Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Detailed Action Summary This is the Non- Final Office Action based on application 18/550831 filed 09/15/2023 . Claims 1- 9 are pending and have been fully considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. The claimed invention of Claims 1-9 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Through 101, inquiry analysis: Are the claim s directed to a statutory category of invention? Yes, independent Claim 1 & 7 are directed to a method . Does the claim involve a Judicial Exception? Yes. Claims 1 & 7 involve a natural correlation which is the amount of the claimed biomarker expression= presence or absence of pancreatic disease diagnosis or survival time from disease. Natural correlations are laws of nature, which is a judicial exception. Claim 1, claims “diagnosing,” in the preamble, the diagnosis being the natural correlation itself. Claim 7 recites, “predicting survival time,” however includes the same diagnostic steps as in Claim 1. “Predicting survival time,” as instantly claimed is also considered and abstract idea/mental process. Has the judicial exception been integrated into a particular practical application? No, there is no integration into a practical application for independent Claims 1 or 7 . The only steps required in Claim 1 are: Determining the expression level of one of the claimed biomarkers, and Administering a treatment for pancreatic cancer. As generally claimed, the instant “determining,” can be something like reading from a chart, so this could be a mental process/abstract idea itself. Even if instrumentation was used, this would be considered data gathering to perform the judicial exception, so insignificantly extra-solution activity that doesn’t practically apply. See MPEP 2106.05 (g). For the claim ed , “administering a treatment,” as claimed could read on any treatment known to man, even a patient being given water to maintain hydration. This is akin to merely instructions to “apply,” the judicial exception in a generic way. See MPEP 2106.04 (d) (2) a. “C onsider a claim that recites the same abstract idea and “administering a suitable medication to a patient.” This administration step is not particular, and is instead merely instructions to “apply” the exception in a generic way. Thus, the administration step does not integrate the mental analysis step into a practical application.” Do the claims recite any elements which are significantly more than the judicial exception ? No, there is nothing claimed which adds significantly more to independent Claims 1 or 7. The only steps required in Claim 1 are: Determining the expression level of one of the claimed biomarkers, and Administering a treatment for pancreatic cancer. As generally claimed, the instant “determining,” can be something like reading from a chart, so this could be a mental process/abstract idea itself. Even if instrumentation was used, if the instrument itself or method of using it were generally claimed--- then it would be considered well understood, routine, and conventional in the art, as it the instant, “determining,” and therefore is not significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(d) . For the claimed, “administering a treatment,” as claimed could read on any treatment known to man, even a patient being given water to maintain hydration. Therefore, at the level of generality claimed, this is considered well understood, routine, and conventional in the art, as it the instant, “determining,” and therefore is not significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(d). Nothing in any of the dependent claims change the matters above. Claims 2-3 require further biomarkers, or make further specifications on what level in comparison with reference means the subject has or doesn’t have the disease. This is all part of the natural correlation/law of nature judicial exception itself, so does nothing to practically apply at step 2A, 2, nor does it do anything to add significantly more at step 2B. Claim 4 specifies that that biomarker levels are log transformed and summed to obtain a score. Log transforming and scoring are mathematical processes, and are abstract ideas themselves. Therefore, this does nothing to practically apply at step 2A, 2, nor does it do anything to add significantly more at step 2B. Claim 5 specifies that that the age of the subject is used as a threshold. Age is a natural occurrence, and is part of the claimed natural correlation itself Therefore, this does nothing to practically apply at step 2A, 2, nor does it do anything to add significantly more at step 2B. Claim 6 requires further biomarkers, or make s further specifications on what level in comparison with reference means the subject has or doesn’t have the disease. This is all part of the natural correlation/law of nature judicial exception itself, so does nothing to practically apply at step 2A, 2, nor does it do anything to add significantly more at step 2B. Claim 6 further specifies that that biomarker levels are log transformed and summed to obtain a score. Log transforming and scoring (protein scoring) are mathematical processes, and are abstract ideas themselves. Therefore, this does nothing to practically apply at step 2A, 2, nor does it do anything to add significantly more at step 2B. Claim 6 further specifies that that the age of the subject is used as a threshold. Age is a natural occurrence, and is part of the claimed natural correlation itself Therefore, this does nothing to practically apply at step 2A, 2, nor does it do anything to add significantly more at step 2B. Claim 8 require s further biomarkers, or make further specifications on what level in comparison with reference means the subject has or doesn’t have the disease and or when the general treatment occurs . This is all part of the natural correlation/law of nature judicial exception itself, so does nothing to practically apply at step 2A, 2, nor does it do anything to add significantly more at step 2B. Claim 9 require s further biomarkers, and makes further specifications on what level in comparison with reference means the subject has or doesn’t have the disease or a poor prognosis thereof and or when the general treatment occurs . This is all part of the natural correlation/law of nature judicial exception itself, so does nothing to practically apply at step 2A, 2, nor does it do anything to add significantly more at step 2B. 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 s 1-9 are 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 certain types of “ treatments for pancreatic cancer ,” does not reasonably provide enablement for the realm of all that can be encompassed by th is term. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. This decision was made in taking into consideration all of the Wands factors including: (A) The breadth of the claims : It is noted that these claim terms encompass a broader scope than what is actually described in the instant specification. Instant specification paragraphs 0099-0111 describe many possible treatments for pancreatic cancer, however this does not encompass something like administering water which can be read as a treatment, as broadly as the treating is instantly claimed. (B) The nature of the invention : The nature of this invention is such that any and everything treatment which could be encompassed by these terms would not work to actually treat the patient. (C) The state of the prior art : There are so many treatments available in the art one would not be able to just guess treatments that fit within the overly broad ones claimed that would work. For example, it is noted that applicant probably does not intend water to the treatment, but the claim could be read this way. (D) The level of one of ordinary skil l: The level of ordinary skill in this art is high, though even given that is the case, one would not be able to just guess treatments that fit within the overly broad ones claimed that would work. (E) The level of predictability in the art : There are so many treatments available in the art that the level of predictability of what might work and what wouldn’t is not high. (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor : The inventor does provide some amount of direction ( in paragraphs 0099-0111), but again does not provide enough direction to show how one would be able to effectively treat a patient use any and every possibility encompassed by these terms as instantly claimed in Claim 1. (G) The existence of working examples : The inventor does provide working examples, but again there is not direction enough that would support effective use of any and every treatment which could be encompassed by these terms. (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure : There are so many treatments which could be encompassed by these terms, that the quantity of experimentation would be high and consequential for someone to determine if any and every treatment encompassed by these terms would work. 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. Claims 1 - 9 are 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. With respect to Claim 1, the preamble is drawn towards a “method of diagnosing,” in a subject “in need thereof.” It is noted that in the claim body however, no diagnosing occurs, so there is a mismatch between the claim preamble and claim body, which makes the claim unclear. Further, “in need thereof,” is a relative term and not defined by the claim. “In need thereof,” would mean different things to different people, and therefore this is not clear. Further for Claim 1, it is required that “a subject identified as having an expression level of the at least one biomarker that is higher than a predetermined reference value,” is treated, however all that is claimed before this in the claim is “determining…expression levels.” So, it is unclear if there is actually any comparison to a reference or any reference sample is used in the positive claim steps or not. Claims 2 -5 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1. With respect to Claim 6 , for step i ), it is unclear if it further limits the biomarkers in claim 1 or not. It seems to not, and therefore, it is unclear why applicant is repeating this step. Are the biomarkers required to be determined again? With respect to Claim 7, the preamble is drawn towards a “method for predicting survival time.” It is noted that in the claim body however, no predicting of survival time occurs, so there is a mismatch between the claim preamble and claim body, which makes the claim unclear. Further for Claim 7, it is required that “a subject identified as having an expression level of the at least one biomarker that is higher than a predetermined reference value,” is treated, however all that is claimed before this in the claim is “determining…expression levels.” So, it is unclear if there is actually any comparison to a reference or any reference sample is used in the positive claim steps or not. Claim 8 is rejected by virtue of it’s dependency on Claim 7. With respect to Claim 9, the terms, “poor,” and “good,” and “low,” and “high,” are relative terms are not defined by the claim. These terms would be somewhat different things to different people and therefore, they are relative and not clear in the claim language. 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 made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 , 5, & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 2 (a) (1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by HAGNER in US 20170242014 . With respect to Claim 1 , HAGNER teaches of a method of detecting and treating cancers and tumors (abstract). Specifically, HAGNER teaches that the cancer can be pancreatic cancer (paragraph 0003, 0098, 0110, 0311). HAGNER teaches of detecting biomarkers including ANXA4, ANXA6 , and SERPINH1 (paragraph 0378-0379). HAGNER further teaches of diagnosing the subject as having the cancer and likely to respond to treatment if the level of biomarker is higher than the level obtained from a sample reference (paragraph 0356, 0529), and administering the treatment to the patient (paragraphs 0604-0608). With respect to Claim 5, HAGNER teaches of determining the age of the subject and of using it as a threshold for determining treatment dosage (paragraph 0509). With respect to Claim 7 , HAGNER teaches of a method of detecting and treating cancers and tumors (abstract). Specifically, HAGNER teaches that the cancer can be pancreatic cancer (paragraph 0003, 0098, 0110, 0311). HAGNER teaches of detecting biomarkers including ANXA4, ANXA6 , and SERPINH1 (paragraph 0378-0379). HAGNER further teaches of diagnosing the subject as having the cancer and likely to respond to treatment if the level of biomarker is higher than the level obtained from a sample reference (paragraph 0356, 0529), and administering the treatment to the patient (paragraphs 0604-0608). As HAGNER teaches of the claimed steps, and there is nothing in the claim body with respect to the “predicting, survival time ,”--- HAGNER teaches of this through broadest reasonable interpretation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 2- 4 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by HAGNER in US 20170242014 in view of RESOVI in Soluble stroma-related biomarkers of pancreatic cancer in view of MEYER in US 20110294136 and further in view of TING in US 20160312298 and further in view of LOGDSON in US 20050009067 and in further view of ANSARI in US 20220397576 and in further view of KENNEDY in US 20170329894 . With respect to Claim 2, HAGNER teaches of a method of detecting and treating cancers and tumors (abstract). Specifically, HAGNER teaches that the cancer can be pancreatic cancer (paragraph 0003, 0098, 0110, 0311). HAGNER teaches of detecting biomarkers including ANXA4, ANXA6, and SERPINH1 (paragraph 0378-0379). HAGNER further teaches of diagnosing the subject as having the cancer and likely to respond to treatment if the level of biomarker is higher than the level obtained from a sample reference (paragraph 0356, 0529), and administering the treatment to the patient (paragraphs 0604-0608). HAGNER does not teach of the additional 17 biomarkers in Claim 2. RESOVI is used to help remedy this and specifically teaches of a method of detecting and treating pancreatic cancer. RESOVI teaches more specifically of detecting pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) by detecting the biomarkers in 25 PDAC patients and 16 healthy subjects (control subjects). RESOVI further teaches that TIMP1, and other biomarkers to a total of 38 biomarkers, and further of using these biomarkers to monitor treatment response of PDAC patients (abstract, Page 7, column 1, last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the biomarkers of RESOVI to detect pancreatic cancer as is done in HAGNER due to the advantage these biomarkers have shown to be upregulated in, so diagnostic for pancreatic cancer patients (Page 2, column 2, last paragraph). RESOVI does not teach of the additional 15 biomarkers in Claim 2. MEYER is used to remedy this and teaches of a method of diagnosis and prognosis of pancreatic cancer comprising measurement of the expression levels of several biomarkers including AGR2, annexin A2 (ANXA2), annexin A3 (ANXA3) annexin A4 (ANXA4) (which was already taught by HAGNER) , keratin 7 (KRT7), keratin 8 (KRT8) using buffered systems (e.g. Tris-CI buffer) (Claim 1-5, paragraphs 0019, 0026, 0040, 0045, 0048-0050, 0007, table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the biomarkers of MEYER in the methods of detecting pancreatic cancer of HAGNER and RESOVI due to the need in the art for more and better diagnostic markers of cancer (paragraph 0004), these biomarkers have shown to be upregulated in, so diagnostic for pancreatic cancer patients and due to the advantages the biomarkers in MEYER show (paragraph 0014). RESOVI does not teach of the additional 10 biomarkers in Claim 2 (which are OLFM4, SERPINB5, CECAM6, CY2S1, DMBT1, KRT17, KRT18, KRT19, MAL2, MYH14, PIGR ) TING is used to remedy this and further teaches of methods for detecting tumors and cancer (abstract), and specifically of detecting pancreatic cancer (paragraph 0006). This includes detecting DMBT1, KRT19 and KRT18 (Tables 12, 14, paragraph 0245 0250) and CYP2S1 (Table 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to detect the biomarkers of TING in the methods of MEYER, HAGNER, and RESOVI due to the advantages the detection of biomarkers in TING shows (TING, paragraph 0150). RESOVI does not teach of the additional 7 biomarkers in Claim 2 (which are OLFM4, SERPINB5, CECAM6, CY2S1, KRT17, MAL2, MYH14, PIGR) . LOGSDON teaches of a method for diagnosis of cancer using biomarkers(abstract), and specifically, SERPINB5 (paragraph 0007, 0008), CEACAM6, and KRT17 (Table 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the biomarkers of LOGSDON with the method of diagnosis of pancreatic cancer of TING, MEYER, HAGNER, and RESOVI due to need in the art for better biomarkers for pancreatic cancer ( LOGSDON, paragraph 0 005 ). LOGSDON does not teach of the additional 4 biomarkers in Claim 2 (which are OLFM4, CY2S1, MAL2, MYH14, PIGR). ANSARI is used to remedy this and teaches of methods and biomarkers for diagnosing pancreatic cancer (abstract). ANSARI further teaches that MYH14, PIGR, and OLFM4 are biomarkers (Table after, paragraph 0162). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the biomarkers of ANSARI with the method of diagnosis of pancreatic cancer of LOGSDON , TING, MEYER, HAGNER, and RESOVI due to need in the art for improved biomarkers for pancreatic cancer ( ANSARI , paragraph 000 3 ). ANSARI does not teach of the additional biomarker in Claim 2 (which is MAL2). KENNEDY is used to remedy this and teaches of algorithms for disease diagnostics including pancreatic cancer (abstract, paragraph 0076 ). KENNEDY further teaches of detecting MAL2( Table 2) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the biomarker of KENNEDY with the method of diagnosis of pancreatic cancer of ANSARI, LOGSDON , TING, MEYER, HAGNER, and RESOVI due to need in the art for improved testing modalities that improve upon current methods of cancer diagnosis. ( KENNEDY , paragraph 000 6 ). With respect to Claim 3, see the above rejection of Claim 2, since Claim 3 claims overlapping subject matter with Claim 2. HAGNER further teaches of diagnosing the subject as having the cancer and likely to respond to treatment if the level of biomarker is higher than the level obtained from a sample reference (paragraph 0356, 0529), and administering the treatment to the patient (paragraphs 0604-0608). TING also teaches of determining that the markers are higher than a reference or control and this indicating disease (paragraphs 0037, 0038) . KENNEDY also teaches of determining markers higher than reference (paragraph 0022). This makes it obvious to one of ordinary skill to determine or look at the level of all the claimed biomarkers to see if they are higher or lower than the references. With respect to Claim 4, ANSARI teaches of log transforming the values (paragraph 0126, 0158). ANSARI also teaches of forming scores and a scoring system for the values (paragraph 0137, 0138). KENNEDY also teach of log transforming (paragraph 0200). TING also teaches of log transforming (paragraph 0365). LOGSDON also teaches of log transforming (paragraph 0268). It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to log transform the values as is done in ANSARI in the other pieces of prior art due to the advantage log transforming when using logistic regression has for estimating the probability certain events occur (ANSARI, paragraph 0126) . It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to create scores from the measured values as is done in ANSARI in the other pieces of prior art due to the advantage scoring has f or indicating the actual value or magnitude of which could be an indication of the actual risk of pancreatic cancer (ANSARI, paragraph 01 38 ). With respect to Claim 6, see Claims 2 & 5 as they have overlapping subject matter with Claim 6. ANSARI further teaches of forming scores and a scoring system for the values (paragraph 0137, 0138). ANSARI specifically further teaches that this can be a protein score (reads on protein signature score) (paragraph 0140) and determining if the score is above or below a threshold (paragraph 0140). The threshold level of 85 and patients age of 54 are optimizable through routine optimization, as ANSARI teaches of the analysis being able to be adjusted and specifically for age (paragraph 0125), making the claimed 54 age and threshold of 85 obvious. It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to create scores from the measured values as is done in ANSARI in the other pieces of prior art due to the advantage scoring has for indicating the actual value or magnitude of which could be an indication of the actual risk of pancreatic cancer (ANSARI, paragraph 0138). Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by HAGNER in US 20170242014 in view of MEYER in US 20110294136 . With respect to Claim 8 , HAGNER teaches of a method of detecting and treating cancers and tumors (abstract). Specifically, HAGNER teaches that the cancer can be pancreatic cancer (paragraph 0003, 0098, 0110, 0311). HAGNER teaches of detecting biomarkers (paragraph 0378-0379). HAGNER further teaches of diagnosing the subject as having the cancer and likely to respond to treatment if the level of biomarker is higher than the level obtained from a sample reference (paragraph 0356, 0529), and administering the treatment to the patient (paragraphs 0604-0608). HAGNER does not teach of the determination of ANXA3 SPB5 or PIGR. MEYER is used to remedy this and teaches of a method of diagnosis and prognosis of pancreatic cancer comprising measurement of the expression levels of several biomarkers including AGR2, annexin A2 (ANXA2), annexin A3 (ANXA3) annexin A4 (ANXA4) (which was already taught by HAGNER), keratin 7 (KRT7), keratin 8 (KRT8) using buffered systems (e.g. Tris-CI buffer) (Claim 1-5, paragraphs 0019, 0026, 0040, 0045, 0048-0050, 0007, table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the biomarkers of MEYER in the methods of detecting pancreatic cancer of HAGNER due to the need in the art for more and better diagnostic markers of cancer (paragraph 0004), these biomarkers have shown to be upregulated in, so diagnostic for pancreatic cancer patients and due to the advantages the biomarkers in MEYER show (paragraph 0014). With respect to Claim 9 , HAGNER teaches of a method of detecting and treating cancers and tumors (abstract). Specifically, HAGNER teaches that the cancer can be pancreatic cancer (paragraph 0003, 0098, 0110, 0311). HAGNER teaches of detecting biomarkers (paragraph 0378-0379). HAGNER further teaches of diagnosing the subject for if they have or do not have cancer by determining if the biomarkers are higher or lower than the level obtained from a sample reference (paragraph 0356, 0529), and administering the treatment to the patient (paragraphs 0604-0608). HAGNER does not teach of the determination of AGR2 or SEPH. MEYER is used to remedy this and teaches of a method of diagnosis and prognosis of pancreatic cancer comprising measurement of the expression levels of several biomarkers including AGR2, annexin A2 (ANXA2), annexin A3 (ANXA3) annexin A4 (ANXA4) (which was already taught by HAGNER), keratin 7 (KRT7), keratin 8 (KRT8) using buffered systems (e.g. Tris-CI buffer) (Claim 1-5, paragraphs 0019, 0026, 0040, 0045, 0048-0050, 0007, table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the biomarkers of MEYER in the methods of detecting pancreatic cancer of HAGNER due to the need in the art for more and better diagnostic markers of cancer (paragraph 0004), these biomarkers have shown to be upregulated in, so diagnostic for pancreatic cancer patients and due to the advantages the biomarkers in MEYER show (paragraph 0014). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. LAMPE in US 20170322216 teaches of methods of using certain biomarker expression profiles in the detection, diagnosis, prognosis, or development of treatment regimens for various cellular hyperproliferative disorders of the pancreas. For example, methods comprise detecting whether the concentration of ERBB2, ESR1, and TNC in a test biological sample from a subject is elevated as compared to a control (abstract). LAMPE further teaches of detecting TIMP1 and SERPINH1 (paragraphs 0055-0056). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT REBECCA M FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4344 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:30-4:30 MT Monday-Friday . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Maris Kessel can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7698 . The fax phone number for the organizatio n 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. /REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758