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 130-148 are currently under examination and the subject matter of the present application. Acknowledgment is made of the present application as a National Stage (371) entry of PCT Application No. PCT/US2022/020510, filed March 16, 2022, which claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Application Nos. 63/161,882 filed March 16, 2021; 63/196,610 filed June 3, 2021 and 63/273,856 filed October 29, 2021. Drawings The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: description of color for Fig. 16 A and B, Fig. 17 A and B, Fig. 18 “Part C (Red)” in the legends and the various colors cannot be distinguished from each other since the figures are in black and white; and illegible text in Fig. 21 A and B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: minor grammatical error in claims. Claim s 1 30 and 135 are objected to because of the following informalities: the first time an acronym is utilized in a claim-set, said acronym should be spelled out in its entirety followed by said acronym in parenthesis (e.g. “C-X-C chemokine receptor type 2 (CXCR2)”, “growth-regulated protein beta (Gro-β)”, “truncated Gro-β (Gro-β T)”, and “C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4)”). 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 130 is 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 claims 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 pre-AIA the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The instant claims are drawn to Gro-β, Gro-β T, and variants thereof . The term “variants thereof” has a wide array of activities and/or effects and is not defined in the specification . Thus, the claims are broadly drawn to any variant of Gro-β and Gro-β T . Therefore, the claims are considered genus claims that encompass a wide array of compounds. The MPEP states that written description for a genus can be achieved by a representative number of species within a broad generic. To satisfy the written description aspect of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for a claimed genus, it must be clear that: (1) the identifying characteristics of the claimed molecules have been disclosed, e.g ., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics; and (2) a representative number of species within the genus must be disclosed. See Eli Lilly , 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. The specification defines “variant [to be] used interchangeably and refer to naturally-occurring, synthetic and semi-synthetic analogues of a compound, peptide, protein or other substance described herein. A variant or derivative of a compound, peptide, protein, or other substance described herein may retain or improve upon the biological activity of the original material” (paragraph [00120]. Further, t he specification describes several variants of Gro-β with different amino acid sequences (01 48 -1 52 and Table 2). In addition, the specification states that variant can include, “other variants of Gro-β, such as peptides that have one or more amino acid substitutions, insertions, and/or deletions relative to Gro-β” and “variants of Gro-β T, such as peptides that have one or more amino acid substitutions, insertions, and/or deletions relative to Gro-β T (0 00152 ). Thus regarding the first requirement of having disclosure identifying characteristics of the claimed variants, Applicant has identified a core structure (Gro-β or Gro-β T) and function (activates CXCR2) that must be shared by all variants. But regarding disclosure of a representative number of species within the genus, review of the specification shows that this second requirement is not met by Applicant. The number of chemokines that can be considered variants of Gro-β is large. However, the instant application only sufficiently describes Gro-β T (MGTA-145) and demonstrates its effectiveness in mobilizing hematopoietic stem cells into the peripheral blood (Example 1-5). Note that disclosure of a single species does not constitute a representative number for such a broad genus as is encompassed by the breadth of “variants”. A representative number of species, as would be required to support description and to show possession of the entire genus, is lacking. Thus, one with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine that Applicant was in possession of the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claim 139 is 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. The term “ mild or moderate reduction in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) ” in claim 139, a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Th is term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, the term will be interpreted as any negative change in the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. Claim (s) 130-148 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrow et al. (U.S. 10,058,573) as evidenced by Khan et al. (Leukemia, 2015, 29, 1195-1201). Morrow teaches : method of mobilizing hematopoietic stem cells from bone marrow into the peripheral blood of a mammalian donor (abstract, Col. 1 lines 25-52) ; where a CXCR2 agonist, Gro-β, a truncated Gro-β (Gro-β T) and variants thereof is administered (Col. 1 lines 25-52) ; where the dose is 0.05 mg/kg (Col. 35 lines 55-58) ; where the donor is administered a CXCR4 antagonist which is AMD3100 ( p le ri x a for) (Col. 1 lines 25-52, Col. 39 lines 38-53, and claim 1) ; where AMD3100 ( p lerixafor) is administered to the donor at a dose of about 240 µg/kg (Col. 39 lines 38-53 and Col. 138 lines 48-67) ; where CXCR4 antagonist and a CXCR2 agonist are administered simultaneously (Col. 154 lines 8-17) ; where the CXCR2 agonist is administered within about 2 or 4 hours of administration of the CXCR4 antagonist (Col. 154 lines 18-43) ; where the CXCR4 antagonist is administered prior to administration of the CXCR2 agonist (col. 154, lines 18-20); where the dose can be 150 µg/kg (0.150 mg/kg) and the dose can be 50 µg/kg to 1 mg/kg (0.05 mg to 1 mg/ml) ( Claim 1 and Col. 35 lines 55-58) ; the CXCR4 antagonist and CXCR2 agonist may be administered intravenously (col. 155, lines 22-25). Though the cited prior art does not teach the precise dosage ranges or the precise frequency of administration, the determination of the optimum amounts and/or frequency of administration to mobilize a population of hematopoietic stem or progenitor cells from the bone marrow of a mammalian donor into peripheral blood, the determination of the optimum amounts and/or frequency of administration would have been a matter well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Such a determination would have been made in accordance with a variety of factors, such as age, weight, sex, diet and medical condition of the patient, severity of the condition, the route of administration, pharmacological considerations, such as activity, efficacy, pharmacokinetics and toxicology profiles of the particular compound employed, whether a drug delivery system is utilized and whether the compound is administered as part of a drug combination. Thus , the amounts and or frequency of administration that would have been actually been employed would have varied widely and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the currently claimed specific amounts or frequency of administration are not seen to be inconsistent with those that would have been determined by the skilled artisan. Furthermore, absent any evidence demonstrating a patentable difference to the criticality of the claimed amounts, the determination of the optimum or workable range(s) given the guidance of the prior art would have been generally prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan. Please see MPEP § 2144.04[R-2](II)(A), and In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)(“[W]here the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to disclosure the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”). Morrow et al. further teach a method of obtaining hematopoietic stem or progenitor cells may be infused into a patient in order to repopulate a population of cells depleted during cancer cell eradication, such as during systemic chemotherapy. Exemplary hematological cancers that can be treated by way of administration of hematopoietic stem and progenitor including multiple myeloma (col. 73, lines 20-26). Morrow et al. is silent on the donor having renal dysfunction and a mild or moderate reduction in glomerular rate (GFR). Khan et al. teach that renal insufficiency is a frequency complication of multiple myeloma where the patient has a reduced glomerular filtration rate (abstract). Therefore, by administering the combination of claim 130 to a multiple myeloma patient, one would meet the limitations of claim 138 and 139, since this patient exhibits renal dysfunction and a negative glomerular filtration rate. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp . Claims 130-133 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 , 4 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,058,573 . An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claims are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims encompass those of the issue patent. Both claim methods of mobilizing a population of hematopoietic stem cells from the bone marrow of mammalian donor into peripheral blood by administering to the donor a CXCR2 agonist . The reference patent does not teach the precise dosage ranges or the precise frequency of administration, the determination of the optimum amounts and/or frequency of administration to mobilize a population of hematopoietic stem or progenitor cells from the bone marrow of a mammalian donor into peripheral blood, the determination of the optimum amounts and/or frequency of administration would have been a matter well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Such a determination would have been made in accordance with a variety of factors, such as age, weight, sex, diet and medical condition of the patient, severity of the condition, the route of administration, pharmacological considerations, such as activity, efficacy, pharmacokinetics and toxicology profiles of the particular compound employed, whether a drug delivery system is utilized and whether the compound is administered as part of a drug combination. Thus, the amounts and or frequency of administration that would have been actually been employed would have varied widely and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the currently claimed specific amounts or frequency of administration are not seen to be inconsistent with those that would have been determined by the skilled artisan. Furthermore, absent any evidence demonstrating a patentable difference to the criticality of the claimed amounts, the determination of the optimum or workable range(s) given the guidance of the prior art would have been generally prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan. Please see MPEP § 2144.04[R-2](II)(A), and In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)(“[W]here the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to disclosure the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”). Claims 130-137 and 140-148 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 -6, 8, 9-10 and 12-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,260,079 . An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claims are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims encompass those of the issue patent. Both claim methods of mobilizing a population of hematopoietic stem cells from the bone marrow of mammalian donor into peripheral blood by administering to the donor a CXCR2 agonist and plerifaxor The reference patent does not teach the precise dosage ranges or the precise frequency of administration, the determination of the optimum amounts and/or frequency of administration to mobilize a population of hematopoietic stem or progenitor cells from the bone marrow of a mammalian donor into peripheral blood, the determination of the optimum amounts and/or frequency of administration would have been a matter well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Such a determination would have been made in accordance with a variety of factors, such as age, weight, sex, diet and medical condition of the patient, severity of the condition, the route of administration, pharmacological considerations, such as activity, efficacy, pharmacokinetics and toxicology profiles of the particular compound employed, whether a drug delivery system is utilized and whether the compound is administered as part of a drug combination. Thus, the amounts and or frequency of administration that would have been actually been employed would have varied widely and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the currently claimed specific amounts or frequency of administration are not seen to be inconsistent with those that would have been determined by the skilled artisan. Furthermore, absent any evidence demonstrating a patentable difference to the criticality of the claimed amounts, the determination of the optimum or workable range(s) given the guidance of the prior art would have been generally prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan. Please see MPEP § 2144.04[R-2](II)(A), and In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)(“[W]here the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to disclosure the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”). Claims 1 30-137 and 140-148 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 8-13 and 15 of copending Application No. 17/773,422. An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claims are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims encompass those of the issue patent. Both claim methods of mobilizing a population of hematopoietic stem cells from the bone marrow of mammalian donor into peripheral blood by administering to the donor a CXCR2 agonist and plerifaxor The reference patent does not teach the precise dosage ranges or the precise frequency of administration, the determination of the optimum amounts and/or frequency of administration to mobilize a population of hematopoietic stem or progenitor cells from the bone marrow of a mammalian donor into peripheral blood, the determination of the optimum amounts and/or frequency of administration would have been a matter well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Such a determination would have been made in accordance with a variety of factors, such as age, weight, sex, diet and medical condition of the patient, severity of the condition, the route of administration, pharmacological considerations, such as activity, efficacy, pharmacokinetics and toxicology profiles of the particular compound employed, whether a drug delivery system is utilized and whether the compound is administered as part of a drug combination. Thus, the amounts and or frequency of administration that would have been actually been employed would have varied widely and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the currently claimed specific amounts or frequency of administration are not seen to be inconsistent with those that would have been determined by the skilled artisan. Furthermore, absent any evidence demonstrating a patentable difference to the criticality of the claimed amounts, the determination of the optimum or workable range(s) given the guidance of the prior art would have been generally prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan. Please see MPEP § 2144.04[R-2](II)(A), and In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)(“[W]here the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to disclosure the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”). CONCLUSION No claim is found to be allowable. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANNA PAGONAKIS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3505 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F . 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, Karin Ferriter can be reached at (571) 272-4509. 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. AP /ANNA PAGONAKIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6221