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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-12, and 16-22 in the reply filed on 1/15/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 23-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/15/2025. Applicant’s elected species is shown as follows . the elected polypeptide species is considered as L-form of amino acids. T he elected species reads on claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-12, and 17-22 . Claim Status Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-12, and 16-26 are pending. Claims 3,5, 8, 13-15 , and 27-28 are cancelled. Claim 16 is withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected species and claims 23-26 are withdrawn as directed to the non-elected invention, the election having been made on 1/15/2026. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-12, and 17-22 have been examined. Priority This application is a 371 of PCT/US2022/011283 01/05/2022 PCT/US2022/011283 has PRO 63/134,059 01/05/2021 Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/5/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim s 1 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 contains the acronym s of “ PDZ3 ” and “PSD-95” , and an acronym in the first instance of claims should be expanded upon/spelled out as “ ( P SD-95/ D iscs-large/ Z O-1) -3 ” with the acronym indicated in parentheses as (P DZ3 ) and “ Postsynaptic density protein 95 ” with the acronym indicated in parentheses as ( PSD-95 ) . The abbreviations can be used thereafter. Claims 18-20 are objected to because of depending on the rejected base claim 1. Claim 20 is further object ed to because of missing a period “.” a t the end of claim 20. Appropriate correction is required. 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 s 1 -2 , 4, 6, 9 -12, 17, and 21-22 are 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. The analysis used to address if the claims satisfy written description requirements is shown as follows. actual reduction to practice Applicant disclosed Y moiety as SEQ ID NOs: 1-3 and 12-17 conjugated to a molecular transporter of SEQ ID Nos: 4-11 for actual reduction to reduction to practice. However, the limited examples are insufficient to represent the entire genus of Y moiety as a peptide chain comprising 1 to 10 amino acids. In addition, the transient word “comprising” is an open-ended word; thus, the peptide length of Y moiety is not limited to 1-10 amino acids in length. disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas: The specification disclosed the structure s /sequences of Y moiety in [0013, and 0014] and the compound formula I in [0007]. However , none of the disclosed structures or combination of them are sufficient to represent the entire genus of Y moiety as a peptide chain comprising 1 to 10 amino acids, including a peptide longer than 10 amino acids in length, as claimed. sufficient relevant identifying characteristics in the way of complete/partial structure or physical and/or chemical properties or functional characteristics when coupled with known or disclosed correlation with structure . Both prior art references of Spaller et al. (US 2016/0303186 A1) and Marshall et al. ( J Biol Chem. 2015 Sep 4;290(36):22030-48 ) teach Y moiety as a specific peptide sequence of CKNYK, suggesting it was not known that Y can be replaced by any polypeptide chain comprising 1 to 10 amino acids, including a peptide longer than 10 amino acids in length. Furthermore, the disclosed peptide sequences of Y moiety SEQ ID NOs: 1-3 and 12-17 are distinct from the prior art ’s Y moiety of CKNYK. Thus, the prior art references known in the art are insufficient to establish correlation between Y moiety sequence structure and function as a reversible agonist of the PDZ3 domain of PSD-95 to support the entire genus of the claimed polypeptide sequences . Furthermore, the specification failed to establish a correlation of Y moiety and the function as a reversible agonist of the PDZ3 domain of PSD-95 either. Furthermore, merely exclusion of Y moiety not CKNYK (SEQ ID NO: 3) is insufficient to establish a structure and function correlation. representative number of samples. 3886200 9525 0 0 The disclosed peptide sequences of Y moiety shown as follows are highly homologous sequences; thus, the disclosed peptide sequences of Y moiety are insufficient to represent the entire genus of a polypeptide comprising 1 to 10 amino acids, including a peptide longer than 10 amino acids in length , or a moiety of Y not consisting of CKNYK (SEQ ID NO: 3) . Thus, claims 1, 6, and 9 are rejected under 112(a) for failing to satisfy written description requirement. 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. Claims 1 -2, 4, 6 -7 , 9-12, 17, and 21-22 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 is unclear with respect to (a) the phrase “ R 1 comprises at least about one amino acid ” and (b) the phrase “ Y is a peptide chain comprising 1 to 10 amino acids”. The metes and bounds of the phrase “ R 1 comprises at least about one amino acid ” in claim 1 are unclear because it is unclear whether R 1 is 0 amino acid (reading on about one amino acid) or at least one amino acid . The metes and bounds of the phrase “ Y is a peptide chain comprising 1 to 10 amino acids” in claim 1 are unclear because it is unclear whether Y is limited to 1-10 amino acids in length or Y is longer than 10 amino acids including 11, 12, or any length longer than 10. Claims 2, 4, 6 -7 , 9-12, 17, and 21-22 are rejected as depending on claim 1. Furthermore, w ith respect to claim 6, the metes and bounds of the phrase “ Y comprises a peptide chain having a length of 3 to 9 amino acids ” are unclear because i t is unclear whether Y is limited to 3-9 amino acids in length or Y is a peptide of 10 or longer amino acids in length. MPEP 2173.02 (I) states “During examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected. Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322, 13 USPQ2d at 1322. For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , second paragraph is appropriate.” With respect to claim 22, the metes and bounds of the phrase “any one of claims 1 to 18” in claim 22 are unclear because claims 3, 5, 8, and 13-15 have been cancelled. 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. Claim s 1- 2, 4, 6, 10-12, 17, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Spaller et al. (US 2016/0303186 A1) and evidenced by Marshall et al. ( J Biol Chem. 2015 Sep 4;290(36):22030-48 ) . Claim 1 is drawn to a compound formula of a reversible agonist of the PDZ domain of PSD-95 as follows. 1344071 53404 Spaller et al. teach a reversible inhibitor neuron-specific PDZ domain of a fusion polypeptide of structure 1 as follows [0062, Table 6 ], reading on claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, and 17. Marshall et al. teach CN2097 in figure 1, identical to Spaller’s compound structure 1, is a PSD-95/PDZ-binding cyclic peptide that augments brain-derived neurotrophic factor-induced pro-survival signaling (agonist of the PDZ domain of PSD-95) in the Abstract . With respect to claim 2 1 , Spaller et al. teach the pharmaceutical composition mixed with conventional excipients of organic or inorganic carrier substances [0077] . With respect to claim 22, Spaller et al. teach the composition dosage from about 1 to about 100 mg per unit dosage [0081]. Additional Reference: Borrelli et al. ( Molecules. 2018 Jan 31;23(2):295 ) is further provided to show R7 was a known cell-penetrating peptide and the use of D-polyarginine as CPP was also known in the art (Table 1, p6-7) because D-amino acids improve stability of CPP for their reduced sensitivity to enzyme degradation than L forms (p11, last para to p12, para 1) , suggesting the D-amino acid of CPP resistance to enzyme degradation is beneficial for reducing the effective dosage for therapeutic use. 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 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 17, and 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 8,673,857 B2 (the ‘857 patent , cited in IDS ) in view of Spaller et al. (US 2016/0303186 A1) and evidenced by Marshall et al. ( J Biol Chem. 2015 Sep 4;290(36):22030-48 ) . 1133475 301625 Claim 1 of the ‘857 patent disclosed a compound structure of CN2097 shown in Fig. 1 as follows. Claim 2 of the ‘857 patent disclosed the dosage of the compound is from about 1 mg/Kg to about 10 mg/Kg. Claims 1-2 of the ‘857 patent di d not disclosed the compound as a reversible agonist of the PDZ domain of PSD-95. The relevancy of Spaller et al. and evidenced by Marshall et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 17, and 21-22 not repeated here. Because Spaller et al. and evidenced by Marshall et al. teach the compound of CN2097 taught by claims 1-2 of the ‘857 patent is a reversible agonist of the PDZ domain of PSD-95, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to formulate the compound taught by claims 1-2 of the ‘857 patent as a therapeutic agent. Thus, claim s 1-2 of the ‘857 patent in view of Spaller et al. and evidenced by Marshall et al. are obvious to the instant claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, and 17. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 17, and 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 9,403,876 B2 (the ‘876 patent) in view of Spaller et al. (US 2016/0303186 A1) and evidenced by Marshall et al. ( J Biol Chem. 2015 Sep 4;290(36):22030-48 ) . Claim 12 of the ‘876 patent disclosed a cyclic peptide linked to a molecular transporter of 3867150 0 Arg-7 with a linker of structure 5. Claim 12 of the ‘876 patent did not disclosed the compound as a reversible agonist of the PDZ domain of PSD-95. The relevancy of Spaller et al. and evidenced by Marshall et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 17, and 21-22 not repeated here. Because Spaller et al. and evidenced by Marshall et al. teach the compound of CN2097 taught by claims 1-2 of the ‘857 patent is a reversible agonist of the PDZ domain of PSD-95, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to formulate the compound taught by claim 12 of the ‘876 patent as a therapeutic agent. Thus, claim 12 of the ‘876 patent in view of Spaller et al. and evidenced by Marshall et al. are obvious to the instant claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, and 17. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 17, and 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 10,046,024 B2 (the ‘024 patent , cited in IDS ) in view of Spaller et al. (US 2016/0303186 A1) and evidenced by Marshall et al. ( J Biol Chem. 2015 Sep 4;290(36):22030-48 ) . Claims 1 and 5 of the ‘024 patent disclosed a compound structure of CN2097 shown in Fig. 1 shown as follows . 469265 27305 0 0 Claims 1 and 5 of the ‘024 patent did not disclosed the compound as a reversible agonist of the PDZ domain of PSD-95. The relevancy of Spaller et al. and evidenced by Marshall et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 17, and 21-22 not repeated here. Because Spaller et al. and evidenced by Marshall et al. teach the compound of CN2097 taught by claims 1-2 of the ‘857 patent is a reversible agonist of the PDZ domain of PSD-95, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to formulate the compound taught by claims 1-2 of the ‘857 patent as a therapeutic agent. Thus, claims 1-2 of the ‘024 patent in view of Spaller et al. and evidenced by Marshall et al. are obvious to the instant claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, and 17. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 17, and 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 1 1 , 879 ,02 0 B2 (the ‘02 0 patent , cited in IDS ) in view of Spaller et al. (US 2016/0303186 A1) and evidenced by Marshall et al. ( J Biol Chem. 2015 Sep 4;290(36):22030-48 ) . Claim 1 of the ‘02 0 patent disclosed a compound structure of as follows and the 7 Arg residues are D-amino acids. Claim 1 of the ‘020 patent disclosed the dR7 conjugated cyclic peptide is at least four times more efficacious than CN2097 in treating a disease. center 11430 0 0 Claim 1 of the ‘020 patent did not disclosed the compound as a reversible agonist of the PDZ domain of PSD-95. The relevancy of Spaller et al. and evidenced by Marshall et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 17, and 21-22 not repeated here. Because claim 1 of the ‘020 patent disclosed the dR7 conjugated cyclic peptide is at least four times more efficacious than CN2097 in treating a disease, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to replace the 7 L-form amino acid of Arg residues in CN2097 compound by dR7 as taught by claim 1 of the ‘020 patent. Thus, claim 1 of the ‘020 patent in view of Spaller et al. and evidenced by Marshall et al. are obvious to the instant claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 17, and 21-22. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 17, and 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1 -3 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 1 2 , 240 , 9 20 B2 (the ‘ 9 20 patent) in view of Spaller et al. (US 2016/0303186 A1) and evidenced by Marshall et al. ( J Biol Chem. 2015 Sep 4;290(36):22030-48 ) . Claims 1-3 of the ‘920 patent disclosed a compound structure of as follows and the 7 Arg residues are D-amino acids. Claims 1-3 of the ‘920 patent disclosed the dR7 conjugated cyclic peptide is at least four times more efficacious than CN2097 in treating a disease. 807085 11430 0 0 Claims 1-3 of the ‘920 patent did not disclosed the compound as a reversible agonist of the PDZ domain of PSD-95. The relevancy of Spaller et al. and evidenced by Marshall et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 17, and 21-22 not repeated here. Because claims 1-3 of the ‘920 patent disclosed the dR7 conjugated cyclic peptide is at least four times more efficacious than CN2097 in treating a disease, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to replace the 7 L-form amino acid of Arg residues in CN2097 compound by dR7 as taught by claims 1-3 of the ‘920 patent. Thus, claims 1-3 of the ‘920 patent in view of Spaller et al. and evidenced by Marshall et al. are obvious to the instant claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 17, and 21-22. Examiner’s Note The closest prior art ,Spaller et al. (US 2016/0303186 A1), teach es the claimed compound with Y moiety as CKNYK (the instant SEQ ID NO: 3) without teaching or suggesting the Y moiety as SEQ ID NOs: 1-2 or 12-17. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Claims 1-2, 4, 6 -7 , 9-12, 17, and 21-22 are rejected. Claim s 1 and 18-20 are objected. Claim s 16 and 23-26 are withdrawn. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JIA-HAI LEE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1691 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri from 9:00 AM to 6:00 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. /J.L/ Examiner, Art Unit 1658 21-March-2026 /LI N KOMATSU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658