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 1-24 are pending. Claims 1-24 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 1-24 have an effective filing date o f 01/08/2016, corresponding to PRO 62/276,595. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted o n 08/30/2023 and 05/06/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 112(a) The following is a quotation of th e 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 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph . Claim 13 is drawn to a method to treat, stabilize or prevent cancer in a subject, the method comprising administering to the subject a composition comprising a chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chemerin to a target site on a cancer cell of a tumor and thereby recruiting immune cells to the tumor. Although the specification is enabled for treating cancer by administering a composition comprising a chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety to a subject in need thereof, the specification is not enabled for preven ting cancer by administering a composition comprising a chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety to a subject in need thereof. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. MPEP § 2164.01 states: The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Mineral Separation v. Hyde , 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands , 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, even though the statute does not use the term “undue experimentation,” it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands , 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue.” These factors include but are not limited to: The breadth of the claims; The nature of the invention; The state of the prior art; The level of one of ordinary skill; The level of predictability in the art; The amount of direction provided by the inventor; The existence of working examples; and The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The factors most relevant to this rejection are 1) the amount of direction provided by the inventor and 2) the existence of working examples. In the instant case, the amount of direction provided by the inventor and existence of working examples disclosed in the specification, as filed, would not be sufficient to enable the skilled artisan to make and/or use the claimed invention at the time the application was filed without undue experimentation. (1) The amount of direction provided by the inventor - The amount of guidance or direction needed to enable an invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art. In re Fisher , 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970). The “amount of guidance or direction” refers to that information in the application, as originally filed, that teaches exactly how to make or use the invention. The more that is known in the prior art about the nature of the invention, how to make, and how to use the invention, and the more predictable the art is, the less information needs to be explicitly stated in the specification. In contrast if little is known in the prior art about the nature of the invention and the art is unpredictable, the specification would need more detail as to how to make and use the invention in order to be enabling. See, e.g., Chiron Corp. v. Genentech Inc. , 363 F.3d 1247, 1254, 70 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Due to the high level of unpredictability in the area of disease prevention, particularly cancer prevention , the skilled artisan would need significant guidance in preventing cancer by practicing the claimed method. The skilled artisan recognizes that keeping individuals free of cancer indefinitely is an intractable proposition, if not now wholly impossible, given, for example, that cancers are widely heterogeneous diseases, having widely varying pathologies and etiologies, and with causes that are multifactorial and as yet only partially characterized and poorly understood. It is generally recognized that a disease cannot be prevented unless and until its causes are fully appreciated and understood to a degree that it becomes possible to intercede effectively to block its onset or development by any cause. (2) The existence of working examples – The examples of the specification demonstrate methods that may be used to treat cancer by administering a composition comprising a chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety to a subject in need thereof ; however there is no showing in the specification of any means by which one skilled in the art could prevent cancer by administering a composition comprising a chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety to a subject in need thereof . Therefore one skilled in the art would be subject to undue experimentation to practice the instant invention as it is currently claimed. In conclusion upon careful consideration of the Wands factors that are used to determine whether undue experimentation is required to practice an invention, the amount of direction provided by the inventor and the working examples provided, as filed, is not deemed sufficient to enable the skilled artisan to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with the instant claims at the time the application was filed without undue experimentation. Applicant is informed that this rejection may be overcome by amending claim 13 to remove the recitation of “prevent.” 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. 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 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 . 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. Claims 1, 4-6, 10-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pachynski et al. (J. Exp. Med., 209(8): 1427-1435, 2012, in IDS from 08/30/2023 ) in view of Jang et al. (WO 2014/025199, international publication date: 02/13/2014, in IDS from 08/30/2023 ). Pachynski et al. teach “chemerin, whether expressed by tumor cells or within the tumor environment, can recruit host immune defenses that inhibit tumorigenesis and suggest that down-regulation of chemerin may be an important mechanism of tumor immune evasion.” See Abstract. Using a murine melanoma model, Pachynski et al. demonstrated that tumor-expressed chemerin inhibited in vitro tumor growth, see Abstract. Pachynski et al. teach that tumor growth inhibition was associated with natural killer (NK) cells that are recruited by chemerin to inhibit tumorigenesis, and Pachynski et al. also teach that tumor growth inhibition is aided by a reduction in myeloid-derived suppressor cells and putative immune inhibitory plasmacytoid dendritic cells, see Abstract. At p. 42, Pachynski et al. suggest that cancer may be treated by the targeted delivery of chemerin to tumors. Together, our findings show that, whether expressed by malignant cells themselves or within the tumor environment, chemerin can recruit host defenses and inhibit melanoma growth. Together with the correlation of retained high RARRES2 expression with improved clinical outcomes in melanoma, the results suggest that locally expressed chemerin may act as an endogenous tumor-suppressive chemoattractant. Treatment modalities that preserve or enhance local chemerin expression by transformed or tumor stromal cells, or targeted approaches that deliver chemerin to tumors, may effectively engage the body’s endogenous mechanisms of tumor resistance and suppression (emphasis added). Although Pachynski et al. teach or suggest the treatment of cancer by the targeted delivery of chemerin to tumors, Pachynski et al. do not teach or suggest a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chemerin to a target site on a cell. These deficiencies are remedied by Jang et al. Jan g et al. teach methods of using immune system effector function to kill cells that express a particular antigen, see [2]. At [16]-[21], Jang et al. teach that agents that induce immune responses, such as the bacterial antigen SEB, may be fused to a target-specific polypeptide using a linker, and Jang et al. teach that said target-specific polypeptide may be an scFv fragment specific for a biomarker expressed in cancer cells, such as the HER2 and CD20 biomarkers. At [87] and [88], Jang et al. teach vectors, as well as host cells comprising said vectors, that may be used to produce polypeptides of the invention, and at Example 2, [137], Jang et al. detail methods for producing recombinant expression vectors that comprise fusions of an scFv fragment specific for a biomarker expressed in cancer cells and an antigen, such as SEB. At Figure [14], Jang et al. teach an anti-CD20 scFv that shares 100% sequence homology with the instant SEQ ID NO: 4. 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 Pachynski et al. with the teachings of Jang et al. to develop a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chemerin to a target site on a cell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, because Pachynski et al. teach or suggest the treatment of cancer by the targeted delivery of chemerin to tumors. Furthermore Jang et al. teach that targeted delivery of therapeutic agents to tumors may be carried out by fusing said therapeutic agent to a target-specific peptide, such as an scFv specific for a tumor antigen, using a linker. As such based upon the teachings of Jang et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that chemerin may be fused to a target-specific peptide, such as an scFv specific for a tumor antigen, using a linker, and the resultant fusion protein would be useful in the treatment of cancers that express said tumor antigen. Furthermore one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, in view of the references cited, to prepare a fusion protein comprising chemerin fused to the anti-CD20 scFv antibody of Jang et al. using a linker, because said fusion protein would be useful in the treatment of CD20-expressing cancers. Also based on the teachings of Jang et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare vectors, as well as host cells comprising said vectors, that comprise polynucleotides that encode chemerin/targeting moiety fusion proteins, because said vectors, as well as host cells comprising said vectors, may be used to produce fusion proteins of the invention . As such based upon the teachings of Pachynski et al. and Jang et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, such as an anti-CD20 scFv , wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chemerin to a target site on a cell , because said polynucleotide sequence would be useful for preparing fusion proteins capable of treating cancers that express a particular tumor antigen, such as CD20. The invention of Pachynski et al. and Jang et al. meets the limitations of claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 11. With respect to claims 13 , 14, and 17-19 , one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, in view of the references cited, to prepare a fusion protein comprising chemerin fused to the anti-CD20 scFv antibody of Jang et al. using a linker, because said fusion protein would be useful in the treatment of CD20-expressing cancers. Furthermore as indicated above, Pachynski et al. teach that tumor growth inhibition was associated with NK cells that are recruited by chemerin to inhibit tumorigenesis . Furthermore given that the method of Pachynski et al. and Jang et al. comprises the same active steps as those recited in claim 12, one of ordinary skill in the art would reason that the method of Pachynski et al. and Jang et al. and the method of claim 12 yield similar results, such as increase in phosphatase and tensin (PTEN) expression in a tumor in a subject. 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. Claims 2 , 3, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pachynski et al. (J. Exp. Med., 209(8): 1427-1435, 2012, in IDS from in IDS from 08/30/2023 ) and Jang et al. (WO 2014/025199, international publication date: 02/13/2014, in IDS from 08/30/2023) , as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 10-14, and 17-19 , and further in view of Wittamer et al. (US PG PUB 2004/0086966, publication date: 05/06/2004 , in IDS from 08/30/2023 ). The teachings of Pachynski et al. and Jang et al. are detailed above. Although these references teach or suggest a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chem erin to a target site on a cell, these references do not teach or suggest a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chem erin to a target site on a cell, wherein the chemerin is a 1) prochemerin comprising a nucleotide sequence encoding SEQ ID NO: 2 or 2) a mature chemerin comprising a nucleic acid encoding SEQ ID NO: 2 with 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 amino acids absent from the C-terminus of SEQ ID NO: 2. These deficiencies are remedied by Wittamer et al. Wittamer et al. teach an amino acid sequence (SEQ ID NO: 12) of human prochemerin that shares 100% sequence homology with the instant SEQ ID NO: 2. Wittamer et al. also teach an amino acid sequence (SEQ ID NO: 14) of human chemerin. SEQ ID NO: 14 of Wittamer et al. is a 137 amino acid length human chemerin sequence that shares 100% sequence homology with a chemerin sequence comprising the 143 amino acid length SEQ ID NO: 2 with 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 amino acids absent from the C-terminus of the 143 amino acid length SEQ ID NO: 2. 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 Pachynski et al. and Jang et al. with the teachings of Wittamer et al. to develop a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chem erin to a target site on a cell, wherein the chemerin is a 1) prochemerin comprising a nucleotide sequence encoding SEQ ID NO: 2 or 2) a mature chemerin comprising a nucleic acid encoding SEQ ID NO: 2 with 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 amino acids absent from the C-terminus of SEQ ID NO: 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, because Pachynski et al. and Jang et al. teach or suggest a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chemerin to a target site on a cell. Furthermore Wittamer et al. teach an amino acid sequence (SEQ ID NO: 12) of human prochemerin that shares 100% sequence homology with the instant SEQ ID NO: 2. Wittamer et al. also teach an amino acid sequence (SEQ ID NO: 14) of human chemerin. SEQ ID NO: 14 of Wittamer et al. is a 137 amino acid length human chemerin sequence that shares 100% sequence homology with a chemerin sequence comprising the 143 amino acid length SEQ ID NO: 2 with 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 amino acids absent from the C-terminus of the 143 amino acid length SEQ ID NO: 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare the polynucleotide sequence of Pachynski et al. and Jang et al. to comprise a nucleotide sequence that encodes either the human prochemerin (SEQ ID NO: 12) of Wittamer et al. or the human chemerin (SEQ ID NO: 14) of Wittamer et al., because the resultant polynucleotide sequence would be useful for preparing fusion proteins capable of treating cancers that express a particular tumor antigen. 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. Claims 7, 8, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pachynski et al. (J. Exp. Med., 209(8): 1427-1435, 2012 , in IDS from 08/30/2023 ) and Jang et al. ( WO 2014/025199, international publication date: 02/13/2014, in IDS from 08/30/2023 ), as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 10-14, and 17-19 , and further in view of Chau et al. (WO 2004/027045, international publication date: 04/01/2004 , in IDS from 08/30/2023 ). The teachings of Pachynski et al. and Jang et al. are detailed above. Although these references teach or suggest a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chemerin to a target site on a cell, these references do not teach or suggest a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chemerin to a target site on a cell, wherein the linker is an MMP-2 cleavable linker that comprises an MMP-2 sensitive site. These deficiencies are remedied by Chau et al. Chau et al. teach “a system for selectively delivering drugs to target tissues. In preferred embodiments, the target tissues are diseased tissues. The inventive delivery system includes a polymer-linker-drug conjugate. The linker includes a segment that is recognized and cleaved by a digestive enzyme that is overexpressed in the extracellular space of the target tissue… Without wishing to be bound to any particular theory, when the conjugate reaches the target tissue the recognition segment within the linker is thought to be cleaved by the digestive enzyme. The active drug is thereby released from the conjugate and subsequently internalized by the cells of the target tissue. The polymeric carrier is preferably hydrophilic, biodegradable and biocompatible. In preferred embodiments the polymeric carrier is greater in size than the renal excretion limit. The physiochemical features of the polymeric carrier allow the conjugate to circulate longer in plasma by decreasing renal excretion and liver clearance. The polymeric carrier may be loaded with any number of drug molecules. In particular it is to be understood that the conjugate may include a single drug molecule or a plurality of drug molecules each attached to the polymeric carrier via an inventive linker. It is also to be understood that any drug molecule whether a small molecule drug or a biomolecular drug (e.g., a therapeutic protein or nucleic acid) may be delivered using a conjugate prepared according to the invention.” See p. 1 and 2. Chau et al. teach “conjugates that release anti-cancer drugs in the presence of matrix-metalloproteinase II (MMP-2), a widely studied proteinase that is overexpressed in a number of cancers… The conjugates include linkers with different fractions of an oligopeptide motif that is recognized and cleaved by MMP-2.” See p. 32. Chau et al. also teach that expression of MMP-2 is elevated in a number of human epithelial cancers, including breast, prostate, colon, ovary, bladder, and gastric carcinoma, and elevated expression of MMP-2 has been found in both malignant epithelial cells and the surrounding stromal fibroblasts, see p. 32. Additionally at p. 32, Chau et al. teach that “MMP-2 has been implicated with the angiogenic and metastatic potential of cancer.” At p. 23, Chau et al. teach that polymer-linker-drug conjugates of the invention may be modified to include targeting agents, such as antibody fragments – “In certain embodiments the inventive conjugates may be modified to include targeting agents that will direct an inventive conjugate to a particular cell type, collection of cells, or tissue. Preferably, the targeting agents are associated with the polymeric carrier. A variety of suitable targeting agents are known in the art… For example, any of a number of different materials which bind to antigens on the surfaces of target cells may be employed. Antibodies to target cell surface antigens will generally exhibit the necessary specificity for the target. In addition to antibodies, suitable immunoreactive fragments may also be employed, such as the Fab, Fab’, or F(ab’)2 fragments. Many antibody fragments suitable for use in forming the targeting mechanism are already available in the art.” 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 Pachynski et al. and Jang et al. with the teachings of Chau et al. to develop a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chemerin to a target site on a cell, wherein the linker is an MMP-2 cleavable linker that comprises an MMP-2 sensitive (cleavable) site. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, because Pachynski et al. and Jang et al. teach or suggest a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chemerin to a target site on a cell. Furthermore Chau et al. teach a polymer-linker-drug conjugate, wherein said linker is recognized and cleaved by an enzyme, such as MMP-2, that is overexpressed by many tumor types, and Chau et al. teach that the polymeric carrier component of said polymer-linker-drug conjugate allows for longer circulation times. Chau et al. also teach that said polymer- linker-drug conjugate may be associated with an antibody specific for a target cell. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the polypeptide (and associated polynucleotide) of Pachynski et al. and Jang et al. to comprise the polymer/MMP-2 cleavable linker of Chau et al., because the such a modification would confer multiple advantages to the invention of Pachynski et al. and Jang et al. First by modifying the invention of Pachynski et al. and Jang et al. to comprise the polymer/MMP-2 cleavable linker of Chau et al., the modified invention of Pachynski et al. and Jang et al. would be expected to have longer circulation times due to the polymer component of the modified invention. Second by modifying the invention of Pachynski et al. and Jang et al. to comprise the polymer/MMP-2 cleavable linker of Chau et al., the modified invention of Pachynski et al. and Jang et al. would be expected to selectively release chemerin near tumors that overexpress MMP-2, thereby increasing chemerin concentration near said MMP-2 overexpressing tumors, and this effect would be minimized in normal tissues that do not overexpress MMP-2. 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. Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pachynski et al. (J. Exp. Med., 209(8): 1427-1435, 2012, in IDS from 08/30/2023 ) and Jang et al. (WO 2014/025199, international publication date: 02/13/2014, in IDS from 08/30/2023 ), and Chau et al. (WO 2004/027045, international publication date: 04/01/2004 , in IDS from 08/30/2023 ), as applied to claims 1, 4-8, 10-14, and 17-21, and further in view of Waskal et al. (WO 2015/109124, publication date: 07/23/2015). The teachings of Pachynski et al. , Jang et al. , and Chau et al. are detailed above. Although these references teach or suggest a method of treating cancer by administering to a subject in need thereof a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chemerin to a target site on a cell, and wherein the linker is an MMP-2 cleavable linker that comprises an MMP-2 sensitive site, these references do not teach or suggest a method of treating cancer by administering to a subject in need thereof a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chemerin to a target site on a cell, wherein the linker is an MMP-2 cleavable linker that comprises an MMP-2 sensitive site, wherein the linker further comprises a glycine linker, and wherein the method further comprises the administration of a checkpoint inhibitor. These deficiencies are remedied by Waskal et al. At [0058], Waskal et al. teach that different protein domains may be linked using a flexible linker, such as a serine/glycine linker - “Thus, in certain embodiments, the invention contemplates hybrid molecules comprising a domain that bind to PD- Ll and blocks binding to PD1, and a domain that stimulates IL15R, thus proliferation of immune cells. As exemplified, the IL15R stimulatory domain comprises the sushi domain of the IL15R alpha chain joined to IL 15 by a flexible linker similar to those employed for, e.g., single chain Fv molecules (i.e., containing 15-20 amino acids which are predominantly serine and glycine.” At [0041], Waskal et al. teach that “[t]he interaction of PD-1 on immune cells with PD-L 1 inhibits proliferation and cytokine production by immune cells. PD-L 1 is also inducible and upregulated in various tissues, including cancer . Together , PD-1 and PD-L 1 play a role in immunosuppression. The invention provides novel antibodies or antigen binding fragments of such antibodies that bind to PD-L 1 and block the interaction with PD-1. In embodiments of the invention, the antibodies reduce or inhibit immunosuppression.” At [0003], Waskal et al. teach that “PD-1 interaction with its ligand PD-L1 results in the inhibition of TCR and BCR mediated proliferation and cytokine production and induction of apoptosis of antigen specific T cells through the intrinsic PD-1 mediated negative signaling of an immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif (ITIM)… PD-L1 is a cell surface glycoprotein and a major ligand for PD-1. PD-L1 is also inducible on lymphoid tissues and non- lymphoid peripheral tissues following cellular activation. PD-L1 is upregulated in a variety of affected cell types including cancer and stromal cells in addition to immune cells, and plays an active role in immunosuppression during the course of the deterioration of diseases... PD-L1 upregulation has been linked to poor clinical outcomes in a variety of cancer s and viral infection… The blockade of PD-1 or PD-L1 by antibody promoted CD8 T cell infiltration, CTL activity and increased presence of Th1 cytokine IFN-gamma in preclinical and clinical settings… PD-L1 antibody as an immunomodulating agent has been shown to be efficacious when used as monotherapy or combined with antibodies to other immunosuppressive molecules…” Based upon the teachings of Waskal et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would reason that antibodies that block either PD-1 or PD-L1 may be used in the treatment of cancer. 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 Pachynski et al. , Jang et al. , and Chau et al. to develop a method of treating cancer by administering to a subject in need thereof a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chemerin to a target site on a cell, wherein the linker is an MMP-2 cleavable linker that comprises an MMP-2 sensitive site, wherein the linker further comprises a glycine linker, and wherein the method further comprises the administration of a checkpoint inhibitor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, because Pachynski et al., Jang et al., and Chau et al. teach or suggest a method of treating cancer by administering to a subject in need thereof a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chemerin to a target site on a cell, and wherein the linker is an MMP-2 cleavable linker that comprises an MMP-2 sensitive site. Furthermore as indicated above, Waskal et al. teach that different protein domains may be linked using a flexible linker, such as a serine/glycine linker. Based upon these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the fusion protein of Pachynski et al., Jang et al., and Chau et al. to comprise an MMP-2 cleavable linker and a flexible serine/glycine linker, because there would have been a reasonable expectation that the resultant fusion protein is effective in the treatment of cancer. Additionally one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the invention of Pachynski et al., Jang et al., and Chau et al. to comprise the administration of a checkpoint inhibitor, such as an anti-PD-1 or an anti-PD-L1 blocking antibody, because as indicated above, based upon the teachings of Waskal et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would reason that antibodies that block either PD-1 or PD-L1 may be used in the treatment of cancer. 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. 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 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,193 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other , because both sets of claims recite a polynucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide, the polypeptide comprising chemerin linked via a linker to a targeting moiety, wherein the linker comprises SEQ ID NO: 8 and wherein the targeting moiety is capable of directing the chemerin to a target site on a cell. With respect to claim 22, it is noted that SEQ ID NO: 8 ( GGGGAGGGGPLGLAG ) comprises a glycine linker. 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