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. 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. Written Description Claim 1 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 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. Claim 1 does not disclose sufficient structural detail for the genus of anti-PD-L1 antibodies (e.g. the amino acid sequences of six non-degenerate CDRs) correlated with the functional property of treating lung cancer in a subject in combination with an antimetabolite and platinum agent. The guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112, § 1 "Written Description" Requirement make clear that if a claimed genus does not show actual reduction to practice for a representative number of species, then the Requirement may be alternatively met by reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., 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, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the genus ( MPEP 2163). In The Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly (43 USPQ2d 1398-1412) 19 F. 3d 1559, the court held that disclosure of a single member of a genus (rat insulin) did not provide adequate written support for the claimed genus (all mammalian insulins). In this same case, the court also noted: “A definition by function , as we have previously indicated, does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is. See Fiers , 984 F.2d at 1169-71, 25 USPQ2d at 1605-06 (discussing Amgen). It is only a definition of a useful result rather than a definition of what achieves that result. Many such genes may achieve that result. The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might a c hieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming rejection because the specification does “little more than outlin [e] goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate."). Accordingly, naming a type of material generally known to exist, in the absence of knowledge as to what that material consists of, is not a des c ription of that material.” The court has further stated that “Adequate written description 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.” Id. at 1566, 43 USPQ2d at 1404 (quoting at 1171, 25 USPQ2d at 1606). Also see (CAFC 2002). Enzo- Biochem v. Gen-Probe Fiers , 984 F.2d 01-1230. It is well-known in the art that, in order to bind antigen, an antibody or antigen-binding fragment must have six complementarit y defining regions (CDRs) (Janeway, see selection, in particular section 3-6) (Janeway, Charles A. et al. "Immunobiology: The Immune System in Health and Disease." 2001). Because CDRs from both VH and VL domains contribute to the antigen-binding site, it is the combination of the heavy and the light chain, and no t either alone, that determines the final antigen specificity. As presently written, however, claim 1 does not recite the amino acid sequences of six non-degenerate CDRs for the genus of anti-PD-L1 antibodies having the functional property of treating lung cancer in a subject. Although Applicant has disclosed the anti- PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab , such disclosure does not adequately represent the structural diversity of the claimed genus of anti- PD-L1 antibodies capable of achieving the recited functional properties. The specification does not appear to i dentify structural features common to all therapeutically effective anti-PD-L1 antibodies; screening criteria to distinguish therapeutically effective antibodies from ineffective ones, provide guidance for predicting therapeutic efficacy across structurally diverse antibodies, or even require anti-PD-L1 antibodies encompassed by the claims to have blocking activity . For example, the anti-PD-L1antibody SP142, used in the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay disclosed in the specification (e.g. Para. 0251), is recognized as a non-blocking antibody. Unlike therapeutic antibodies such as atezolizumab (which is designed to block the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction, see, e.g. Han et al, “Atezolizumab” section on Page 737), the SP142 antibody is known in the art to bind to the intracellular domain of PD-L1 (Sunshine et al, see first paragraph on Page 4943; Sagawa et al, see first paragraph under Results, Pages 2-3) and thus does not interfere with the binding of PD-L1 to its receptors. In particular, SP142 is used in immunohistochemistry to detect PD-L1 protein expression (Sunshine et al, see Abstract; Sagawa et al, see last paragraph of Introduction). Thus, antibodies that bind to PD-L1 do not automatically confer blocking or inhibitory activity. Without further testing, artisans could not readily predict which anti-PD-L1 antibodies encompassed by the full scope of the claimed genus can be used to treat lung cancer in a subject. Therefore, the claimed genus of antibodies lacks adequate written description because there does not appear to be a correlation between the structure of each member of the claimed genus of anti- PD-L1 antibodies and the function of treating cancer in a subject . Thus, o ne of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the applicant was not in possession of the full breadth of the claimed genus of anti- PD-L1 antibodies at the time the instant application was filed. Scope of Enablement Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for use of a therapeutic anti-PD-L1 antibody that blocks the interaction between PD-L1 and its receptors (e.g. atezolizumab) in the method of treating lung cancer in a subject , does not reasonably provide enablement for the use of anti- PD-L1 antibodies that do not block the interaction between PD-L1 and its receptors in the claimed method . 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. The claim is broadly drawn to a method of treating an individual having lung cancer comprising administering to the individual an effective amount of an anti-PD-L1 antibody, an antimetabolite, and a platinum agent, wherein the treatment extends progression free survival (PFS) of the individual. The claim is not limited to antibodies that block PD-L1 interaction with its receptors and therefore encompass es both blocking and non-blocking anti-PD-L1 antibodies. The nature of the invention is a combination therapy in the field of oncology, involving the use of pharmaceutical agents specifically, a PD-1 axis binding antagonist, such as atezolizumab, in combination with an antimetabolite chemotherapeutic agent, such as pemetrexed, and a platinum-based chemotherapeutic agent, such as carboplatin or cisplatin. The specification provides clinical data demonstrating that administration of atezolizumab (a therapeutic anti-PD-L1 antibody that blocks the interaction between PD-L1 and PD-1) in combination with carboplatin or cisplatin + pemetrexed improved progression free survival and overall survival in clinically relevant patient subgroups (see Example 2 of the Specification). However, the specification does not teach that all antibodies that merely bind to PD-L1 treat cancer, nor does it provide evidence indicating that antibodies that bind PD-L1 but do not block its interaction with its receptors would be therapeutically effective. The specification does not appear to, for example, i dentify structural features common to all therapeutically effective anti-PD-L1 antibodies; screening criteria to distinguish therapeutically effective antibodies from ineffective ones, provide guidance for predicting therapeutic efficacy across structurally diverse antibodies, or even require anti-PD-L1 antibodies encompassed by the claims to have blocking activity . It is well-known in the art that the therapeutic mechanism of anti PD 1/PD L1 antibodies in cancer immunotherapy involves blocking the interaction between PD 1 and PD L1 to restore antitumor T cell activity. Anti PD L1 therapeutic antibodies such as atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab are effective because they block this interaction (Xu-Monette et al, Abstract, Introduction, and “Clinical PD-1 Blockade and PD-L1 Blockade in Cancer Patients” section). The art did not teach that mere binding to PD-L1, absent functional blockade of its interaction with PD-1 or related receptors, would necessarily result in therapeutic benefit. As presently written, however, t he claim encompasses antibodies that bind PD-L1 without blocking this interaction such as the anti-PD-L1 antibody SP142, used in the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay disclosed in the specification (e.g. Para. 0251) . Unlike therapeutic antibodies such as atezolizumab (which is designed to block the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction , see, e.g. Han et al , “Atezolizumab” section on Page 737 ), the SP142 antibody is known in the art to bind to the intracellular domain of PD-L1 ( Sunshine et al, see first paragraph on Page 4943; Sagawa et al, see first paragraph under Results, Pages 2-3) and thus does not interfere with the binding of PD-L1 to its receptors. In particular, S P142 is used in immunohistochemistry to detect PD-L1 protein expression ( Sunshine et al, see Abstract; Sagawa et al, see last paragraph of Introduction). Thus, functional activity—i.e., blockade of signaling— is central to therapeutic efficacy of an anti-PD-L1 antibody designed for cancer immunotherapy ; and binding alone does not inherently guarantee such functional outcome. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have had advanced training in immunology, oncology, molecular biology, or a related discipline, and would have been familiar with antibody development and immune checkpoint biology. Even at this high level of skill, however, therapeutic efficacy of a particular antibody could not be predicted solely from the fact that the antibody binds PD-L1. In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, 987 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which the Supreme Court affirmed, the Federal Circuit relied on evidence showing that the scope of the claims encompassed millions of antibodies and that it was necessary to screen each candidate antibody in order to determine whether it met the functional limitations of the claim. Id. at 1088. Consequently, the Federal Circuit concluded that there was a lack of enablement (MPEP 2164.06) . Thus, the level of skill does not obviate the need for substantial experimentation across the full scope of the claimed genus. To determine whether a given anti-PD-L1 antibody within the full scope of the claims is therapeutically effective, artisans would need to , for example, generate or obtain candidate antibodies; characterize binding properties; determine whether the antibody functionally blocks PD-1/PD-L1 interaction; conduct in vitro functional assays; and perform in vivo or clinical testing to confirm therapeutic efficacy ( Bixbite et al, see entire document). Because the claims encompass antibodies without regard to functional blocking activity, additional testing would be required to identify which anti-PD-L1 antibodies within the broad genus actually treat cancer. Accordingly, artisans would be required to engage in undue trial and error experimentation to determine which anti-PD-L1 antibodies within the full scope of the claim are capable of treating lung cancer in a subject. While all blocking antibodies must bind to their target, many antibodies that bind do not possess the capacity to inhibit the biological activity of that target. Inhibitory/blocking activity depends on several different mechanisms such as competition for common binding determinants, steric hindrance or interference with conformational properties of the receptor critical for ligand binding (List et al, see Abstract). Thus, the ability of an antibody to bind to a target such as PD-L1 does not automatically confer blocking/inhibitory activity . In other words, artisans could not readily predict functional activity of an antibody by its ability to merely bind to a particular target. Given this unpredictability, therapeutic efficacy of atezolizumab cannot be reliably extrapolated from to all antibodies that bind PD-L1. Therefore, the specification is not enabling over the full scope of the claims. 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 m ade 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, 86, and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoffmann-La Roche (“A study of atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin or cisplatin + pemetrexed compared with carboplatin or cisplatin + pemetrexed in participants who are chemotherapy-naive and have stage iv non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer ( N S CLC ) ( IMpower 132) ” ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02657434 , Record History | ver. 2: 2016-02-22 ). Hoffman-Roche discloses a method of treating Stage IV non-squamous NSCLC in subjects comprising administering atezolizumab (an anti-PD-L1 antibody) in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum agents) and pemetrexed (an antimetabolite). In particular, subjects received IV infusion of 1200 mg of atezolizumab and 500 mg/m^2 of pemetrexed on Day 1 every three weeks ( q3w ) in addition to one of the following: i ) an I V infusion of carboplatin on Day 1 q3w at a dose to achieve an AUC=6 mg/mL/min) or ii) an IV infusion of 75 mg/m^2 cisplatin q3w on Day 1 q3w . Treatment efficacy was determined by assessing progression free survival (PFS) u sing response e valuation c riteria in s olid t umors version 1.1 (RECIST V1.1) (see Study Record Version dated 02-22-2016, in particular, Brief Summary, Condition, Study Design, Arms and Interventions, and Primary Outcome Measures). The method disclosed by Hoffman-Roche have the same active steps as the instantly claimed method , including use of the same agents to treat the same patient population with the same dosages , and thus would achieve the s ame therapeutic outcomes recited in the instant claims ( e.g. extension of progression free surviv al). Thus, Hoffmann-Roche meet the limitations of instant claims 1, 86, and 87. 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 . Claim s 1, 86, and 87 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 48-67 of copending Application No. 19319392 in view of Hoffmann-La Roche (“A study of atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin or cisplatin + pemetrexed compared with carboplatin or cisplatin + pemetrexed in participants who are chemotherapy-naive and have stage iv non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) ( IMpower 132)” ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02657434 . Record History | ver. 2: 2016-02-22 ). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. The co-pending claims recite a method for treating a human patient having a cancer comprising administering to the patient atezolizumab, wherein the cancer is non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (co-pending claims 48, 52, 53, and 54). The method further comprises administering an additional therapeutic agent such as the platinum-containing agent carboplatin (co-pending claims 57). The co-pending claims do not recite that the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is stage IV non-squamous NSCLC , 2) administration of antimetabolite and other platinum agents such as cisplatin as additional therapeutic agents, or the specific dosages or therapeutic outcomes of the combination therapy recited in the instant claims. However, Hoffman-Roche discloses a method of treating Stage IV non-squamous NSCLC in subjects comprising administering atezolizumab (an anti-PD-L1 antibody) in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum agents) and pemetrexed (an antimetabolite). In particular, subjects received IV infusion of 1200 mg of atezolizumab and 500 mg/m^2 of pemetrexed on Day 1 every three weeks (q3w) in addition to one of the following: i ) an IV infusion of carboplatin on Day 1 q3w at a dose to achieve an AUC=6 mg/mL/min) or ii) an IV infusion of 75 mg/m^2 cisplatin q3w on Day 1 q3w. Treatment efficacy was determined by assessing progression free survival (PFS) using response evaluation criteria in solid tumors version 1.1 (RECIST V1.1) (see Study Record Version dated 02-22-2016, in particular, Brief Summary, Condition, Study Design, Arms and Interventions, and Primary Outcome Measures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of the co-pending claims such that the subject has stage IV non-squamous NSCLC and administered atezolizumab in combination with cisplatin/carboplatin and pemetrexed as additional therapeutic agents at the dosages disclosed in Hoffman-Roche. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since Hoffman-Roche discloses a combination therapy that can be used to treat lung cancer in a subject and subjects with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC represents a patient population that would receive therapeutic benefit from said combination therapy. Further, the method taught by the co-pending claims in view of Hoffman-Roche have the same active steps as the instantly claimed method, including use of the same agents to treat the same patient population with the same dosages, and thus would achieve the same therapeutic outcomes recited in the instant claims (e.g. extension of progression free survival). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the atezolizumab in combination with cisplatin/carboplatin and pemetrexed can effectively treat lung cancer, including stage IV non-squamous NSCLC, in a subject. Claims 1, 86, and 87 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-61 of copending Application No. 19364302 in view of Hoffmann-La Roche (“A study of atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin or cisplatin + pemetrexed compared with carboplatin or cisplatin + pemetrexed in participants who are chemotherapy-naive and have stage iv non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) ( IMpower 132)” ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02657434 . Record History | ver. 2: 2016-02-22 ). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. The co-pending claims recite a method for treating a human patient having non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a subject comprising administering an anti-PD-L1 antibody that inhibits the binding of PD-L1 to PD-1 and B7.1 (co-pending claims 7, 17, 18, 44, 45, 46, and 49). The method further comprises administering an additional therapeutic agent (co-pending claim 61). The co-pending claims do not recite that the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is stage IV non-squamous NSCLC, 2) administration of antimetabolite and platinum agents as additional therapeutic agents, or the specific dosages or therapeutic outcomes of the combination therapy recited in the instant claims. However, Hoffman-Roche discloses a method of treating Stage IV non-squamous NSCLC in subjects comprising administering atezolizumab (an anti-PD-L1 antibody) in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum agents) and pemetrexed (an antimetabolite). In particular, subjects received IV infusion of 1200 mg of atezolizumab and 500 mg/m^2 of pemetrexed on Day 1 every three weeks (q3w) in addition to one of the following: i ) an IV infusion of carboplatin on Day 1 q3w at a dose to achieve an AUC=6 mg/mL/min) or ii) an IV infusion of 75 mg/m^2 cisplatin q3w on Day 1 q3w. Treatment efficacy was determined by assessing progression free survival (PFS) using response evaluation criteria in solid tumors version 1.1 (RECIST V1.1) (see Study Record Version dated 02-22-2016, in particular, Brief Summary, Condition, Study Design, Arms and Interventions, and Primary Outcome Measures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of the co-pending claims such that the subject has stage IV non-squamous NSCLC and administered atezolizumab in combination with cisplatin/carboplatin and pemetrexed as additional therapeutic agents at the dosages disclosed in Hoffman-Roche. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since Hoffman-Roche discloses a combination therapy that can be used to treat lung cancer in a subject and subjects with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC represents a patient population that would receive therapeutic benefit from said combination therapy. Further, the method taught by the co-pending claims in view of Hoffman-Roche have the same active steps as the instantly claimed method, including use of the same agents to treat the same patient population with the same dosages, and thus would achieve the same therapeutic outcomes recited in the instant claims (e.g. extension of progression free survival). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the atezolizumab in combination with cisplatin/carboplatin and pemetrexed can effectively treat lung cancer, including stage IV non-squamous NSCLC, in a subject. Claims 1, 86, and 87 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-106 of co-pending Application No. 19533566 in view of Hoffmann-La Roche (“A study of atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin or cisplatin + pemetrexed compared with carboplatin or cisplatin + pemetrexed in participants who are chemotherapy-naive and have stage iv non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) ( IMpower 132)” ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02657434 . Record History | ver. 2: 2016-02-22 ). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. The co-pending claims recite a method for treating a human patient having non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a subject comprising administering an anti-PD-L1 antibody that inhibits the binding of PD-L1 to PD-1 and B7.1 (co-pending claims 6, 7, 18, 19, 48, 49, 50, 52, 52, 53, and 54). The method further comprises administering an additional therapeutic agent (co-pending claim 65). The co-pending claims do not recite that the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is stage IV non-squamous NSCLC, 2) administration of antimetabolite and platinum agents as additional therapeutic agents, or the specific dosages or therapeutic outcomes of the combination therapy recited in the instant claims. However, Hoffman-Roche discloses a method of treating Stage IV non-squamous NSCLC in subjects comprising administering atezolizumab (an anti-PD-L1 antibody) in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum agents) and pemetrexed (an antimetabolite). In particular, subjects received IV infusion of 1200 mg of atezolizumab and 500 mg/m^2 of pemetrexed on Day 1 every three weeks (q3w) in addition to one of the following: i ) an IV infusion of carboplatin on Day 1 q3w at a dose to achieve an AUC=6 mg/mL/min) or ii) an IV infusion of 75 mg/m^2 cisplatin q3w on Day 1 q3w. Treatment efficacy was determined by assessing progression free survival (PFS) using response evaluation criteria in solid tumors version 1.1 (RECIST V1.1) (see Study Record Version dated 02-22-2016, in particular, Brief Summary, Condition, Study Design, Arms and Interventions, and Primary Outcome Measures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of the co-pending claims such that the subject has stage IV non-squamous NSCLC and administered atezolizumab in combination with cisplatin/carboplatin and pemetrexed as additional therapeutic agents at the dosages disclosed in Hoffman-Roche. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since Hoffman-Roche discloses a combination therapy that can be used to treat lung cancer in a subject and subjects with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC represents a patient population that would receive therapeutic benefit from said combination therapy. Further, the method taught by the co-pending claims in view of Hoffman-Roche have the same active steps as the instantly claimed method, including use of the same agents to treat the same patient population with the same dosages, and thus would achieve the same therapeutic outcomes recited in the instant claims (e.g. extension of progression free survival). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the atezolizumab in combination with cisplatin/carboplatin and pemetrexed can effectively treat lung cancer, including stage IV non-squamous NSCLC, in a subject. Claims 1, 86, and 87 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-15, 17-28, and 31-32 of copending Application No. 18933358 in view of Hoffmann-La Roche (“A study of atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin or cisplatin + pemetrexed compared with carboplatin or cisplatin + pemetrexed in participants who are chemotherapy-naive and have stage iv non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) ( IMpower 132)” ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02657434 . Record History | ver. 2: 2016-02-22 ). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. The co-pending claims recite method for treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in an individual comprising administering the anti-PD-L1 antibody MPDL3280A (atezolizumab) at 1200 mg (co-pending claims 1, 3, 11, 21). T he method further comprises administering a n additional therapeutic agent or adjuvant (co-pending claims 7, 8, 22), wherein the additional therapeutic agent can be carboplatin and the adjuvant can be cisplatin (co-pending claims 9, 10, and 23). The co-pending claims do not recite that the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is stage IV non-squamous NSCLC 2) administration of antimetabolite in addition to carboplatin/cisplatin or the specific dosages or therapeutic outcomes of the combination therapy recited in the instant claims. However, Hoffman-Roche discloses a method of treating Stage IV non-squamous NSCLC in subjects comprising administering atezolizumab (an anti-PD-L1 antibody) in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum agents) and pemetrexed (an antimetabolite). In particular, subjects received IV infusion of 1200 mg of atezolizumab and 500 mg/m^2 of pemetrexed on Day 1 every three weeks (q3w) in addition to one of the following: i ) an IV infusion of carboplatin on Day 1 q3w at a dose to achieve an AUC=6 mg/mL/min) or ii) an IV infusion of 75 mg/m^2 cisplatin q3w on Day 1 q3w. Treatment efficacy was determined by assessing progression free survival (PFS) using response evaluation criteria in solid tumors version 1.1 (RECIST V1.1) (see Study Record Version dated 02-22-2016, in particular, Brief Summary, Condition, Study Design, Arms and Interventions, and Primary Outcome Measures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of the co-pending claims such that the subject has stage IV non-squamous NSCLC and administered atezolizumab in combination with cisplatin/carboplatin and pemetrexed as additional therapeutic agents at the dosages disclosed in Hoffman-Roche. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since Hoffman-Roche discloses a combination therapy that can be used to treat lung cancer in a subject and subjects with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC represents a patient population that would receive therapeutic benefit from said combination therapy. Further, the method taught by the co-pending claims in view of Hoffman-Roche have the same active steps as the instantly claimed method, including use of the same agents to treat the same patient population with the same dosages, and thus would achieve the same therapeutic outcomes recited in the instant claims (e.g. extension of progression free survival). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the atezolizumab in combination with cisplatin/carboplatin and pemetrexed can effectively treat lung cancer, including stage IV non-squamous NSCLC, in a subject. Claims 1, 86, and 87 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 107-121 of copending Application No. 17686628 in view of Hoffmann-La Roche (“A study of atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin or cisplatin + pemetrexed compared with carboplatin or cisplatin + pemetrexed in participants who are chemotherapy-naive and have stage iv non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) ( IMpower 132)” ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02657434 . Record History | ver. 2: 2016-02-22 ) (Note: an issue notification was filed for the application on 02/25/2026). The co-pending claims recite method for treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in an individual who is likely to have an increased clinical benefit from treatment with an anti-PD-L1 antibody, the method comprising administering the anti-PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab to the individual ( co-pending claim s 107 and 119 ) , wherein the increased clinical benefit comprises a relative increase in one or more of the following: objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or a combination thereof ( co-pending claim 111) . The method further comprises administering a second therapeutic agent to the individual such as a cytotoxic agent, a chemotherapeutic agent, a growth inhibitory agent, a radiation therapy agent, anti-angiogenic agent, or a combination thereof ( co-pending claim 1 15) . The co-pending claims do not recite that the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) i s stage IV non-squamous NSCLC 2) administration of antimetabolite and platinum agents as additional therapeutic agents, or the specific dosages or therapeutic outcomes of the combination therapy recited in the instant claims. However , Hoffman-Roche discloses a method of treating Stage IV non-squamous NSCLC in subjects comprising administering atezolizumab (an anti-PD-L1 antibody) in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum agents) and pemetrexed (an antimetabolite). In particular, subjects received IV infusion of 1200 mg of atezolizumab and 500 mg/m^2 of pemetrexed on Day 1 every three weeks (q3w) in addition to one of the following: i ) an IV infusion of carboplatin on Day 1 q3w at a dose to achieve an AUC=6 mg/mL/min) or ii) an IV infusion of 75 mg/m^2 cisplatin q3w on Day 1 q3w. Treatment efficacy was determined by assessing progression free survival (PFS) using response evaluation criteria in solid tumors version 1.1 (RECIST V1.1) (see Study Record Version dated 02-22-2016, in particular, Brief Summary, Condition, Study Design, Arms and Interventions, and Primary Outcome Measures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of the co-pending claims such that the subject has stage IV non-squamous NSCLC and administered atezolizumab in combination with cisplatin/carboplatin and pemetrexed as additional therapeutic agents at the dosages disclosed in Hoffman-Roche. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since Hoffman-Roche discloses a combination therapy that can be used to treat lung cancer in a subject and subjects with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC represents a patient population that would receive therapeutic benefit from said combination therapy. Further, the method taught by the co-pending claims in view of Hoffman-Roche have the same active steps as the instantly claimed method, including use of the same agents to treat the same patient population with the same dosages, and thus would achieve the same therapeutic outcomes recited in the instant claims (e.g. extension of progression free survival). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the atezolizumab in combination with cisplatin/carboplatin and pemetrexed can effectively treat lung cancer, including stage IV non-squamous NSCLC, in a subject. Claims 1, 86, and 87 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11299544B2 in view of Hoffmann-La Roche (“A study of atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin or cisplatin + pemetrexed compared with carboplatin or cisplatin + pemetrexed in participants who are chemotherapy-naive and have stage iv non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) ( IMpower 132)” ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02657434 . Record History | ver. 2: 2016-02-22 ). The issued claims recite a method for treating a metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in an individual who is likely to have an increased clinical benefit from treatment with an anti-PD-L1 antibody, the method comprising administering the anti-PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab to the individual (issued claim 1), wherein the increased clinical benefit comprises a relative increase in one or more of the following: objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or a combination thereof (issued claim 8). The method further comprises administering a second therapeutic agent to the individual such as a cytotoxic agent, a chemotherapeutic agent, a growth inhibitory agent, a radiation therapy agent, anti-angiogenic agent, or a combination thereof (issued claim 17). The issued claims do not recite that the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is stage IV non-squamous NSCLC 2) administration of antimetabolite and platinum agents as additional therapeutic agents, or the specific dosages or therapeutic outcomes of the combination therapy recited in the instant claims. However, Hoffman-Roche discloses a method of treating Stage IV non-squamous NSCLC in subjects comprising administering atezolizumab (an anti-PD-L1 antibody) in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin (platinum agents) and pemetrexed (an antimetabolite). In particular, subjects received IV infusion of 1200 mg of atezolizumab and 500 mg/m^2 of pemetrexed on Day 1 every three weeks (q3w) in addition to one of the following: i ) an IV infusion of carboplatin on Day 1 q3w at a dose to achieve an AUC=6 mg/mL/min) or ii) an IV infusion of 75 mg/m^2 cisplatin q3w on Day 1 q3w. Treatment efficacy was determined by assessing progression free survival (PFS) using response evaluation criteria in solid tumors version 1.1 (RECIST V1.1) (see Study Record Version dated 02-22-2016, in particular, Brief Summary, Condition, Study Design, Arms and Interventions, and Primary Outcome Measures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of the issued claims such that the subject has stage IV non-squamous NSCLC and administered atezolizumab in combination with cisplatin/carboplatin and pemetrexed as additional therapeutic agents at the dosages disclosed in Hoffman-Roche. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since Hoffman-Roche discloses a combination therapy that can be used to treat lung cancer in a subject and subjects with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC represents a patient population that would receive therapeutic benefit from said combination therapy. Further, the method taught by the issued claims in view of Hoffman-Roche have the same active steps as the instantly claimed method, including use of the same agents to treat the same patient population with the same dosages, and thus would achieve the same therapeutic outcomes recited in the instant claims (e.g. extension of progression free survival). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the atezolizumab in combination with cisplatin/carboplatin and pemetrexed can effectively treat lung cancer, including stage IV non-squamous NSCLC, in a subject. Conclusion No claims are allowable. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LIA TAYLOR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6336 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30 - 5:00 M-F . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based c o llaboration 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 MISOOK YU can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 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/d o cx 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 li k e assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /LIA E TAYLOR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1641 /MISOOK YU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1641