide is TAT (see claim 5). With regard to claim 4, Jeong et al. (102) claim the method discussed above wherein the cell-penetrating peptide has an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 25 of the instant application (see claim 6, SEQ ID NO: 29). Summary Claims 1-4 are rejected on the grounds of provisional nonstatutory double patenting. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being drawn to a judicial exception without a practical application. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for failing to incorporate or further limit all of the limitations of the claims upon which they depend. Beyond the nonstatutory double patenting, the claimed sequences are free of the prior art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Brendan P Oliss whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6347 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday 8 am - 6 pm . 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. /BRENDAN P. OLISS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1658 /Melissa L Fisher/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1658