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 Claims 1-17 are presented for examination. Acknowledgment is made of the present application as a National Stage (371) entry of PCT Application No. PCT/US21/22156, filed March 12, 2021, which claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/989,341, filed March 13, 2020. Requirement for Restriction/Election Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group II (claims 10-15 ), directed to a method of treating an illness caused by a coronavirus, swine flu, or avian flu in a subject comprising administering systemically to the subject a non-antibacterial tetracycline compound , and the election of incyclinide (also known as “CMT-3/COL-3 ” as acknowledged by Applicant at p.2 of the Reply filed 12/08/25 ) as the single disclosed species of non-antibacterial tetracycline compound , to which examination on the merits will be confined, as stated in the reply filed December 8, 2025 , is acknowledged by the Examiner. Therefore, for the reasons above and those made of record at p. 2-6 of the Office Action dated October 8, 2025 , the requirement remains proper and is hereby made FINAL . Claims 1-9 and 1 5 -17 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being directed to non-elected subject matter. The claims that are drawn to the elected invention and elected species are claims 10-14 and such claims are herein acted on the merits infra . Priority Acknowledgment is made of the present application as a National Stage (371) entry of PCT Application No. PCT/US21/22156, filed March 12, 2021, which claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/989,341, filed March 13, 2020. The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original non-provisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc. , 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The disclosure of prior-filed U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/989,341, filed March 13, 2020, fails to provide adequate written support and/or enabling guidance as set forth under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112 for one or more claims of the present application. Specifically, the ‘341 disclosure fails to clearly disclose the systemic administration of a “non-antibacterial tetracycline compound” for the treatment of any illness that is caused by “a coronavirus [including COVID-19], swine flu or avian flu” (claim 10), particularly when administered in an amount that is specifically “effective to treat” this broad scope of “illness”, but with “substantially no antibacterial activity” (claim 10). As a result, Applicant’s claims are not entitled to the benefit of the earlier effective filing date of this ‘341 application. Accordingly, the effective filing date of claims 10-14 is March 12, 2021 (the filing date of PCT Application No. PCT/US21/22156). The Examiner will revisit the issue of priority as necessary each time the claims are amended. Information Disclosure Statement Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed September 26, 2024 (two pages total) has been received and entered into the present application. As reflected by the attached, completed copy of form PTO/SB/08a, the Examiner has considered the cited references. Objection to the Claims Claims 11-14 are objected to for reciting “[a] method according to [c] laim 10”, which is grammatically awkward as it does not use the proper antecedent basis to refer to prior claim 10. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant may wish to consider amending each of claims 11-14 to recite ---[t]he method according to [c] laim 10--- to obviate the instant objection, but is reminded that the adoption of such suggestion does not necessarily equate to the obviation of any other objection and/or rejection set forth infra . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) (Pre-AIA Second Paragraph) 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. (1) Claims 10-14 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. Applicant’s claim 10 is directed to “[a] method of treating an illness caused by a coronavirus, swine flu or avian flu, in a subject in need thereof” by “administering systemically to the subject a non-antibacterial tetracycline compound in an amount that is effective to treat an illness caused by a coronavirus, swine flu or avian flu, but has substantially no antibacterial activity”. It is unclear if the instantly claimed method treats “a coronavirus, swine flu or avian flu” per se , or a concomitant illness that results from one of such viral infections (e.g., pneumonia, cough). Clarification is required. Also, i t is unclear if the subject must exhibit viral infection by a coronavirus, swine flu or avian flu, or simply “an illness” known to be associated with such viral infections. Clarification is required. It is also unclear what amounts of the “non-antibacterial tetracycline compound” are effective to yield the treatment of “an illness caused by a coronavirus, swine flu or avian flu”, but with “substantially no antibacterial activity”. Neither Applicant’s original disclosure nor the claims define the amounts of the non-antibacterial tetracycline compounds that function in the manner claimed to reasonably apprise the ordinarily skilled artisan of the objective boundaries of this genus of amounts (and, thus, what amounts are included, or excluded, from the scope of the claims ). Applicant’s failure to additionally define what constitutes “substantially no antibacterial activity” (e.g., the determinative threshold of what level of activity constitutes “antibacterial” or “non-antibacterial” activity) further complicates the interpretation of the amounts of this non-antibacterial tetracycline compound that are included (or excluded) from the claim scope. Without such clarity, the determination of the scope of amounts of such compound that function in the manner claimed would rely on the subjective interpretation of the ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and, thus, fails to clearly or precisely define the objective boundaries of the claimed subject matter. MPEP §2173.05(b)(IV) clearly states that “[c] laim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention” (citing to Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc. , 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Clarification is required. Applicant’s claim 11 is directed to “[a] method according to [c] laim 10, wherein the illness is COVID-19, and wherein treatment is begun before the onset of COVID-19”. The intent to begin treatment for COVID-19 “before the onset of COVID-19” appears to circumscribe a prophylactic therapy, which then complicates the identification of “a subject in need” of treatment for “an illness caused by a coronavirus” in which the method is practiced. If the subject does not yet have COVID-19, then it is unclear how the ordinarily skilled artisan identifies those subjects – out of all subjects – that are going to develop COVID-19 infection and be “in need” of treatment for an illness caused by such coronavirus infection, unless Applicant’s method intends to circumscribe the treatment of any subject prophylactically prior to onset of COVID-19. Clarification is required. As claims 12-14 do not remedy these points of ambiguity in the claims, they must also be rejected on the same grounds applied thereto such claims. For these reasons, the claims fail to meet the tenor and express requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112(b) (pre-AIA second paragraph) and are, thus, properly rejected. 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. (2) Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Duncan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0203881 A1; 2003), citing to Alberti et al. (“Guillain-Barré Syndrome Related to COVID-19 Infection”, Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation , 2020 July, 7(4):1-3) as factual evidence . Duncan et al. teaches a method of treating a neurologic disorder, such as Guillain-Barré Syndrome by administering an effective amount of a tetracycline compound, in which the tetracycline compound is a non-antibiotic tetracycline (p.1, para.[0010]-[0013]). Duncan et al. teaches that the non-antibiotic tetracyclines have little or no antibiotic activity, and include the species of 6-demethyl-6-deoxy-4-dedimethylaminotetracycline (p.1, para.[0013]-[0014]). Duncan et al. teaches that the amount of the compound to be administered is effective to inhibit microglial expression or activity by reducing microglial cell production and yield s an anti-inflammatory effect (p.2, para.[0018]). Duncan et al. teaches that the compound is administered systemically and may also be used in the form of a pharmaceutical composition that includes both the compound and a suitable pharmaceutical carrier or excipient (p.2, para.[0022]-[0024]). The teachings of Alberti et al. are cited as factual evidence of the relationship between Guillain-Barré Syndrome and COVID-19 (col.2, para.2, p.2), thereby establishing Guillain-Barré Syndrome as “an illness caused by a coronavirus” - in particular, COVID-19 – as instantly claimed. MPEP §2131.01 states that “[n] ormally , only one reference should be used in making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102”, but that it is proper to apply a second reference when the extra reference is cited for the purpose of “show[ ing ] that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent”. Therefore, instant claims 10-14 are properly anticipated under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1). Double Patenting 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 . (3) Claim s 10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 3-10 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/601,258 . Claims 1 and 8 of the ‘258 application are specifically directed to a method of treating Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease (CMTD) in a human in need thereof comprising systemically administering to the human a non-antibacterial tetracycline compound, wherein the non-antibacterial tetracycline compound is “CMT-3” (also known as 6-demethyl-6-deoxy-4-dedimethylaminotetracycline) ( copending claims 1 , 3-10). In instant claim 10, Applicant recites “[a] method of treating an illness caused by coronavirus, swine flu or avian flu, in a subject in need thereof” via “administering systemically to the subject” the non-antibacterial tetracycline compound CMT-3 (also known as 6-demethyl-6-deoxy- 4-dedimethylaminotetracycline) in an amount that is effective to treat an illness caused by a coronavirus, swine flu or avian flu, but has substantially no antibacterial activity. In claim 11, Applicant specifies that the “illness is COVID-19” and “treatment is begun before the onset of COVID-19”. Applicant’s recitation in claim 11 that the “treatment is begun before the onset of COVID-19” indicates that the subject of the method does not yet have COVID-19 and is receiving a prophylactic administration of the non-antibacterial tetracycline compound. In this case, the CMTD subject of the method of the ‘258 copending claims receiving systemic administration of CMT-3 (also known as 6-demethyl-6-deoxy-4-dedimethylaminotetracycline) meets Applicant’s instantly claimed limitations directed to the systemic administration of this same compound to a subject that has not yet experienced onset of COVID-19 (or, thus, an illness associated therewith). The resultant effect of “treating an illness” caused by COVID-19 must necessarily yield from the practice of the ‘258 method because products of identical chemical composition (in this case, 6-demethyl-6-deoxy-4-dedimethylaminotetracycline) must yield the same properties or effects when used in an identical manner. MPEP §2112. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Conclusion Rejection of claims 10-14 is proper. Claims 1-9 and 1 5 -17 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.142(b). No claims of the present application are allowed. Applicant is requested to specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure in response to this Office action, including the claims (M.P.E.P. §§ 714.02 and 2163.06). In doing so, applicant is requested to refer to pages and line (or paragraph) numbers (if available) in the as-filed specification, not the published application . Due to the procedure outlined in M.P.E.P. § 2163.06 for interpreting claims, other art may be applicable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) once the aforementioned issue(s) is/are addressed. Applicant is reminded that MPEP §2001.06(b) clearly states that “[t]he individuals covered by 37 C.F.R. 1.56 have a duty to bring to the attention of the examiner, or other Office official involved with the examination of a particular application, information within their knowledge as to other copending United States applications which are "material to patentability" of the application in question." See Armour & Co. v. Swift & Co. , 466 F.2d 767, 779, 175 USPQ 70, 79 (7th Cir. 1972). MPEP §2001.06(b) clearly indicates that “if a particular inventor has different applications pending in which similar subject matter but patentably indistinct claims are present that fact must be disclosed to the examiner of each of the involved applications.” See Dayco Prod. Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc. , 329 F.3d 1358, 1365-69, 66 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-08 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Leslie A. Royds Draper whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6096 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Tuesday to Thursday (08:30 AM to 05:00 PM) . 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 Jeffrey S. Lundgren can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)-272-5541 . 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. /Leslie A. Royds Draper/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1629 March 21 , 2026