DETAILED ACTION 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 2 Applicant's amendment, filed on 02/08/2024 , is acknowledged. 3. Claims 1, 7 and 11-17 are pending and under examination. 4 . Applicant’s IDS, filed 11/28/2023 , is acknowledged. 5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 6 . Claim 15 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 recite SEQ ID NO: 4-6, 13, 15, 17, 31-32, 39 which do not derive from SEQ ID NO: 52 as required by base claim 11 . Further, claim 17 recites modifications in the peptide position that is not present in base claim 11. Claims 15 and 17 do not further limit the base claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 7 . 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 . 8 . Claims 1, 7 and 11-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 10858642 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the `642 patent are directed to immunogenic polypeptide fragment of a human Arginase protein of SEQ ID NO: 1 (Arginase 1) or SEQ ID NO: 60 (Arginase 2), wherein (a) the fragment of a human Arginase 1 protein is up to 55 amino acids in length and comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 36 (fragment of aa21-40/181-200 of SEQ ID NOs: 52/1) or SEQ ID NO: 53 ( KDIVYIGL , fragment of aa12-19/172-179 of SEQ ID NOs: 52/1) , or (b) the fragment of a human Arginase 2 protein is 8 to 55 amino acids in length and comprises at least 8 consecutive amino acids of SEQ ID NO: 58 . A method of treating or preventing a disease or condition in a subject, the method comprising administering to the subject an isolated, immunogenic polypeptide fragment of a human Arginase protein of SEQ ID NO: 1 (Arginase 1) or SEQ ID NO: 60 (Arginase 2), or a composition comprising the isolated polypeptide fragment and a pharmaceutically acceptable diluent or carrier, wherein: (a) the fragment of a human Arginase 1 protein is up to 55 amino acids in length and comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 36 or SEQ ID NO: 53, or (b) the fragment of a human Arginase 2 protein is 8 to 55 amino acids in length and comprises at least 8 consecutive amino acids of SEQ ID NO: 58. The C laims of the ' 642 patent would render obvious at least claims 11-17 in the instant application. N ote that the instant application and the ' 642 patent share at least one inventor (Mads Andersen) and/or assignee (e.g., IO Biotech ApS ). Further, the ' 642 patent is not related to the instant application as a DIV and thus no "121 shield" exists here. See filing receipt. See also MPEP § 804.01. See also Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. , 518 F.3d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“the protection afforded by section 121 to applications (or patents issued therefrom) filed as a result of a restriction requirement is limited to divisional applications … This is true even if the … application was mistakenly filed … and should have been filed as a DIV application.”). See also Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. , 580 F. 3d 1340, 1354 (CAFC 2009) (“Amgen does not dispute that it denominated the '178 and '179 applications continuations, that it checked the continuation application box on the submitted form, or that its applications met the PTO's definition of a continuation application in MPEP § 201.07. … Instead, Amgen argues that, because the '178 and '179 continuation applications could have been filed as divisional applications, we should treat them as such for purposes of § 121. While this argument convinced the district court to regard the '178 and '179 continuation applications as divisional applications, we are not likewise convinced. We decline to construe ‘divisional application’ in § 121 to encompass Amgen's properly filed, properly designated continuation applications.”). Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to synthesizing the peptide fragments set forth in claim s 11-17 for “comprising synthesizing an immunogenic peptide fragment of a human Arginase protein of SEQ ID NO: 1 (Arginase 1) or SEQ ID NO: 60 (Arginase 2), and wherein (a) the fragment of a human Arginase 1 protein is up to 55 amino acids in length and comprises or consists of at least 8, 9, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 consecutive amino acids of SEQ ID NO: 52, and/or (b) the fragment of a human Arginase 2 protein is up to 55 amino acids in length and comprises or consists of at least 8, 9, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 consecutive amino acids of SEQ ID NO: 58.” before the effective filing date. See Sun Pharmaceutical industries v. Eli Lilly and Co ., 611F. 3d 1381, 1385 (CAFC 2010) (“our prior obviousness-type double patenting decisions in Geneva and Pfizer . … we found claims of a later patent invalid for obviousness-type double patenting a method of using the compound for a use described in the specification of the earlier patent”). See also MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)(“in AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 112 USPQ2d 1001 (fed. Cir . 2014), the court explained that it is also proper to look at the disclosed utility in the reference disclosure to determine the overall question of obviousness in a nonstatutory double patenting context.”) 9 . Claims 1, 7 and 11-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1- 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11981944 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ` 944 patent are directed to method s of preparing a pharmaceutical composition comprising: formulating an immunogenic peptide fragment of a human Arginase protein of SEQ ID NO: 1 (Arginase 1) or SEQ ID NO: 60 (Arginase 2) together with a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient, diluent or carrier, wherein (a) the fragment of a human Arginase 1 protein is up to 55 amino acids in length and comprises at least 8, 9, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 consecutive amino acids of SEQ ID NO: 52, or (b) the fragment of a human Arginase 2 protein is up to 55 amino acids in length and comprises or consists of at least 8, 9, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 consecutive amino acids of SEQ ID NO: 58 . The C laims of the ' 944 patent would render obvious at least claims 1,7 and 11-17 in the instant application. N ote that the instant application and the ' 944 patent share at least one inventor (Mads Andersen) and/or assignee (e.g., IO Biotech ApS ). Further, the ' 944 patent is not related to the instant application as a DIV and thus no "121 shield" exists here. See filing receipt. See also MPEP § 804.01. See also Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. , 518 F.3d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“the protection afforded by section 121 to applications (or patents issued therefrom) filed as a result of a restriction requirement is limited to divisional applications … This is true even if the … application was mistakenly filed … and should have been filed as a DIV application.”). See also Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. , 580 F. 3d 1340, 1354 (CAFC 2009) (“Amgen does not dispute that it denominated the '178 and '179 applications continuations, that it checked the continuation application box on the submitted form, or that its applications met the PTO's definition of a continuation application in MPEP § 201.07. … Instead, Amgen argues that, because the '178 and '179 continuation applications could have been filed as divisional applications, we should treat them as such for purposes of § 121. While this argument convinced the district court to regard the '178 and '179 continuation applications as divisional applications, we are not likewise convinced. We decline to construe ‘divisional application’ in § 121 to encompass Amgen's properly filed, properly designated continuation applications.”). Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to synthesizing the peptide fragments set forth in claim s 1, 7 and 11-17 for “comprising synthesizing an immunogenic peptide fragment of a human Arginase protein of SEQ ID NO: 1 (Arginase 1) or SEQ ID NO: 60 (Arginase 2), and wherein (a) the fragment of a human Arginase 1 protein is up to 55 amino acids in length and comprises or consists of at least 8, 9, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 consecutive amino acids of SEQ ID NO: 52, and/or (b) the fragment of a human Arginase 2 protein is up to 55 amino acids in length and comprises or consists of at least 8, 9, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 consecutive amino acids of SEQ ID NO: 58” and it would have been prima facie obvious to use the peptide fragments set forth in claim s 1, 7 and 11-17 for “ treating or preveignt a disease or condition in a subject” before the effective filing date. See Sun Pharmaceutical industries v. Eli Lilly and Co ., 611F. 3d 1381, 1385 (CAFC 2010) (“our prior obviousness-type double patenting decisions in Geneva and Pfizer . … we found claims of a later patent invalid for obviousness-type double patenting a method of using the compound for a use described in the specification of the earlier patent”). See also MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)(“in AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 112 USPQ2d 1001 (fed. Cir . 2014), the court explained that it is also proper to look at the disclosed utility in the reference disclosure to determine the overall question of obviousness in a nonstatutory double patenting context.”) 10 . The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (Pre AIA, 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph): (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. 11 . Claims 1 , 7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. (a) The recitation “immunogenic polypeptide fragment of a human Arginase protein of SEQ ID NO: 1 (Arginase 1) or SEQ ID NO: 60 (Arginase 2), wherein the fragment is up to 55 amino acids in length and comprises a sequence of at least 8, 9, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 consecutive amino acids of either of SEQ ID NO: 52 or SEQ ID NO: 58 ” in clam 1 is ambiguous. SEQ ID NOs: 1 and 60 are two different proteins, thus they cannot comprise at least 8, 9, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 consecutive amino acids of either of SEQ ID NO: 52 or SEQ ID NO: 58 because SEQ ID NO: 52 is a fragment of Arginase I (SEQ ID NO: 1) and SEQ ID NO:58 is a fragment of Arginase 2. Accordingly, SEQ ID NO: 1 does not comprise SEQ ID NO: 58 and fragments thereof and SEQ ID NO: 60 does not comprise SEQ ID NO: 52 and fragments thereof. (b) the recitation “comprising synthesizing an immunogenic peptide fragment” in claim 11 is indefinite because it is not clear how the synthesis occurs . The claim is being incomplete for omitting essential synthesis technique required for the synthesis. (c) The SEQ ID NO: 4-6, 13, 15, 17, 31-32, 39, in claim 15 is ambiguous because SEQ ID NO: 4-6, 13, 15, 17, 31-32, 39 do not comprising or consists of at least 8 consecutives amino acids of SEQ ID NO: 52 as required by the base claim 11 . For Example, this is the alignment of SEQ ID NO: 4 with SEQ ID NO: 52. Qy 1 LLKEL 5 :|| | Db 29 ILKTL 33 (d) the recitation “ (a) the C terminal amino acid of the peptide fragment is replaced with the corresponding amide;(b) the peptide fragment comprises an amino acid corresponding to position 190 of SEQ ID NO: 1 and the L at the position corresponding to position 190 of SEQ ID NO: 1 is replaced with I; (c) the peptide fragment comprises an amino acid corresponding to position 205 of SEQ ID NO: 1 and the R at the position corresponding to position 205 of SEQ ID NO: 1 is replaced with K; (d) at least one additional moiety is attached to the N and/or C terminus of the peptide fragment to improve solubility or manufacturability of the polypeptide fragment; (e) the peptide fragment lacks or has reduced arginase activity relative to the corresponding full length arginase; and/or (f) the peptide fragment is capable of stimulating T cells which recognize cells expressing the corresponding arginase ” in claim 17 is indefinite because it is not clear how the unmodified immunogenic peptide fragment of claim 11 are now modified immunogenic peptide fragment at a specific position. 10 . The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph): (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. 11 . Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 ( a ) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as containing 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification as originally filed does not provide support for the invention as now claimed. This is a New Matter rejection for the following reasons : The phrase “ the peptide fragment comprises at least 8, 9, 10, 15 or all 20 consecutive amino acids of any one of SEQ ID NOs: 37, 36, 34 or 35 ” claimed in claim 16 represen ts a departure from the specification and the claims as originally filed. Applicant’s amendment filed 02/08/2024 does not point to the specification for support for the newly added limitations “ the peptide fragment comprises at least 8, 9, 10, 15 or all 20 consecutive amino acids of any one of SEQ ID NOs: 37, 36, 34 or 35 ” as claimed in claim 16 . However, the specification does not provide a clear support of “ the peptide fragment comprises at least 8, 9, 10, 15 or all 20 consecutive amino acids of any one of SEQ ID NOs: 37, 36, 34 or 35 ”. The instant claims now recite limitations which were not clearly disclosed in the specification and recited in the claims as originally filed. 12 . Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA) , first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification does not reasonably provide enablement for method of treating or preventing a disease or condition in a subject, the method comprising administering to the subject the isolated polypeptide recited in the claim . 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. Factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is required to practice the claimed invention are summarized In re Wands (858 F2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). The factors most relevant to this rejection are the scope of the claim, the amount of direction or guidance provided, the lack of sufficient working examples, the unpredictability in the art and the amount of experimentation required to enable one of skill in the art to practice the claimed invention. The specification at page 37 discloses that the use of peptides to examine immune responses in PMBC from three cancer patients seen in figure 3. Frequent immune responses were detected against several peptides especially the long peptides referred toas Argl-23, Argl-18, Argl-27, Argl-17, Argl-19, Argl-12, Argl-20, Argl-4, Arg1-1, Arg1-7, Arg1-14, Arg1-15, Arg1-6, Arg1-16, Arg1-22, Arg1-29. In addition, we show responses in PBMC from healthy individuals against these long peptides (figure 4). CD8 positive culture can kill target cells loaded with Arg8 on the surface as examined by standard chromium release assay as seen in figure 5. Killing of Arginase positive cancer (melanoma) cell lines FM3 and FM93 by Arginase specific T cells was also demonstrated using standard chromium release assays as seen in figure 6. In this experiment Arginase specific T cells were incubated 4 h with either Cr-labeled melanoma cell lines FM3 or FM93 at different effector: target ratios. Both cell lines express intracellular Arginase. Next we examined if CD4 CD4 T-cells can recognize arginase after in vitro stimulation. Hence, we chose to analyze PBMC from a patient with a response against Arg8 using intracellular cytokine staining. Although this method is less sensitive than ELISPOT, it allows to elucidate which immune cells secrete the cytokine identified in ELISPOT. Hence, we stimulated CD4 T cells from a cancer patients 5 times with Arg8 peptide. Next, we performed Intracellular staining against INF (PE-Cy7A) and TNF-alfa (APC-A) of the T-cell culture after 5 stimulations in vitro with Arg8 peptide. The culture is either stimulated with or without Arg8 peptide as seen in figure 7 and 8 . Both CD8 and CD4 T cells can recognize Arginase derived peptides on the surface of target cells. The region spanning positions 161 to 190 of Arginase l appears to be particularly immunogenic. This region may be referred to herein as a hotspot. The specification at page 41, top ¶ discloses eight peptides showed the highest and most abundant responses in cancer patient PBMCs (peptides labelled by reference to start and end position): Arg(31-50), Arg(111-130), Arg(161-180), Arg(171-190), Arg(181- 200), Arg(191-210), Arg(221-240), and Arg(261-280). Among these overlapping peptides, Arg(161-180), Arg(171-190), Arg(181-200), and Arg(191-210) spanned a 50-amino-acid-long region that was deemed a hot-spot region since nearly all patients harbored a response against one or more of these peptides (Fig. 9A). The selected eight peptides were further used to screen for spontaneous immune responses against arginase-1 in PBMCs from eight healthy donors using IFNy ELISPOT. As in the PBMCs from cancer patients, the PBMCs from healthy donors showed the highest IFNy responses against the four arginase peptides in the hot-spot region (Fig. 9B). These experiments confirm that the region spanning positions 161 to 190 of Arginasel is particularly immunogenic in both cancer patients and healthy donors, giving rise to both CD4 and CD8 positive T cell responses. The region may contain multiple HLA Class I and Class II restricted. Peptides derived from this region may be particularly effective in a vaccine against Arginasel . Such a vaccine would be expected to have treatment benefits in cancer (see page 43) . The specification at page 45 discloses that t umor vaccination of male Balb /c mice, age 9-10 weeks, 4 animals per group Each animal was inoculated subcutaneously into the left flank with 0.5x10E6 syngeneic CT26.WT colon cancer cells in 100pl PBS. On day6 after inoculation when tumors were palpable, animals received the first vaccination of peptide or control vaccine (as described above for peptide vaccination). On day 13, animals received the second vaccination. Tumor growth was monitored and tumors were measured 3x per week. Tumor volume was calculated . Results shows that ARG17, ARG1-19 and mARG20 were all found to be immunogenic in both C57BL/6 and Balb /c mice. Peptide specific responses were detected in both C57BL/6 and Balb /c mice vaccinated with each of ARG17, ARG1-19 and mARG20 (see Figures 14-15). Of the shorter peptides, mARG1 was immunogenic in C57BL/6 mice and mARG2 was not immunogenic in either strain (data not shown). In the tumour inoculation experiments, vaccination with each of ARG17, ARG1-19 and mARG20 was found to inhibit tumor growth relative to vaccination with control peptide. The effect was most noticeable with ARG1-19 and mARG20, although a treatment benefit was apparent for all three tested peptides. This confirms the potential of the peptides of the invention (and of vaccination against Arginase 1 in general) as treatments for cancer. The lower responses to ARG17 may reflect a lack of stability of that peptide, e.g. due to the presence of a cysteine residue. Replacement of that amino acid by conservative substitution could solve this problem without altering other properties of the sequence of Arg1 defined by positions 161-180. However, these results also suggest that the sequence of Arg1 defined by positions 181-200 and particularly 191-210 may be preferred in that they are easy to manufacture, stable and appear to generate best responses in mice. Claim 7 is directed to a genus of diseases and conditions, however the specification is limited only to melanoma and colon cancer vaccination. The specification fails to show any efficacy of the claimed peptide on the claimed broad genus of diseases and conditions. The specification even fails to show efficacy on the whole genus of cancers. It is not clear that the effect of the claimed immunogenic fragments of Arginase I is directly affecting each and every disease including any cancers. The specification fails to show any effect of Arginase II on any cancer, let alone any disease. The skilled in the art would find it unpredictable to stimulate the immune response can have a desirable effect in the context of each and every disease and cancer which is a complex system whose biological effects are finely balanced by the expression levels of competing immune cell signaling molecules, including Arginase . The specification does not provide exemplification of animal model to treat each and every each and every disease /condition including cancer in a subject with the claimed genus of immunogenic peptide fragments derived from Arginase I and II . Given the relatively incomplete understanding in correlating between the immunogenic peptide fragments derived from Arginase I and II and in vivo animal models to clinical treatment each and every disease including each and every cancer treatment involved, and the lack of a reasonable correlation between the narrow disclosure in the specification and the broad scope of protection sought in the claims, the claims are not enabled. Besides melanoma and colon cancer, o ne cannot extrapolate the teachings of the specification to the scope of the claims because the claims are drawn to the treatment of subjects suffering from each and every disease including cancer treatment using the immunogenic peptide fragments derived from Arginase I and II . Reasonable correlation must exist between the scope of the claims and scope of the enablement set forth. In view on the quantity of experimentation necessary the limited working examples, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the unpredictability of the art and the breadth of the claims, it would take undue trials and errors to practice the claimed invention. 13 . No claim is allowed. 14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. ( i ) Chapellier et al. ARGINASE-1 PEPTIDE-BASED VACCINE IS AN EXCITING APPROACH TO MODULATE THE TUMOR MICROENVIRONMENT AND DRIVE EFFICACY IN PRECLINICAL TUMOR MODELS . Immunother Cancer 2022;10(Suppl 2):A1–A1603 . (ii) Jorgensen et al. Arginase 1–Based Immune Modulatory Vaccines Induce Anticancer Immunity and Synergize with Anti–PD-1 Checkpoint Blockade. Cancer Immunol Res 2021;9:1316–26. 15 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Value for firstName-middleName-lastName?" \* MERGEFORMAT MAHER M HADDAD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Insert your individual area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0845 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from7:00AM 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 FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s area code and phone number." \* 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 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 26, 2026 /MAHER M HADDAD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1644