DETAILED ACTION Applicant’s claim amendments filed 10/04/2023 are acknowledged and entered into the record. Accordingly, Claims 1-7, 9-20 are pending and will be examined on the merits. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 line 1 recites the following typographical error “The method of of claim 9”. 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. Claims 1-7, 9-20 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. This is a written description rejection . The claims are directed to methods of treating an anaplastic large cell lymphoma comprising administering an agent capable of inducing cell death of ROR2 expressing cancer cells or a combination of an ALK inhibitor and an agent capable of inducing cell death of ROR2. The claims are further drawn to a method of preventing chemotherapy resistance comprising administering an agent capable of inducing cell death of ROR2 expressing cancer cells. The claims broadly read on a large genus of agents and inhibitors without written description support. The claims are broadly drawn to methods of comprising administering agents and inhibitors without providing a structure to function correlation. To provide adequate written description and evidence of possession of the claimed genus of agents and inhibitors the instant specification can structurally describe representative constructs or describe structural features common to the members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus. Alternatively, the specification can show that the claimed invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such characteristics (see University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co ., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and Enzo Biochem, Inc. V. Gen-Probe Inc.) . Although Applicants may argue that it is possible to screen for agents , the court found in ( Rochester v. Searle , 358 F.3d 916, Fed Cir., 2004) that screening assays are not sufficient to provide adequate written description for an invention because they are merely a wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention. “As we held in Lilly , “[a]n adequate written description of a DNA … ‘requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties,’ not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention.” 119 F.3d at 1566 (quoting Fiers , 984 F.2d at 1171). For reasons stated above, that requirement applies just as well to non-DNA (or RNA) chemical inventions.” The instant claims are drawn to a broad scope of a genus of agents that are capable of induc ing cell death of ROR2 expressing cancer cells , that would need to be tested in order to not only determine binding to at least one extracellular domain of ROR2 which leads to the depletion of ROR2, but their ability to prevent chemotherapy resistance in any patient suffering from any cancer. The term “agents” are a broad genus which can include, but not limited to, antibodies, siRNA, shRNA, small molecule inhibitors, or peptides. None of which are described in the instant specification in regards to structure-to-function correlation to induce cell death. In this case, the only factor present in the claims is a recitation of “ capable of inducing cell death of ROR2 expressing cancer cells” or “an antibody having binding affinity for ROR2” and “directed against at least one extracellular domain of ROR2 and leads to the depletion of ROR2” without defining any structure to function correlation . The instant specification fails to describe structural features common to the members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus because the instant specification only disclose s ROR2 expression in patient cells and does not provide any examples of the methods of treatment using the recited agents, antibodies, or inhibitors. A definition by function does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the agent or inhibitor does, rather than what it is . The specification fails to provide any structural features coupled to the claimed functional characteristics. The instant specification fails to describe a representative number of sequences for the genus of agents/ antibodies that function as claimed. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient recitation of distinguishing identifying characteristics, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the claimed genus. Additionally, t he structure of an antigen or epitope in no way predicts the inhibitors structure and sequence that will bind to it. Knowing the sequence structure of a protein in no way predicts or defines inhibitors which would bind and inhibit expression. Applicants are directed to the recent and relevant decision in AbbVie Deutschland GmbH v. Janssen Biotech, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014). The court found that if the disclosed species only abide in a corner of the genus, one has not described the genus sufficiently to show that the inventor invented, or had possession of, the genus. In the instant case, Applicants have not established any reasonable structure-function correlation with regards to what structure is capable of inducing cell death of ROR2 expressing cancer cells, or the antibody or chimeric antigen receptor structure/sequence required to bind to at least one extracellular domain of ROR2 which leads to the depletion of ROR2 . Therefore one could not readily envision members of the broadly claimed genus. Because the genus of constructs encompassed by the claims is extensive and the artisan cannot envision the detailed structure of the encompassed constructs and therefore conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Thus one of skill in the art cannot "visualize or recognize" most members of the genus t o show applicants were in possession of the invention at the time of filing. Given the lack of representative examples to support the full scope of the claimed agents in the claimed method of treatment, and lack of reasonable structure-function correlation with regards to the unknown structure, the present claims lack adequate written description. Conclusion Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected. No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MEERA NATARAJAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3058 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9AM - 5PM . 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 JULIE WU can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-5205 . 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. /Meera Natarajan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1643