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 Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt and entry of the communication filed on Dec. 05, 2023 . Claims 1-19 and 34 are pending and are examined. Claim Objection The base claim s 12 , 16 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities : In claim 12, the word “is” needs to be added between “ immunomodulator ” and interferon alpha (IFN α ) ”. In claim 16, the “and” between “… intranasally and intramuscularly ” should be changed to “or” . In claim 19, the term “CSF-2” is duplicated. Appropriate correction is required . 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-4, 9, 13-19 and 34 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. The base claim 1 and the claim 9 recite the term “ depicted ” that renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the “depicted” means “comprising”, “consisting” or just an example. For purposes of compact prosecution and applying prior art, claim s 1 and 9 were interpreted herein to encompass VSVd51-hGM-CSF construct comprising SEQ ID NO:1. The base claim 1 recites a term “ a functional equivalent ” that render the claim indefinite. It is unclear what “a functional equivalent” is represent for and how to determine a functional equivalent . There is no meet and bound for the term. Claims 13-19 recite a phrase “ t he method of claim 1” that render the claims indefinite because the claim1 is a composition not a method . So, it is not clear what “the method of claim 1” means. Claims 13 -15 and 17-18 re cite the limitations “said patient ” and “the solid cancer” respectively in reference to the claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation s in the claim. Claims 17-19 recite a composition for “ increases expression of at least one of CD80, CD86, HLA-DR and PD-L 1 ” ( claim 17 ) , “ increases ATP levels in said patient ” ( claim 18 ) and “increases gene expression of at least one of CCL4, CCL5, CXCL9, CXCL 10, CXCL 11, IFNy, /L6, IRF- 1, CSF-2, TNFa, CSF-2, TAP1 and TAP2 ” ( claim 19 ), where the term “increases” render s the claims indefinite. It is not clear how the composition “increases” the gene expression or the ATP level. The specification does not provide descriptions on how the “ increase s ” effects are approached . The recitation “ increase ’ is a relative term having no definite meaning and it is unclear how “ increase ” is determined or what degree of increasing is necessary. Applicant has not defined the degree of increasing (e.g., 2-fold, 5-fold, etc.). The specification does not define “ increase ” such that one of ordinary skill in the art would know the claimed ATP level and gene expression are increased . Therefore , one of ordinary skill in the art will not know the metes and bounds of the claim s . 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. Claims 1-4, 13-19 and 34 are 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 base claim 1 is directed to a composition comprising (a) (iii) a nucleotide sequence having at least 70% identity with SEQ ID NO: 1 , and (b) a carrier. Claim 34 is directed to a method of treating a solid cancer comprising administering to a patient in need thereof the composition of claim 1. The written description rejection is made because the claims are interpreted as being drawn to a composition recited as being “at least 7 0% identity” to the instant claimed SEQ ID NO: 1. This means that up to 3 0% nucleotide sequence of the composition can vary. The applicable standard for the written description requirement can be found in MPEP 2163; University of California v. Eli Lilly, 43 USPQ2d 1398 at 1407; PTO Written Description Guidelines; Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 63 USPQ2d 1609; Vas- Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111; and University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 69 USPQ2d 1886 (CAFC 2004). The instant specification discloses that the composition can be a nucleotide sequence having at least 70% identity with SEQ ID NO: 1 and a carrier, where the carrier is disclosed “a s used herein, " pharmaceutical composition " means therapeutically effective amounts (dose) of an agent together with pharmaceutically acceptable diluents, preservatives, solubilizers, emulsifiers, adjuvants and/or carriers ” (See the instant specification, [0048] ), which indicates that the claimed composition can be a pharmaceutical composition . Also, claim 34 recites the composition for treating a solid cancer. H owever, the specification does not indicate which portions of the claimed SEQ ID NO : 1 is essential to retain the ability to be a functional composition to treat solid cancers or which portions of SEQ ID NO : 1 can be modified or altered up to 3 0% and still retain the ability to be part of the composition for cancer treatments as claimed. The court clearly states in Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111, that "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed." (See page 1117.). As discussed above, the skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed nucleotide sequence structure including genomic sequence of the encompassed composition that are "at least 70 % identical” to SEQ ID NO : 1, therefore , the full breadth of the claims does not meet the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Scope of Enablement) 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. Claims 5- 8, 10- 12 and 34 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 to show the VSV d51-hGM-CSF can treat bladder cancer (See Example 1), does not reasonably provide enablement for a method for treating any solid cancers using a composition comprising any VSV and any growth factor as well as a composition comprising any functional equivalent or any nucleotide sequence having at least 70% identity with SEQ ID NO: 1 . The base claim 5 is directed to method of treating a solid cancer comprising administering to a patient in need thereof a composition comprising a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) and a growth factor . The claim 34 is directed to a method of treating a solid cancer comprising administering to a patient in need thereof the composition of claim 1 , where the claim 1 is a composition comprising (a) (ii) or a functional equivalent thereof, or (iii) a nucleotide sequence having at least 70% identity with SEQ ID NO: 1 and (b) a carrier. Based on the claims, they indicate that any VSV and any growth factor, or any functional equivalent or any nucleotide sequence having at least 70% identity with SEQ ID NO: 1 can treat any solid cancers. The instant specification discloses that the VSVd51 expressing human GM-CSF (VSV-hGM-CSF) was cloned from parental VSVd51 expressing GFP (VSVd51) and mice were anaesthetized and chemical lesions were induced by intra - intravesical instillation of 50 μI of 5x 10^ 8 PFU of VSV d51 or VSVd51-mGM-CSF or vehicle for control groups and then the Bladder tumor growth was monitored bi-weekly by small animal ultrasound (See [0055] - [ 0057]) , and also discloses that Bladder tumor tissue from patients 34 and 38 were collected after surgery (Human protocol #: 2018-2465, approved by the ethics board of CIUSSS de l'Estrie CHUS) and placed in cDMEM (See [0064]). The instant specification further discloses that VSVd51-hGM-CSF enhances immune signature, biomarkers of ICD and autologous immune cell activation in human BC patient derived organoids. ICD and immune activation of BC patient derived organoids from patient 34 and 38 as measured through (A) fold change in gene expression following infection with VSVd51-hGM-CSF following 18 h and 10 MOI; showing in (B) ( See e.g., [0026]). Based on the disclosure s here , the VSVd51-hGM-CSF can be used to treat Bladder cancer (BC). However, the specification does not provide evidence to support a method to use a generic VSV and a generic growth factor to treat a generic solid cancer in patients, thus it does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. To be enabling, the specification of the patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wriqht, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Explaining what is meant by "undue experimentation," the Federal Circuit has stated: The test is not merely quantitative, since a considerable amount of experimentation is permissible, if it is merely routine, or if the specification in question provides a reasonable amount of guidance with respect to the direction in which the experimentation should proceed to enable the determination of how to practice a desired embodiment of the claimed invention. PPG v. Guardian, 75 F.3d 1558, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1996).1 The factors that may be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation are set forth by In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (CAFC 1988) at 1404 where the court set forth the eight factors to consider when assessing if a disclosure would have required undue experimentation. Citing Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546 (BdApls 1986) at 547 the court recited eight factors: 1) the nature of the invention, 2) the state of the prior art, 3) the breadth of the claims, 4) the amount of guidance in the specification, 5) the presence or absence of working examples, 6) the relative skill of those in the art, 7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and 8) and the quantity of experimentation necessary . Id. While it is not essential that every factor be examined in detail, those factors deemed most relevant should be considered. M.P.E.P. §2164.03 [R-2] states: [I]n applications directed to inventions in arts where the results are unpredictable, the disclosure of a single species usually does not provide an adequate basis to support generic claims. In re Soil, 97 F.2d 623,624, 38 USPQ 189, 191 (CCPA 1938). In cases involving unpredictable factors, such as most chemical reactions and physiological activity, more may be required. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833,839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970). See also In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488,496, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1991). A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the specification does not provide sufficient guidance to allow one skilled in the art to practice the claimed invention on the full scope with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation. In the absence of such guidance and evidence of working examples, the specification fails to provide an enabling disclosure commensurate in scope with the claim s. 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, 10-12, 14, 17 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" by over Altomonte et al. ( US 2023/0381256 A 1, publication date: Nov. 30, 2023, foreign application priority date: Nov . 02, 2020, hereinafter “Altomonte”). The base claim 1 is directed to a composition comprising: (a) (i) VSVd51-hGM-CSF construct as depicted in SEQ ID NO: 1, (ii) or a functional equivalent thereof, or (iii) a nucleotide sequence having at least 70% identity with SEQ ID NO: 1; and (b) a carrier. Altomonte teaches a pharmaceutical composition, comprising a recombinant oncolytic virus, or a nucleic acid encoding the recombinant oncolytic virus, where the nucleotide sequence is SEQ ID NO: 16, or a nucleotide sequence having at least 60% sequence identity to the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 16 (See claims 11-12, page 69). Here the SEQ ID NO: 16 shows 85.3% matching to the claimed SEQ ID NO: 1 (See Table A below ). Altomonte also teaches that the pharmaceutical composition comprising pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (s) and/or excipient (s) (See [0042]- [0044]). Accordingly, Altomonte teaches the base claim1 (a)-(iii) at “a nucleotide sequence having at least 70% identity with SEQ ID NO: 1” and a carrier claimed in the base claim (b). Regarding claims 2- 4 , 14 and 34 , Altomonte teaches a method for the prevention and/or treatment of cancer wherein said method comprises administering to a subject in need of such prevention or treatment the recombinant oncolytic virus of claim 1, or a nucleic acid encoding the virus of claim 1, where the cancer is selected from hepatocellular carcinoma, pancreatic cancer, and melanoma (See claims 15 and 17, page 69) . Here the” melanoma” teaches the instant claims 2-3 and 14 , where the claim 2 is an intended use that is not given patentable weight . Altomonte also teaches that the administration is through “The pharmaceutical composition formulated for any of systemic delivery, tumor injection, intravenous administration, and intra-arterial administration, and/or for an intradermal, subcutaneous, intramuscular, intravenous, intraosseous, intraperitoneal, intrathecal, epidural, intracardiac, intraarticular, intracavernous, intracerebral, intracerebroventricular, or intravitreal injection” (See claim 13, page 69) that teaches the instant claim 4 . Also, the description above also teach claim 34 at “method of treating a solid cancer comprising administering to a patient in need thereof the composition of claim 1” as claimed. Regarding claims 5 and 10 -12 , they require a method of treating a solid cancer comprising administering to a patient in need a composition comprising a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) and a growth factor (claim 5 ), and immunomodulator ( claims 10-12) . Altomonte teaches a method for the prevention and/or treatment of cancer through administering to a subject the recombinant oncolytic virus, or a nucleic acid encoding the virus, where the recombinant oncolytic virus comprising VSV (See claim1 and 15, page 69), and further teaches that it further comprises an immune stimulating gene, e.g. IFN-α, IFN-β, or granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), IL-12, or IL-15 (See e.g., [0100]-[0105]), where the GM-CSF, IL-12 and IL-15 are immunomodulator ( claim 10 ), and IFN-α is a type I interferon ( claims 11-12 ). Regarding claim 17, Altomonte teaches that the sPD-1 used in the construct and discloses that it is preferably a "high affinity" version having increased affinity compared to wild type sPD-1. Such high affinity version is, for example, produced via an introduction of a single alanine to leucine substitution at amino acid 132 (A132L) to result in a 45- and 30-fold higher affinity binding to its ligands, PD-L1 and PD-L2 [2], respectively, or is, for example, a high affinity consensus variant encoding an isoleucine or valine at position 41 having a 40,000-fold higher affinity for PD-L1 than the wildtype (See [0074]), where the PD-L1 enhances the oncolytic immunotherapeutic effect (See 0007]). Therefore, Altomonte teaches each and every aspect of claims 1-5, 10-12, 14, 17 and 34 . 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. Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altomonte as applied to claims 1-5, 10-12, 14, 17 and 34 above and further in view of Arulanandam et al. (Nat Commun. 2015 Mar 30; 6:6410, hereinafter “Arulanandam”) . Claim 6 requires the VSV is VSVd5 1. Claim 19 requires Claim 19 requires the method with the composition can increase the gene expressions on at least one of CCL4, CCL5, CXCL9, CXCL 10, CXCL 11, IFNy, /L6, IRF-1, CSF-2, TNFα, CSF-2, TAP1 and TAP2 compared to untreated controls. Altomonte teaches composition comprising nucleotide sequence having at least 70% identity with SEQ ID NO: 1 as claimed and a carrier. However, it is silent on the VSVd51 and the increasing gene expression of on at least one of CCL4, CCL5, CXCL9, CXCL 10, CXCL 11, IFNy, /L6, IRF-1, CSF-2, TNFα, CSF-2, TAP1 and TAP2 . Arulanandam teaches that o ne of the first characterized and widely studied oncolytic strains of VSV (VSVD51) harbors a deletion at methionine 51 in the matrix (M) protein, and the VSVd51 that cannot replicate in normal cells that have fully functional antiviral systems but replicates robustly in tumor cells that have lost the ability to mount an effective antiviral response (See page 2, left column) . It discloses that they use VSVD51-expressing GM-CSF to further increase antitumor activity ( (See page 5, left column, paragraph 4; Figure 2e). Here the description above teaches the VSVd51 in claim 6 . Arulanandam also teaches that they generate a microarray data looking for secreted proteins between 10 and 50 kDa induced by VSVD51 in both vehicle- and colchicine-treated conditions. The short list of these candidates is shown in Supplementary Table 2. In addition to type I IFNs, this included several growth-promoting cytokines (for example, Rantes, IP-10, CXCL11, IL-8 and IL-6) as well as death-inducing cytokines (for example, tumour necrosis factor (TNF)- α and other TNF-related proteins) (See page 8, right column, paragraph 2, Figure 5, page 9 and Supplementary Table 2 below). It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce VSVd51 and the gene expression analysis of Arulanandam into Altomonte’s invention to arrive at an invention as claimed. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so based on the advantage using VSVd51 and the gene expression profile , and there would be a reasonable expectation of success to develop such a method as claimed. Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altomonte as applied to claims 1-5, 10-12, 14, 17 and 34 above and further in view of Kirn et al. (WO 2012/094386 A1, published on July 12, 2012 , herein after “Kirn” , submitted in IDS filed on 12/05/ 2023) . Claims 7-8 require the growth factor is a human GM-CSF. Claims 15-16 require the solid cancer is bladder cancer ( claim 15 ) and several specific route for administering the composition ( claim 16 ) . Altomonte teaches composition comprising nucleotide sequence having at least 70% identity with SEQ ID NO: 1 as claimed and a carrier. However, it is silent on the bladder cancer and not specifically point out the human GM-CSF . Kirn teaches that the oncolytic virus such as VSV may comprise therapeutic or other transgenes. For example, the transgene may be a heterologous nucleic acid sequence encodes GM-CSF, or others (See [0010]), where the GM-CSF can be human GM-CSF or murine GM-CSF (See [00113]). Kirn further teaches that in their experiment, JX-594 expressing human GM-CSF (JX-594) was most efficient at inducing CDC mediating antibodies, with a decrease in cell viability apparent upon incubation with 1.25% and 2.5% serum. In contrast, treatment with JX-594 expressing murine GM-CSF induced CDC only at higher concentrations of serum (note: as an additional control, VSV expressing murine GM-CSF did not induce CDC at any concentration tested) (See [00110]- [00113]), which indicates that the human GM-CSF is critical to induce tumor-specific antibodies mediating CDC on human cancer cells. Kirn also teaches that the cancer treated includes the bladder cancer (See claim 10, page 46) . For the administration route in claim 16 , Altomonte does not list the administering route as parenterally , orally, intrathecally , topically and intranasally as claimed in claim 16 . However, Altomonte teaches that i n one embodiment, the pharmaceutical composition as defined above is formulated for any of systemic delivery, tumor injection, intravenous administration, and intra-arterial administration [see [0056]), and also lists other administration routes at an intradermal, subcutaneous, intramuscular, intravenous, intraosseous, intraperitoneal, intrathecal, epidural, intracardiac, intraarticular, intracavernous, intracerebral, intracerebroventricular, or intravitreal injection (See [0055]). Nevertheless, Kirn teaches the route of administration as parenterally, orally, intrathecally and intranasally (See [ 0057 ], [ 0066] ), and further teach the treatment can be accomplished a direct local application of the area with an additional anti-cancer therapy such as administration of the oncolytic viruses described (See [0076]), which is reasonable to be consider ed a topical treatment as claimed. It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce the human GM-CSF, the treatment on bladder cancer and the different administration routes of Kirn into Altomonte’s invention to arrive at an invention as claimed . One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for using the composition of Altomonte with human GM-CSF to treat different type of cancers such as bladder cancer with varies administration routes to choose , and there would be a reasonable expectation of success to develop such as method as claimed based on teachings of Altomonte and Kirn. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altomonte as applied to claims 1-5, 10-12, 14, 17 and 34 above and further in view of Xue et al. ( Vaccine. 2017 Mar 14;35(12):1599-1607. , hereinafter ‘ Xue ”). Claim 13 requires the method comprising administering Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) to said patient. Altomonte teaches a composition comprising nucleotide sequence having at least 70% identity with SEQ ID NO: 1 as claimed and a carrier. However, it is silent on administering Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) to said patient . Xue studies the Anti- tumor research of recombinant BCG using BZLF1 and hGM-CSF fusion genes and teaches that rBCG secreting cytokines hybridized with hGM-CSF and BZLF1 antibodies and that the rBCG vaccine stimulated antibody production in C57BL/6 mice. The specific cytotoxic effects of the spleen cells from the rBCG group on EB virus-positive tumor cells was significantly different from the cytotoxic effects of the control group cells (P < 0.01) (See Abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce the BCG of Xue into Altomonte’s invention to arrive at an invention as claimed. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the application of rBCG has obvious protective effects on EB-positive tumor cell growth (See page 1603, right column) , and t he rBCG group exhibited the smallest tumors , followed by the BCG (GM-CSF), BCG (BZLF1), and pMV261 + BCG BCG groups (See page 1603, left column). Thus, there would be a reasonable expectation of success to develop such as a method using BCG as claimed. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altomonte as applied to claims 1-5, 10-12, 14, 17 and 34 above and further in view of Gebremeskel et al. ( J Immunother Cancer. 2021 Mar;9(3 ): e 002096. hereinafter “Gebremeskel” ). Claim 18 requires the composition increases ATP levels in said patient. Altomonte teaches composition comprising nucleotide sequence having at least 70% identity with SEQ ID NO: 1 as claimed and a carrier. However, it is silent on the ATP level. Gebremeskel studies the n atural killer T cell immunotherapy combined with oncolytic VSV or reovirus treatments differentially increases survival in mouse models of ovarian and breast cancer metastasis and teaches that o ncolytic VSV also induced the key hallmarks of ICD (calreticulin mobilization, plus release of ATP and HMGB1) (See Abstract). Gebremeskel further teaches that s ome oncolytic viruses have been shown to stimulate antitumor immunity by causing ICD of cancer cells . Important mediators of ICD being surface mobilization of CLR and extracellular release of ATP and HMGB1 . Gebremeskel further discloses that only VSV increased the extracellular release of ATP and HMGB1, signals that induce migration and maturation of antigen presenting cells. This demonstrates that VSV but not reovirus induced the classical hallmarks of ICD (See page 10, left column, paragraph 2). It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce measuring ATP level of Xue in to Altomonte’s invention to arrive at an invention as claimed. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because VSV can induce the classical hallmarks of ICD , and increase the ATP level. T here would be a reasonable expectation of success to develop a method to increase the ATP levels as claimed. Allowable Subject Matter The nucleic acid sequence SEQ ID N O : 1 is free of prior art. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RUIXUE WANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7960 . The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, EST. 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, Thomas J. Visone can be reached on (571) 270-0684. 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. /RUIXUE WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1672