DETAILED ACTION 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. Claims 1-2, 9, 11-19, 22, 25-27, 29-30, 33-39, and 47 are pending, as amended 12/22/23, and are considered herein. Specification The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 13 and 36 each contain a sequence requiring a sequence identifier. Claims 14, 17-18, and 26 contain sequence identifiers. However, there is no sequence listing provided in the case. Additionally, these same sequences are provided in the specification, and others, and there is no sequence listing for the sequences and identifiers. Thus, the specification is objected to for not containing a sequence listing (See also, PTO-2301, Attached). 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. Claim s 12-14, 17-18, 26, and 36 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 12: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “repeated 2 … or more times”, and the claim also recites “3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or more times” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 13 and 36 each contain sequences requiring sequence identifiers, but there is no sequence listing in the specification, thus, a proper search by the search facility cannot be conducted. Thus, the claims are rejected for lack of antecedent basis in the specification. Claims 14, 17-18, and 26 contain sequence identifiers, but there is no sequence listing to allow proper search by the office search facilities to be provided. The claims are rejected for lack of antecedent basis in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 12, 15, 19, 27, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Schinko , et al. (2010) “Functionality of the GAL4/UAS system in Tribolium requires the use of endogenous core promoters”, BMC Developmental Biology, 10: 53 (12 pages) . Claim 1: Schinko teaches several constructs that meet the requirements of having at least one heat shock element, a core promoter, and gene of interest. For Example, Figure 1 demonstrates several. The Abstract lists several. The title makes clear the core promoter is utilized , however, it should be noted that the claims comprise this core promoter, it is not limited to being a core promoter . Claim 2: Schinko teaches promoters requiring at least 45 deg C, and incubation at 48 deg C (p. 3, col. 2, paragraph 2). Claims 9: the heat shock conditions utilized a water bath heated and placed in an incubator (e.g., p. 3, col. 2, paragraph 2). The heating element, absent reason to believe otherwise, emitted near infrared light, as it was heated . Claim 12: it is noted that that hsp68 contains several HSF binding sites, and these elements are therefore repeated at least twice (e.g., p. 4, paragraph bridging columns). Claim 15: the HSP core promoter has the HSP start site (e.g., Figure 1). Claim 19: reporter proteins are taught (e.g., Figure 1), and any protein may be a reporter, for its own presence. Claim 27: piggyBac vectors are utilized (e.g., p. 2, last paragraph). Claim 33: the vectors and heating element are provided as shown above, and thus, the kit is anticipated. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 11-15, 17-19, 22, 27, 29-30, and 33-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2017/133633 A1 to Xiaohu , et al. Claim 1 : Xaiohu teaches treating cancer with compositions of engineered cells, comprising a nucleic acid encoding an immune modulator, which may also be used with other technolgoies , including CAR and TCR cell immunotherapy (e.g., ABSTRACT). Xaiohu teaches the composition’s nucleic acid may include a promoter with one or more heat shock elements (e.g., paragraph 195). A core promoter is necessarily present as it is part of the promoter. These are then attached to express a transgene, which may be an antibody to PD1 CTIA-4, and several other targets of interest (e.g., p p. 29-42). Claim 2: paragraph 196 discusses HSP90, HSP7 0 , HSP60, HSP40 and HSP10, which all activate at these temperatures. Claims 9 and 11, the heat shock promoters and elements can be activated by infared light sources. Claim 12: the HSPs cited, all contain repeating elements. For example, HSP90 promoter contains the nGGAn repeated sequence, which binds to HSF1 and this activates its transcription. Claim 13: HSP70 promoter contains the same sequence. Claim 14: while a proper search cannot be done, the Examienr believes these sequences are found in one of HSP90, HSP70, HSP60, HSP40, and HSP10 appear to contain these sequences. The rejection may be dropped upon proper rebuttal and sequences are provided, but is provided for purposes of compact prosecution. Claim 15: the HSP promoters contain the start sites of heat shock proteins, by definition . Claim 16: Claim 17: while a proper search cannot be conducted, the Examiner believes these sequences are found in one of HSP90, HSP70, HSP60, HSP40, and HSP10 . However, a rebuttal will overcome it, if the sequences are provided and shown otherwise. This is for purposes of compact prosecution. Claim 18: while a proper search cannot be conducted, the Examiner believes these sequences are found in one of HSP90, HSP70, HSP60, HSP40, and HSP10. However, a rebuttal will overcome it, if the sequences are provided and shown otherwise. This is for purposes of compact prosecution. Claim 19: paragraph 150 demonstrates a reporter gene may be present. Claim 22: paragraph 165 demonstrates, e.g., IL-4 may be used. Claim 27: The vectors are taught (e.g., paragraph 236). Claims 29-30: CAR T cells are taught (e.g., paragraph 237). Claim 33: paragraph 287 indicates that the site may be heated to activate expression, and thus, a heat source is required for these embodiments. Claim 34: the same treatment of cancer with these cells comprising the constructs is taught to be by administration to the subject (e.g., paragraph 275). Claim 35: the same treatment of cancer with these cells comprising the constructs is taught to be by administration to the subject (e.g., paragraph 275). Claim 36: HSP70 promoter contains the same sequence. Claim 37: as shown above, CAR T cells may be utilized. Claim 38: As shown above, CAR T cells may be utilized. Claim 39: paragraph 196 discusses HSP90, HSP70, HSP60, HSP40 and HSP10, which all activate at these temperatures. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim (s) 1, 2, 9, 11-15, 17-19, 22, 27, 29-30, 33-39 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/133633 A1 to Xiaohu , et al. , and Lipson, et al. (2015) “Antagonists of PD-1 and PD-L1 in Cancer Treatment”, Seminars in Oncology, 42(4): 587-600. As noted above, the various claims are anticipated by, and thus, also obvious over Xiaohu . However, the aspect of an anti-PD1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy is not taught as an adjunct method in treating the cancer. On other hand, Xiaohu does teaches the use of known first, second, third, or combination therapies, including other cancer therapies, with the present therapies (e.g., paragraph 273). Further, Lipson teaches that it is well known to utilize antagonists of PD-1 and PD-L1 in treatment of many cancer (e.g., abstract). Thus, at the time of invention, it would have been obvious to modify Xiaohu with a co-therapy of anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 in treating these cancers it was known to work in. The Artisan would do so to help with the help the therapy over Xiaohu alone, and would expect success, as the components are utilized for art-recognized purposes. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim (s) 1, 2, 9, 11-19, 22, 27, 29-30, and 33-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/133633 A1 to Xiaohu , et al., and Smith, et al. (2007) “Sequence Analysis of HSPA1A and HSPA1B in a multi-ethnic study population”, DNA sequence: the journal of DNA sequencing and mapping, 18(1): 57-53 (ABSTRACT ONLY, 1 page long) . As noted above, the various claims are anticipated by, and thus, also obvious over Xiaohu . However, the aspect of an HSPA1A promoter is not taught. On the other hand, Xiaohu , while teaching specifically several other promoters does teach that other promoters may be used, as the teaching is illustrative, and not limiting, and also notes that they are widely known in the Art (e.g., paragraph 196). Smith demonstrates that the sequence of the promoter of HSPA1A has been known for a long time (e.g., ABSTRACT). Thus, at the time of invention, it would have been obvious to modify Xiaohu with the HSPA1A promoter region, which includes its HSP elements. The Artisan would do so as the sequence was known and it was a heat shock protein promoter and elements. The Artisan would expect success, as the components are utilized for art-recognized purposes. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim (s) 1, 2, 9, 11- 15, 17- 19, 22, 25, 27, 29-30, and 33-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/133633 A1 to Xiaohu , et al., and Zhang, et al. (2011) “Cancer Immunotherapy Using a Bispecific NK Receptor Fusion Protein that Engages both T cells and Tumor Cells”, Cancer Research, 71(6): 2066-76. As noted above, the various claims are anticipated by, and thus, also obvious over Xiaohu . However, the aspect of bispecific T cell engager with the anti-CD3 and NKG2D extracellular region is not taught. On the other hand, Xiao makes clear that ht eantibodies utilized may be multi-specific (e.g., the definition for “antibody”), and the definition for “diabodies” includes bispecific antibodies. Further BiTEs are specifically named in the section “immunomodulators”. Moreover, Zhang teaches a bispecific antibody that engages CD3 through an scFV and a NKG2D receptor region (e.g., ABSTRACT). This is taught for Cancer Immunotherapy (e.g., TITLE). Thus, at the of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify Xiaohu with the bispecific engager with the structure of an antibody to CD3 and NKDG2D receptor. The Artisan would do so to treat the cancer, and would expect success, as the components are utilized for art-recognized purposes. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT M KELLY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0729 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 8a-5p . 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 Tracy Vivlemore can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2914 . 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 ROBERT M. KELLY Examiner Art Unit 1638 /ROBERT M KELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1638