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 Status of the Claims Claims 1-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19-21, 24 and 30 are pending in this application. Claims 1-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19-21, 24 and 30 are presently under consideration. Claim Objections Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim av b 6 is misspelled twice (lines 2 and 4). Appropriate correction is required. 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 30 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. The claim is drawn to a method of inhibiting growth of a cancer cell overexpressing integrin av b 6 , the method comprising administering to a patient in need thereof a composition comprising a synthetic peptide that specifically binds a v b 6 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, the synthetic peptide comprising an amino acid sequence selected from the group of X 1 X 2 VX 3 NLRGDLQVLX 4 QKVCX 5 T (SEQ ID NO:18), X 1 X 2 VX 3 NLRGDLQVLX 4 QKVCX 5 TX 6 (SEQ ID NO:19), and X 1 X 2 VX 3 NLRGDLQVLX 4 QKVCX 5 TX 6 X 7 (SEQ ID NO:20), wherein at least one of X 1 , X 2 , or both X 1 and X 2 is a cysteine. . It is noted that the language “comprising an amino acid sequence” encompasses any 2 or more consecutive amino acids of SEQ ID NO: 1 9 or SEQ ID NO: 20. When referring to the synthetic peptide, the specification does not provide any other structural attributes associated with it . Without a correlation between structure and function, the claims do little more than define the claimed invention by function. That is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (“A definition by function alone “does not suffice” to sufficiently describe a coding sequence because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is”).” Here, the specification fails to describe wh ich 2 or more consecutive amino acids of SEQ ID NO: 19 or SEQ ID NO: 20 correlates with the required activity (i.e. to inhibit growth of a cancer cell overexpressing integrin a v b 6 ). The MPEP states that a broad genus can be described by a showing of representative number of examples. The claims in the instant application are broad. Based on the teachings of the specification, the synthetic peptide can be any 2 or more consecutive amino acids of SEQ ID NO: 19 or SEQ ID NO: 20 , which encompasses an enormous number of possible peptides. However, the specification fails to provide a representative number of examples for the claimed peptide (SEQ ID NOs: 2-20) . The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming a rejection for lack of written description because the specification does “little more than outline goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate”). Therefore, since the specification fails to identify any relevant structural characteristics that can be attributed to the claimed function and activity, the claimed invention lacks written description. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19-21 and 30 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. Claim 1 is drawn to a synthetic peptide comprising an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 18. It is noted that the variables X 3 -X 5 are not defined, thus making the claim indefinite. I t is also noted that in the case where only one of X 1 or X 2 is cysteine, the other one (i.e. X 1 or X 2 ) is not defined . Similarly, claim s 2- 30 fails to define the variables X 1 -X 7 . In order to advance prosecution, variables X 1 -X 7 have been interpreted as being any amino acid. Claims 2-9, 11-13, 15-17 and 19-21, which depend from claim 1, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as these claims incorporate by dependency the indefiniteness of claim 1 . 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. Claims 1-3 , 24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Howard et al. (WO 2007/039728) . First of all, it is noted that the language “comprising an amino acid sequence” encompasses any 2 or more consecutive amino acids of SEQ ID NO: 18. Applicant should strike out the phrase “an amino acid sequence of”. With respect to claims 1-3 , Howard et al. teach the peptide eykCP NLRDLQVLAQKVCRT K (page 53; Table 4), which comprises an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 18 (highlighted and bolded above). With respect to claim 24 , the peptide of Howard et al. comprises several 2 or more consecutive amino acids of instant SEQ ID NOs: 2-7. With respect to claim 30 , Howard et al. teach treating an a v b 6 mediated disease (claim 25), wherein the disease is cancer (claim 26). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SERGIO COFFA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3022 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 6AM-4PM . 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 MELISSA FISHER can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7430 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /SERGIO COFFA Ph.D./ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1658 /SERGIO COFFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658