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. 2. Claims 115-132 are pending. Claim 115 is the independent claim. 3. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 115-132 and the species of the peptide of SEQ ID NO:4143 in the reply filed on 03/06/2026 is acknowledged. 4. Claim s 130- 131 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/06/2026. It is unclear why Applicant indicated that claim s 130- 131 are included in the elected invention. 5 . Claims 115-1 29 and 132 are under consideration as they read on a composition comprising the peptide of SEQ ID NO:4143. The claims are not under consideration for a composition comprising a polynucleotide, a T cell receptor, an antibody or a population of immune cells. So, to any degree that Applicant believes that any of claims 115-130 and 132 are directed to a polynucleotide, a T cell receptor, an antibody or a population of immune cells, know that they are not being considered as such. The Examiner has interpreted the limitations of claims 115-1 29 and 132 to be reading on a composition comprising the peptide of SEQ ID NO:4143 and any recitations in those claims are directed to further limiting the peptide . 6 . Applicant’s IDS filed on 07/24/2025 is acknowledged. 7 . Claims 115-132 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch , 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi , 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117. The Markush grouping of a peptide, a polynucleotide, a T cell receptor, an antibody and a population of immune cells is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: The se alternatives are not regarded as being of similar nature because a peptide, a polynucleotide, a T cell receptor, an antibody and a population of immune cells do not share a common property or activity. In addition, the alternatives are not regarded as being of similar nature because: (1) a peptide, a polynucleotide, a T cell receptor, an antibody and a population of immune cells do not all share a common structure and (2) a peptide, a polynucleotide, a T cell receptor, an antibody and a population of immune cells do not all belong to a recognized class of chemical compounds. To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use. 8 . 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 115 A composition comprising:(a) a tissue-specific antigen peptide comprising an epitope sequence of a polypeptide encoded by a gene selected from the group consisting of KLK2, KLK3 and KLK4;(b) a polynucleotide encoding the tissue-specific antigen peptide of(a);(c) one or more antigen presenting cells (APCs) presenting the epitope sequence of(a};(d) a T cell receptor (TCR) or an antibody, or a functional part thereof that is specific to a complex of ( i ) the epitope sequence of (a) and (ii) a protein encoded by an HLA allele; or (e) a population of immune cells from a biological sample comprising at least one antigen specific T cell comprising the TCR of (d). 9 . Claim s 115-120, 122-128 and 132 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Klar et al. (PTO-892; Reference U . Klar et al. teaches measuring reactivity of TCR 2.5D6 against a panel of HLA-B*07:02 ligands. To analyze crossreactivity against a panel of 58 HLA-B*07:02 ligands reactivity of TCR 2.5D6 transduced PBMC against T2-B7 cells pulsed with peptide pools was analyzed (In particular, Figure 3.15, page 80, whole document ) . As shown in figure 3.15, no reactivity against the peptide pools could be observed neither by untransduced nor TCR 2.5D6 transduced PBMC could be observed. A detailed list of the peptide pools is shown in table E.1 on page Klar et al. teaches measuring reactivity of TCR transduced PBMC against naturally presented HLA B*07:02 ligands. 58 HLA-B*07:02 ligands were divided into eight peptide pools and were pulsed on T2-B7 cells at a concentration of 1µmol/l for each peptide (table E.1). As a positive control, T2-B7 cells pulsed with 1µmol/l of the MPO5 peptide were used. PBMC either untransduced or transduced with the TCR 2.5D6 were coincubated with target cells for 20 hours. Supernatants were harvested and IFN-γ was measured by ELISA. (In particular, page 80, whole document). The reference teaches that the panel of HLA-B*07:02 ligands includes the peptide “HPEYNRPLL” from KLK4 (In particular, Table E.1 page 118, whole document). All of the functional recitations of claims 117- 120, 122-128 and 132 are encompassed by the composition comprising the peptide of “HPEYNRPLL” from KLK4. Applicant is reminded that no more of the reference is required than that it sets forth the substance of the invention. The claimed functional limitations would be inherent properties of the referenced sequences. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01. Atlas Powder Co. V. IRECO, 51 USPQ2d 1943 (Fed. Cir. 1999) “Artisans of ordinary skill may not recognize the inherent characteristics or functioning of the prior art... However, the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. “ The Court further held that “this same reasoning holds true when it is not a property but an ingredient which is inherently contained in the prior art”. The reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention. 10 . Claim s 115-12 0, 122-128 and 132 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2015/014820 (PTO-892; Reference N) as evidenced by the attached translation from the WIPO site. WO 2015/014820 teaches compositions comprising the “HPEYNRPLL ” peptide of reference SEQ ID NO:19 (which is 100% sequence identical over length and sequence to instant SEQ ID NO:4143) for us e in immunotherapy of prostate cancer. (In particular, claims, page 13, page 17, whole document). All of the functional recitations of claims 117- 120, 122- 12 8 and 132 are encompassed by the composition comprising the peptide of “HPEYNRPLL” from KLK4. Applicant is reminded that no more of the reference is required than that it sets forth the substance of the invention. The claimed functional limitations would be inherent properties of the referenced sequences. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01. Atlas Powder Co. V. IRECO, 51 USPQ2d 1943 (Fed. Cir. 1999) “Artisans of ordinary skill may not recognize the inherent characteristics or functioning of the prior art... However, the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. “ The Court further held that “this same reasoning holds true when it is not a property but an ingredient which is inherently contained in the prior art”. The reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention. 11 . Claim s 115-129 and 132 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2001/051633 (PTO-892; Reference O) as evidenced by the attached alignment . WO 2001/051633 teaches a composition comprising the 254 amino acid mature form of P703P of reference SEQ ID NO: 523 (which comprises instant SEQ ID NO:4143 at amino acids 1 05-133 ) was used to immunize rabbits to prepare antibodies against P703P . (In particular, page 27, page 191, line 27 to page 192, line 5, whole document). The reference sequence is encompassed by the recitation of “wherein the tissue specific antigen peptide further comprises an accessory sequence flanking the epitope sequence” of claim s 121 and 129. All of the functional recitations of claims 117- 129 and 132 are encompassed by the composition comprising the peptide of “HPEYNRPLL” from KLK4. Applicant is reminded that no more of the reference is required than that it sets forth the substance of the invention. The claimed functional limitations would be inherent properties of the referenced sequences. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01. Atlas Powder Co. V. IRECO, 51 USPQ2d 1943 (Fed. Cir. 1999) “Artisans of ordinary skill may not recognize the inherent characteristics or functioning of the prior art... However, the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. “ The Court further held that “this same reasoning holds true when it is not a property but an ingredient which is inherently contained in the prior art”. The reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention. 12. No claim is allowed, 13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NORA MAUREEN ROONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:00am to 4:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Misook Yu, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-0839. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. March 25, 2026 /Nora M Rooney/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1641