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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT Group I in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT 02/09/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant recites claims 1-3, 5-21, and 23-25 as reading on the elected invention. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 26 and 36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT 02/09/2026 . Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). Status of Claims The amendment filed on 02 / 09 / 20 2 6 amended claim s 1, 3, 11-14, 1 6, 17, and 19-24 and cancelled claims 4, 27-35, and 37-40 . Claims 1 -3, 5-26, and 36 are pending . Claims 26 and 36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/09/ 20 26. Claims 1-3 and 5-25 will be examined on the merits. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement s filed on 11/03/2023 and 03/11/2025 ha ve been considered. Signed copies are enclosed. Claim Objections Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 19 and 2 2 are objected to because of the following informalities: FILLIN "Enter appropriate explanation" \* MERGEFORMAT Both claims recite "wherein the anti-CD3 is administered...". Examiner believes these claims should be read "wherein the anti-CD3 antibody is administered..." and will be interpreting as such for the purposes of examination . Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is advised that should claim FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT 13 be found allowable, claim FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT 23 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). As claims 24 and 25 depend on claim 23, they will inherit this objection. Claim Interpretation Examiner is interpreting “A method of treating, preventing or alleviating a symptom of a coronavirus infection in a subject in need thereof…”, as recited in claim 1, as a method of treating a symptom of a corona virus infection, preventing a symptom of a coronavirus infection, or alleviating a symptom of a coronavirus infection in a subject in need thereof…for the purposes of examination herein. 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 FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 11 and 12 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 11 recites “ wherein the subject has or is suspected of having a coronavirus infection . The phrase “is suspected of having” is unclear. The specification provides no definition as to what parameters are required to “suspect” a subject has a coronavirus. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. Similarly , claim 12 recites “ FILLIN "Enter the relative term that renders the claim indefinite." \* MERGEFORMAT thought to have been exposed to ” , which is unclear. The specification provides no definition as to what parameters are required to “think” a subject has been exposed to a coronavirus. Therefore, claim 12 is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-3, 5-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" US 2018/0177880 A1, Shailibhai , hereinafter known as '880 , as evidenced by Tang et al. (2020), Front. Immunol. , 11:1708. Instant c laim 1 is drawn to a method of treating, preventing, or alleviating a symptom of a coronavirus infection in a subject in need thereof comprising administering to the subject a composition comprising an anti-CD3 antibody, wherein the antibody has the defined CDRs. This defined antibody is identified in the specification as foralumab . Claim 1 is interpreted as recited above, and includes “preventing a symptom of a coronavirus infection in a subject in need thereof. As anyone can contract a coronavirus, anyone can require prevention of symptoms. Furthermore, instant specification paragraph [0119] recites that in some embodiments, the subject has a disease or pathology associated with coronavirus infection. This implies embodiments where the subject does not have a disease or pathology associated with a coronavirus infection. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of instant claim 1 includes administering the claimed antibody to any individual, including subjects without an active coronavirus infection. Claims 2 and 3 are drawn to the method of claim 1, but limit the antibody to being monoclonal and fully human or humanized, respectively. Claims 5 and 6 further define the antibody sequence of foralumab . Claim 7 limits the coronavirus of claim 1 to one of SARS- CoV , SARS-COV-2, MERS- CoV , or a mutant/variant thereof. As each of these viruses are pandemic-causing, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7 includes administering the claimed antibody to any individual, including subjects without an active SARS- CoV , SARS-CoV-2, or MERS- CoV infection. Claim 8 names the symptoms that may be reduced or prevented by the method, and claims 9 and 10 further limit the symptom of hyperactive immune response . As evidence d by the instant specification and Tang et al., individuals with a more hyperactive immune response to coronavirus infection, characterized by the release of cytokines such as IL-6, tend to have more severe illness associated with coronavirus infection. Claim 11 specifies the subject has or is suspected of having a coronavirus infection, and claim 12 specifies the subject has been or is thought to have been exposed to a coronavirus, but has not yet developed symptoms. Claim 14 specifies the administration route of the method, and claim 15 further limits the inhalation administration method. Claim 16 adds the administration of another antibody, and claim 17 adds an antiviral drug or an immune booster drug or vitamin, and claim 18 further limits the antiviral drug to Remdesivir or Actinomycin D. Claim 19 specifies the dose of the antibody to be administered nasally, and claims 20 and 21 further limit this administration method to once daily and for 10 consecutive days. Claim 22 provides a dose range for oral administration of the antibody, and claims 13 and 23 specify the further administration of dexamethasone and claims 24 and 25 limit the administration of dexamethasone to inhalation by a metered inhaler. ‘880 teaches method s of using a formulation of anti-CD3 antibodies comprising administering the formulations described in the document. The anti-CD3 antibody disclosed is foralumab (see paragraph [0014] and [0064]), meeting the limitations of instant claim 1-3 and 5-6. Paragraph [0177] discloses the administration to human subjects to prevent, reduce or decrease the effects mediated by the release of cytokines within the human body , also known as a hyperactive immune response, which is listed as a symptom of coronavirus in claim 8. Therefore, the administration method of ‘880 is a method for preventing and alleviating a symptom of coronavirus, anticipating claim 1 and claim 8. This paragraph also recites IL-6 as a cytokine to be reduced or decreased, anticipating claims 9 and 10. Paragraph [0183] of ‘880 discloses the antibody formulation is administered during and/or after treatment in combination with one or more additional agents, and paragraph [0188] discloses the additional agents may be an anti-IL-6R antibody, an anti-TNF antibody, and dexamethasone, anticipating claims 13 , 16 , and 23 . Furthermore, paragraphs [0190] discloses the additional agent may be ATRA, and states ATRA is important for mucosal immunity and immune tolerance. As Applicant does not provide a definition for “immune boosting drug” in the specification, the examiner considers ATRA to meet the limitation of “immune boosting drug”, and therefore claim 17 is anticipated. Paragraph [0181] recites that the compositions as disclosed may be administered subcutaneously, orally, or nasally, anticipating claim 14. Paragraph [0141] recites dosage of the anti-CD3 antibody as .1 mg, anticipating claim 19, and states the nasal formulation is suitable for once daily administrations, anticipating claim 20. Example 7 discloses oral administration, daily, of a 2.5 mg dose of anti-CD3 antibody, anticipating claim 22. Therefore, ‘880 anticipates claims 1-3, 5-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 23. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-3, 5-7, 11-12, 14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" clinical trial NCT03291249 as evidenced by Pinto et al., 2020 . NCT03291249 discloses the oral administration of foralumab to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in a daily dose of .5 mg, 2.5 mg, or 5.0 mg for 30 days. As patients with T2DM are at high risk of severe coronavirus infection from SARS- CoV , MERS- CoV , and SARS-CoV-2 (see Pinto et al.), this administration is a method of preventing a symptom of a coronavirus infection in a subject in need thereof, meeting the limitations of instant claims 1, 7, 11, and 12. Foralumab meets the limitations of claims 1-3 and 5-6, and the oral administration of 2.5 mg daily meets the limitation of claims 14 and 22. Therefore, NCT03291249 anticipates instant claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-12, 14, and 22. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-3, 5- 1 2, 14-20 and 22 a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being FILLIN "Insert either --clearly anticipated-- or --anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 2 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 3 ]" US 2021/0284743 A1 , hereinafter ‘743 , as evidenced by Tang et al. ‘743 discloses a method for the treatment of coronavirus infections, such as SARS- CoV , SARS-CoV-2, and MERS- CoV comprising administering antibodies targeting CD3 and IL-6 , Actinomycin D, and combination therapies (abstract and paragraph [0064]). This method anticipates the limitation of instant claims 1-3 and 5-7, as the CD3 antibody disclosed is foralumab (see paragraph [0014] and [0076]) and has the sequences of claims 1, 5, and 6, and is monoclonal and fully human (see paragraph [0065]). The method is disclosed as limiting a symptom of a coronavirus in paragraph [0250], anticipating the limitations of claim 8. As evidenced by the instant specification and Tang et al., elevation of levels of cytokines such as IL-6 is a symptom of coronavirus, and thus ‘743 anticipates claims 8, 9, and 10. Paragraph [0216] recites the subject has or is suspected of having a coronavirus infection, anticipating the limitations of claim 11, and that the subject has been or is thought to have been exposed to coronavirus, anticipating the limitations of claim 12. The anti-CD3 antibody may be administered by nasal inhalation, orally, intravenously, or subcutaneously (paragraph [0202] and [0217-0218]), which anticipates instant claim 14 and 15. The disclosed method also comprises administering an IL-6R antibody, which meets the limitations of instant claim 16, and the addition of Actinomycin D meets the limitations of claims 17 and 18. Daily administration is disclosed in paragraph [0242], anticipating claims 19 and 20. Finally, paragraph [0220] discloses that the dose should be sufficient to prevent or reduce symptoms of a coronavirus disease; as the specification of the instant application shows reduced symptoms, claims 19 and 22 are anticipated. The applied reference has a common FILLIN "Insert --assignee-- or --applicant-- or --joint inventor--." \d "[ 4 ]" assignee and joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. 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 nonobviousness . 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. Claim s FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-3, 5-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" US 2018/0177880 A1 in view of Pandya et al . ‘880 teaches methods of using a formulation of anti-CD3 antibodies comprising administering the formulations described in the document. The anti-CD3 antibody disclosed is foralumab (see paragraph [0014] and [0064]), meeting the limitations of instant claim 1-3 and 5-6. Paragraph [0177] discloses the administration to human subjects to prevent, reduce or decrease the effects mediated by the release of cytokines within the human body, also known as a hyperactive immune response, which is listed as a symptom of coronavirus in claim 8. Therefore, the administration method of ‘880 is a method for preventing and alleviating a symptom of coronavirus, meeting the limitations of claim 1 and claim 8. This paragraph also recites IL-6 as a cytokine to be reduced or decreased, meeting the limitations of claims 9 and 10. Paragraph [0183] of ‘880 discloses the antibody formulation is administered during and/or after treatment in combination with one or more additional agents, and paragraph [0188] discloses the additional agents may be an anti-IL-6R antibody, an anti-TNF antibody, and dexamethasone, anticipating claims 13 and 16. Furthermore, paragraphs [0190] discloses the additional agent may be ATRA, and states ATRA is important for mucosal immunity and immune tolerance. As Applicant does not provide a definition for “immune boosting drug” in the specification, the examiner considers ATRA to meet the limitation of “immune boosting drug”, and therefore claim 17 is anticipated. Paragraph [0181] recites that the compositions as disclosed may be administered subcutaneously, orally, or nasally, anticipating claim 14. Paragraph [0141] recites dosage of the anti-CD3 antibody as .1 mg, anticipating claim 19, and states the nasal formulation is suitable for once daily administrations, anticipating claim 20. Example 7 discloses oral administration, daily, of a 2.5 mg dose of anti-CD3 antibody, anticipating claim 22. ‘880 does not disclose administering the compound to a subject having, suspected of having, been exposed to, or thought to have been exposed to, a coronavirus infection. ‘880 also does not disclose inhalation administration by an inhaler or nebulizer. ‘880 does not disclose an antiviral drug that is Azidothymidine, Remdesivir , or Actinomycin D. ‘880 does not disclose nasal administration for at least 10 consecutive days. Finally, ‘880 does not explicitly disclose the administration by inhalation of dexamethasone. Pandya et al. disclose that inhaled corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, are common medications often used in respiratory medicine (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a known respiratory medication, in inhaled dexamethasone, with the treatment methods of ‘880 to treat a severe respiratory infection , such as COVID-19. One would have a reasonable expectation of success as these treatments are both known to improve lung function and mediate immune responses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the known prior art elements of inhaled dexamethasone with the treatment methods of ‘880 to arrive at the invention of instant claims 23-25. Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-3, 5-10, 13-17, 19, 20, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" US 2018/0177880 A1 in view of WO 2018/226833 Al , Butovsky et al., hereinafter Butovsky . The teachings of ‘880 regarding claims 1-3, 5-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 23 are recited under paragraph 22 above. ‘880 does not teach inhalation administration by an inhaler or nebulizer, as in instant claim 15. Butovsky teaches administration of an anti-CD3 antibody, foralumab (see paragraph [00048]) via inhalation in the form of an aerosol spray or a nebulizer (see paragraph [00071]). As Butovsky uses the same antibody as both ‘880 and the instant application, and discloses that inhalation is a form of mucosal administration of this antibody, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to administer the compositions of ‘880 via the inhalation method of Butovsky to target mucosal sites of administration. As anti-CD3 antibodies have activity at mucosal s ites, as recited in instant specification paragraph [0022], one would have reasonable expectation of success that the mucosal administration of Butovsky via inhalation would provide the same benefits as other routes of mucosal administration as disclosed in ‘880, such as oral or nasal administration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to administer of the formulations of ‘880 via the inhalation method of Butovsky , rendering obvious instant claim 15. Claim s FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-3, 5- 10, 13, 14, 16-20 , and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" US 2018/0177880 A1 in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Yang, Clin Transl Sci (2020) 13, 842-844 . The teachings of ‘880 regarding claims 1-3, 5-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 23 are recited under paragraph 22 above. ‘880 does not disclose an antiviral drug that is Azidothymidine, Remdesivir, or Actinomycin D, as in instant claims 17 and 18. Yang teach es the use of remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19, and cites studies showing a statistically significant decrease in time to recovery in patients with COVID-19 (page 1) . Yang also impresse s the imperative need for COVID-19 treatments in April-June of 2020, reciting “ a critical need to rapidly develop new pharmacologic interventions ” for SARS-CoV-2 infections. Knowing that administration of the anti-CD3 antibody of ‘880 to a patient with coronavirus infection is obvious, and that remdesivir is also a promising therapy for coronavirus infection, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the two treatments to fulfill the critical need for new pharmacologic interventions recited by Yang. Therefore, administering the treatment of ‘880 and remdesivir together, as in instant claims 17 and 18, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of claims 17 and 18. Claim (s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-3, 5-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" US 2018/0177880 A1 in view of NCT03291249 . The teachings of ‘880 regarding claims 1-3, 5-10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 23 are recited under paragraph 22 above. ‘880 does not disclose nasal administration for at least 10 consecutive days. NCT03291249 discloses the oral administration of foralumab to patients in a daily dose of .5 mg, 2.5 mg, or 5.0 mg for 30 days, meeting the limitations of instant claim 22. While instant claim 21 is drawn to the nasal administration of foralumab for at least 10 consecutive days, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date, to administer the nasal formulation of ‘880 up to 30 consecutive days, as the disclosure of NCT03291249 indicates the safety profile of the antibody allows for up to 30 consecutive days of administration. One would have reasonable expectation of success as the dose for nasal administration disclosed in instant claim 9 is lower than that of the oral dose of NCT03291249 , and both nasal and oral administration are mucosal routes of administration and one would expect similar levels of success in treating through a mucosal surface with the same antibody. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to administer the nasal composition of ‘880 for longer than 30 days, as indicated by NCT03291249 , in order to allow for a longer treatment time. 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 . Claim FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) of the present application." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-3, 5-12, 14, 19, and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) of the copending application." \d "[ 2 ]" 1-11 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference application." \d "[ 3 ]" 19/048,132 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because FILLIN "Provide appropriate explanation for anticipation or rationale for obviousness of claims being rejected over the claims of the cited application." \d "[ 4 ]" the formulation of '132 can be administered to perform the method of the instant application . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. ‘132 discloses a forumulation comprising an anti-CD3 antibody and other pharmaceutically acceptable ingredients. The antibody disclosed by ‘132 claim 1 has the same CDRs are the antibody of instant claim 1. Claim 11 of ‘132 discloses a method comprising administering the composition of ‘132 claim 1 to a subject. Therefore, as instant claim 1 is drawn to a method of administering a composition comprising an anti-CD3 antibody with the disclosed CDRs, the formulation of ‘132 reads on the composition of instant claim 1 and can therefore be used to perform the method of claim 1, as recited in ‘132 claim 11, and thus anticipates claim 1. ‘132 claims 9 and 10 recite more sequences of the antibody of ‘132 claim 1, which show it is the antibody of instant claims 5 and 6. Therefore, the antibody of claim 1 can be interpreted as foralumab , which has those instant sequences, and is both a monoclonal and a fully human antibody. Therefore, the method of ‘132 claim 11 meets the limitations of instant claims 1-3 and 5-6. Moreover, the method of claim ‘132 is for treating or alleviating a symptom of an autoimmune disease or an inflammatory disorder. The symptoms of an autoimmune disease can encompass a hyperactive immune response, meeting the limitations of claims 8-10, and symptoms of both autoimmune diseases and inflammatory disorders can include fever and many of the other symptoms in claim 8. Therefore, the method of ‘132 claim 11 anticipates instant claims 8-10. Moreover, as the symptoms of a coronavirus infection identified in instant claim 8 are also symptoms that are treated by the method of ‘132 claim 11, instant claims 7, 11, and 12 are anticipated by the method of ‘132 claim 11. ‘132 claim 7 discloses that the formulation of claim 1 is a nasal formulation, which anticipates instant claim 14. ‘132 claim 2 discloses that the dose of the anti-CD3 antibody is from .1 mg to 10 mg, anticipating the limitations of instant claims 19 and 22 (as the formulation of ‘132 claim 2 does not require nasal administration, and could be administered orally). Claims FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." 1-3, 5-12, 14, and 19-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) of the copending application.." s 1-11 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference copending application." 19/048,132 in view of FILLIN "Insert the secondary reference." NCT03291249 . FILLIN "Insert an explanation of the obviousness analysis." The teachings of ‘132 regarding claims 1-3, 5-12, 14, 19, and 22 are recited above. ‘132 does not disclose daily nasal administration for at least 10 consecutive days. NCT03291249 discloses the oral administration of foralumab to patients in a daily dose of .5 mg, 2.5 mg, or 5.0 mg for 30 days, meeting the limitations of instant claim 22. While instant claims 20 and 21 are drawn to the nasal administration of foralumab for at least 10 consecutive days, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date, to administer the nasal formulation of ‘132 daily up to 30 consecutive days, as the disclosure of NCT03291249 indicates the safety profile of the antibody allows for up to 30 consecutive days of administration. One would have reasonable expectation of success as the dose for nasal administration disclosed in ‘132 is lower than that of the oral dose of NCT03291249 , and both nasal and oral administration are mucosal routes of administration and one would expect similar levels of success in treating through a mucosal surface with the same antibody. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to administer the nasal composition of ‘132 for longer than 30 days, as indicated by NCT03291249 , in order to allow for a longer treatment time. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." s 1-3, 5-14, 16-17, 19-20, and 22-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) of the copending application.." 1-11 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference copending application." 19/048,132 in view of FILLIN "Insert the secondary reference." US 2018/0177880 A1 . The teachings of ‘132 regarding claims 1-3, 5-12, 14, 19, and 2 2 are recited above. ‘132 does not teach further administration of dexamethasone, another antibody, or an antiviral drug such as Remdesivir, or administration of the antibody by inhalation, or once daily administration for at least 10 consecutive days. ‘880 teaches methods of using a formulation of anti-CD3 antibodies comprising administering the formulations described in the document. Paragraph [0183] of ‘880 discloses the antibody formulation is administered during and/or after treatment in combination with one or more additional agents, and paragraph [0188] discloses the additional agents may be an anti-IL-6R antibody, an anti-TNF antibody, and dexamethasone, anticipating claims 13 , 23 and 16. Furthermore, paragraphs [0190] discloses the additional agent may be ATRA, and states ATRA is important for mucosal immunity and immune tolerance. As Applicant does not provide a definition for “immune boosting drug” in the specification, the examiner considers ATRA to meet the limitation of “immune boosting drug”, and therefore claim 17 is anticipated. Paragraph [0181] recites that the compositions as disclosed may be administered subcutaneously, orally, or nasally, anticipating claim 14. Paragraph [0141] recites dosage of the anti-CD3 antibody as .1 mg, anticipating claim 19, and states the nasal formulation is suitable for once daily administrations, anticipating claim 20. Example 7 discloses oral administration, daily, of a 2.5 mg dose of anti-CD3 antibody, anticipating claim 22. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of administering the formulation of ‘132 claim 1 to alleviate a symptom of an autoimmune disease or inflammatory disorder in a subject in need thereof, as recited in ‘132 claim 11, with the limitations taught by ‘880, as ‘880 comprises formulations of the same antibody as ‘132 and recites, in paragraph [0017], “methods of treating or alleviating a symptom of autoimmune disease, an inflammatory disorder, [or] a neurodegenerative disease”, just as ‘132 claim 11 recites. As these applications recite identical purposes for the methods, and the formulations contain the same active ingredient of foralumab , it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of ‘132 with the other parameters taught by ‘880 to reach the claimed invention. One would be motivated to do so as there are conditions where oral administration, or additional active ingredients, would be advantageous to alleviating the symptoms of autoimmune diseases or inflammatory disorders. One would have reasonable expectation of success as the methods have the same purpose and require the same active ingredient. Therefore, ‘132 in view of ‘880 renders the invention of instant claim s 1-3, 5-14, 16-17, 19-20, and 22-23 obvious. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." s 1-3, 5-14, 16-17, 19-20, and 22-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) of the copending application.." 1-11 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference copending application." 19/048,132 in view of FILLIN "Insert the secondary reference." US 2018/0177880 A1, further in view of Pandya et al . The teachings of ‘132 and ‘880 regarding claim s 1-3, 5-14, 16-17, 19-20, and 22-23 are recited above. Neither ‘132 nor ‘880 explicitly disclose the administration by inhalation of dexamethasone. Pandya et al. disclose that inhaled corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, are common anti-inflammatory medications often used in respiratory medicine (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a known anti-inflammatory medication, in inhaled dexamethasone, with the treatment methods of ‘132 and ‘880 to decrease the symptoms of an inflammatory disorder. One would have a reasonable expectation of success as these treatments are both known to mediate immune responses. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the known prior art elements of inhaled dexamethasone with the treatment methods of ‘132 and ‘880 to arrive at the invention of instant claims 23-25. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." s 1-3, 5-17, 19-20, and 22-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) of the copending application.." s 1-11 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference copending application." 19/048,132 in view of FILLIN "Insert the secondary reference." US 2018/0177880 A1, further in view of WO 2018/226833 Al . FILLIN "Insert an explanation of the obviousness analysis." The teachings of ‘132 and ‘880 regarding claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-17, 19-20, and 22-23 are recited above. Neither ‘132 nor ‘880 disclose inhalation administration by an inhaler or nebulizer. ‘833 teaches administration of an anti-CD3 antibody, foralumab (see paragraph [00048]) via inhalation in the form of an aerosol spray or a nebulizer (see paragraph [00071]). As ‘833 uses the same antibody as ‘132, ‘880, and the instant application, and discloses that inhalation is a form of mucosal administration of this antibody, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to administer the compositions of ‘880 via the inhalation method of ‘833 to target mucosal sites of administration. As anti-CD3 antibodies have activity at mucosal sites, as recited in instant specification paragraph [0022], one would have reasonable expectation of success that the mucosal administration of ‘833 via inhalation would provide the same benefits as other routes of mucosal administration as disclosed in ‘880, such as oral or nasal administration, also disclosed in the ‘132 claims. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to administer of the formulations of ‘132 and ‘880 via the inhalation method of ‘833 , rendering obvious instant claim 15. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." s 1-3, 5- 14, 16- 20, and 22-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) of the copending application.." s 1-11 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference copending application." 19/048,132 in view of FILLIN "Insert the secondary reference." US 2018/0177880 A1 , further in view of Yang, Clin Transl Sci (2020) 13, 842-844 . FILLIN "Insert an explanation of the obviousness analysis." The teachings of ‘132 and ‘880 regarding claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-17, 19-20, and 22-23 are recited above. Neither ‘132 nor ‘880 disclose an antiviral drug that is Azidothymidine, Remdesivir, or Actinomycin D. Yang teaches the use of remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19, and cites studies showing a statistically significant decrease in time to recovery in patients with COVID-19 (page 1). Yang also impresses the imperative need for COVID-19 treatments in April-June of 2020, reciting “ a critical need to rapidly develop new pharmacologic interventions ” for SARS-CoV-2 infections. Knowing that administration of the anti-CD3 antibody of ‘132 to a patient with coronavirus infection is included in ‘132 claim 11, and that remdesivir is also a promising therapy for coronavirus infection, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the two treatments to fulfill the critical need for new pharmacologic interventions recited by Yang. Therefore, administering the treatment of ‘132 and remdesivir together, as in instant claims 17 and 18, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of claims 17 and 18. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) of the present application." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-3, 5-12, 14, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) of the copending application." \d "[ 2 ]" 1-23 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference application." \d "[ 3 ]" 19/557,421 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because FILLIN "Provide appropriate explanation for anticipation or rationale for obviousness of claims being rejected over the claims of the cited application." \d "[ 4 ]" the method of claim 1 of '421 has the same step of administering a composition comprising an anti-CD3 antibody as the instant application . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim 1 of application ‘421 is drawn to a method of alleviating a symptom of a disease comprising nasally administering to the subject a liquid composition wherein .01-.1 mg of an anti-CD3 antibody are delivered per administration. ‘421 claims 18-20 and 23 further specify the anti-CD3 antibody to be used as identical to the one in instant claim 1. Therefore, ‘421 claims 18-20 and 23 anticipate instant claim 1. Moreover, ‘421 claims 18-20 and 23 anticipate instant claims 2, 3, 5, and 6, as the antibody claimed is foralumab , which meets said limitations. ‘421 claims 5, 13, 18-20 and 23 also anticipate claims 14 and 19, as the dose is administered nasally and meets the limitation of .05-.1 mg of claim 19. ‘421 claim 2 discloses that the disease is an inflammatory disease or disorder, symptoms of which can encompass fever, a hyperactive immune response, and more of the symptoms listed in claim 8, thus meeting the limitations of claims 8-10. As the symptoms of a coronavirus infection identified in instant claim 8 are also symptoms that are treated by the method of ‘421 claim 2, instant claims 7, 11, and 12 are anticipated. Therefore, the claims of ‘421 anticipate instant claims 1-3, 5-12, 14, and 19. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." s 1-3, 5- 12, 14, and 19-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) of the copending application.." 1-23 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference copending application." 19/557,421 in view of FILLIN "Insert the secondary reference." NCT03291249 . FILLIN "Insert an explanation of the obviousness analysis." The teachings of ‘132 regarding claims 1-3, 5-12, 14, 19, and 22 are are recited above. ‘132 does not disclose daily nasal administration for at least 10 consecutive days. NCT03291249 discloses the oral administration of foralumab to patients in a daily dose of .5 mg, 2.5 mg, or 5.0 mg for 30 days, meeting the limitations of instant claim 22. While instant claims 20 and 21 are drawn to the nasal administration of foralumab for at least 10 consecutive days, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date, to administer the nasal formulation of ‘ 421 daily up to 30 consecutive days, as the disclosure of NCT03291249 indicates the safety profile of the antibody allows for up to 30 consecutive days of administration. One would have reasonable expectation of success as the dose for nasal administration disclosed in ‘ 421 is lower than that of the oral dose of NCT03291249 , and both nasal and oral administration are mucosal routes of administration and one would expect similar levels of success in treating through a mucosal surface with the same antibody. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to administer the nasal composition of ‘ 421 for longer than 30 days, as indicated by NCT03291249 , in order to allow for a longer treatment time. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) which are under rejection." s 1-3, 5-17, 19, and 23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate, and insert the claim number(s) of the copending application.." 1-23 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference copending application." 19/557,421 in view of FILLIN "Insert the secondary reference." US 2018/0177880 A1 . FILLIN "Insert an explanation of the obviousness analysis." The teachings of ‘ 421 regarding claims 1-3, 5-12, 14, 19, and 22 are recited above. ‘ 421 does not teach further administration of dexamethasone, another antibody, or an antiviral drug such as Remdesivir. ‘880 teaches methods of using a formulation of anti-CD3 antibodies comprising administering the formulations described in the document. Paragraph [0183] of ‘880 discloses the antibody formulation is administered during and/or after treatment in combination with one or more additional agents, and paragraph [0188] discloses the additional agents may be an anti-IL-6R antibody, an anti-TNF antibody, and dexamethasone, anticipating claims 13, 23 and 16. F