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 The office acknowledges Applicants filing of the response on 3/9/2026 in regards to the restriction election requirement dated 9/9/2025. Applicants have elected the following species without traverse. The restriction requirement is made final. Claims 1-29 are pending. Claims 1- 4 , 9, 1 4, 18-29 read on the elected species. Claims 5 -8 , 1 0 -13, 1 5 -17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected subject matter. Claims 1- 4 , 9, 14, 18-29 are examined to the extent that they read on the elected species. Application Priority This application filed 03/09/2023 is a National Stage entry of PCT/US2021/ 049946, International Filing Date: 09/10/2021, PCT/US2021/049946 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63076900, filed 09/10/2020, PCT/US2021/049946 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63076911, filed 09/10/2020, PCT/US2021/049946 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63092937, filed 10/16/2020, PCT/US2021/ 049946 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63125521, filed 12/15/2020. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed on 3/9/2023, 1/30/2024, 11/18/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner. 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. Claim (s) 1-4, 9,14,18- 21, 24- 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bazan et al. (US 20180044278 ) in view of Pham (IDS: Research Square, 2020) and Das (Arch Med Res. 2020 Apr;51(3):282-286). Bazan et al. disclose the following elovanoids , (ELV) including the elected ELV-N32 , its salts (e.g. sodium), its esters for treating inflammatory disorders (See abstract, claims 22, 29-31, 33, 38, 39 and 40). Bazan further teach pharmaceutical composition(s) for use in the method(s) (see claim 39, [0040]). It is also taught that t he term “therapeutically effective amount” as used herein refers to that amount of an embodiment of the composition or pharmaceutical composition being administered that will relieve to some extent one or more of the symptoms of the disease or condition being treated [0060]. Bazan teach topical, oral, nasal, intravenous, inhalation, subcutaneous etc. [0063]. The reference teaches cytoprotection by C32:6 and C34:6 VLC PUFA in oxidative-stress induced ARPE-19 cells. A concentration (50 - 500 nM) kinetic of cytoprotection was induced by VLC PUFA ; th e result indicat ing that there was a gradual decrease of cell deaths starting from 50 nM concentrations of both 32:6 and 34:6 VLC-PUFA, very good intermediate effect at 250 nM , and maximum effect at 500 nM . Pham teach that the lipid mediators, elovanoid (ELV-N32) or resolvin-D6 isomer consistently decreased the expression of ACE2 receptor, furin and integrins in damage corneas or IFN-gamma stimulated human corneal epithelial cells. It is taught that ELV- N32 remarkably decreases Furin expression, a protease that cleaves the S1/S2 site required for SARS-CoV-2 entry in lung cells (See Discussion, para 1, page 5). Pham teach that these lipid mediators will contribute to opening therapeutic avenues for COVID-19 by counteracting virus attachment and entrance to the eye and other cells and ensuing disruptions of homeostasis (Abstract). Pham is explicitly teach the effects of lipid mediators disrupt the ACE2 upregulation, hyper-inflammation, cytokine storm, NFkB/inflammation. A key cytokine responding to viral infections is IFNγ32 that increases in the serum of severely affected COVID-19 patients ELV-N32 and RvD6i suppressed the IFNγ stimulation of Ace2 expression as well as the IFNγ-induced senescence, where many SASP components are pro in f lammatory cytokines . ELV-N32 and RvD6i consistently displayed protective bioactivity. (See p 5, Discussion, p para 2). ELV-N32 is a powerful neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory lipid mediator 16 ELV-N32 and RvD6i also decrease integrins expression. (p 5, Discussion para 3). Pham teach that both elovanoid-N32 and resolving D6 isomer in a rat model of cornea injury selectively decrease ACE2 receptor expression and binding of the spike protein of SARS-Cov-2 (See Figures). Das teach SARS-CoV-2, SARS and MERS are all enveloped viruses that can cause acute respiratory syndrome (Abstract). Das further teach that resolvins derived from AA, EPA and DHA not only suppress inflammation but also enhance wound healing and augment phagocytosis of macrophages and other immunocytes and decrease microbial load. In view of these actions, it is suggested that AA and other unsaturated fatty acids and their metabolites may serve as endogenous anti-viral compounds and their deficiency may render humans susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, SARS and MERS and other similar viruses’ infections. Hence, oral or intravenous administration of AA and other unsaturated fatty acids may aid in enhancing resistance and recovery from SARS-CoV-2,SARS and MERS infections (See abstract). From the teachings of Bazan, Pham and Das a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed method of using an effective amount of a very long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid (VLC-PUFA), for example the elected species, ELV-N32 in treating SARS-Cov-2 (elected viral infection) in a subject because (i) Bazan teach the compound, ELV-N32, its salt(s), its ester(s) in treating inflammatory disorder (ii) Pham is explicit in teaching lipid mediators ELV-N32 and resolvin-d6 isomer decreased the expression of ACE2 receptor, furin and integrins in damage corneas or IFN-gamma stimulated human corneal epithelial cells. It is taught that ELV-N32 remarkably decreases Furin expression, a protease that cleaves the S1/S2 site required for SARS-CoV-2 entry in lung cells (iii) resolvins suppress inflammation and enhance wound healing and augment phagocytosis of macrophages and other immunocytes and decrease microbial load (iv) oral or intravenous administration of AA and other unsaturated fatty acids may aid in enhancing resistance and recovery from SARS-CoV-2,SARS and MERS infections. Hence a skilled art isan would have found it obvious to use a VLC-PUFA, e.g. ELV-N32 , or its salt (e.g. sodium) in treating the inflammation in ocular tissue and thus SARS-Cov-2 virus infection in subjects. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to arrive at the claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success and treat the virus infection. Thus claim s 1 , 9 , 14 , 28-29 would have been obvious over the prior art teachings. As to claims 2-4 , wherein the treating comprises reducing an immune response, wherein the immune response comprises tissue inflammation, wherein the tissue comprises ocular tissue, brain tissue, gastrointestinal tissue, skin tissue, or heart tissue, it is noted that these are the pharmacological effects of the VLC-PUFA (herein ELV-N32) administered in a subject with a viral infection (e.g. SARS-Cov-2). As to claim 18 , Bazan teaches pharmaceutical compositions of the compounds for delivery. As to claims 19-21 , Bazan teach inhalation, nasal, oral and topical routes for administration. Pham teach the effects of ELV-N32 in cornea injury and binding of the spike protein of SARS-Cov-2 . Hence a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to administer VLC-PUFA (herein ELV-N32) as a nasal spray or as an eye drop (topical). As to claim 24 , it is dosage regimen and it is within the skill of an artisan to administer the agent(s) prior to or subsequently or concurrently and it is routine. As to claim s 25 -26 administration of the same agent VLC-PUFA (herein ELV-N32) to the same set of subjects, herein viral infected (e.g. SARS-Cov-2) would result in the increased production of immune response of pro-inflammatory mediators such as IL-6. As to the therapeutically effective amount of the agent in claim 27 , Bazan teach cytoprotection by VLC PUFA in oxidative-stress and maximum effect achieved at 500 nm. Hence a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to administer 500 nm of VLC PUFA , e.g. ELV-N32 to treat a viral infection, e.g. SARS-CoV-2. Further Bazan is explicit in teaching using a therapeutically effective amount” to relieve one or more of the symptoms of the disease or condition being treated . It is noted that dosage regimen can be routinely optimized based on the condition to be treated, age, etc. Claims 22-2 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bazan et al. (US 20180044278 ) in view of Pham (IDS: Research Square, 2020) and Das (Arch Med Res. 2020 Apr;51(3):282-286) as applied to claims 1-4, 9,14,18-29 above, and in view of Peralta et al. ( US 20200237689 , priority, 3/17/2020). Bazan, Pham and Das as discussed as above. The above rejection is incorporated herein. The above prior art do not teach the additional agent, e.g. ritonavir in the method. Peralta et al. teach the use of ritonavir in combination therapy in treating SARS-Cov-2 infection with active agents and additional agents that include the antiviral agent, ritonavir ([0157], claim 11). From Peralta a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to add an additional agent, e.g. ritonavir in combination with VLC-PUFA (herein ELV-N32) in treating SARS-Cov-2 . A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to add an additional antiviral agent, ritonavir in expectation of reasonable amount of success to derive therapeutic benefits and additionally additive or synergistic effects. Thus claims 22-23 would have been obvious over the combined prior art teachings. 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. Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 14, 18, 20, 21, 2 4 -29 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 s 1 , 24 are directed to the method of use of very long chain polyunsaturated fatty (VLC-PUFA), arachidonic acid, docasahexaenoic acid or a derivative thereof. The term "derivative" is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. In particular, "derivative" does not particularly point out the degree or type of derivation that a given compound may have in relation to the parent compound and still be considered a "derivative". According to Hackh's chemical dictionary, "derivative" is defined as a compound, usually organic obtained from another compound by a simple chemical process or an organic compound containing a structural radical similar to that from which it is derived (Hackh's chemical dictionary, 1972). The term ‘derivative’ includes salts, isomers, analogs, metabolites, prodrugs, crystals, polymorphs, solvates, hydrates etc. The claim does not set forth any metes and bounds for the terms and presents uncertainty with respect to the scope of the claims. The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. A secondary purpose is to provide a clear measure of what applicants regard as the invention so that it can be determined whether the claimed invention meets all the criteria for patentability and whether the specification meets the criteria of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph with respect to the claimed invention.", (see MPEP § 2173). Claims 3 -4, 8- 9, 14, 20, 21, 23, 26 -29 recite the limitation of ‘comprises’. It is noted that the term "comprises" is open ended. The use of the above phrase causes the claim to be broader than the invention. See In re Fenton, 451 F.2d 640, 171 USPQ 693 (CCPA 1971). It is improper to use the term "comprising" instead of "consisting of". Ex parte Dotter, 12 USPQ 382. Specifically, the phrase "comprising" renders the products indefinite as the phrase "comprising" can be considered open- ended language when not clearly defined and therefore is including additional subject matter in the surfactant that is not described in the instant specification and is not particularly pointed out or distinctly claimed. Appropriate correction is required. In claim 3, it is suggested that ‘comprises’ is replaced with ‘is, e.g. ‘ immune response is tissue inflammation ’ . In claim 4, the tissue cannot comprise another tissue. It is suggested that it is rewritten as ‘tissue selected from’. In claims 8- 9, 14 VLC-PUFA a compound or a derivative cannot comprise another compound. In other words in claim 8, A1 and A2 are compounds. Similarly each VLC-PUFA derivative is a compound by itself. It is suggested that it is rewritten as “VLC-PUFA derivative is” In claim 20, i t is suggested that ‘comprises’ is replaced with “is”, e.g. is an aerosol or spray . In claim 21, it is suggested that that ‘comprises’ is replaced with “is”, e.g. ‘the p harmaceutical composition administered ocularly is an eyedrop’. In claims 23, 26 it is suggested that ‘comprises’ be replaced with ‘selected’. In claims 27-29, it is suggested that ‘comprises’ be replaced with “is”. Claim 18 recites a limitation of ‘wherein the compound is a pharmaceutical composition’. It is noted that the pharmaceutical composition comprises a compound and a carrier or an excipient. The compound is not a pharmaceutical composition. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 25 recites the limitation of ‘The method of claim 1, wherein the immune response is indicated by’. Claim 1 do not have the limitation of ‘immune response’. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Objections Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation ‘wherein the’ is repeated twice in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-4, 9, 14, 18-29 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 for the compounds VLC-PUFA, arachidonic acid, DHA for select viral infection(s) or symptoms, does not reasonably provide enablement for (i) the prevention of viral infections or (ii) treatment of all types of viral infections with the very long chain polyunsaturated fatty (VLC-PUFA), arachidonic acid, docasahexaenoic acid or a derivative thereof. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The instant specification fails to provide information that would allow the skilled artisan to practice for the prevention of lung injury as claimed. 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 Wright, 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). 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 breadth of the claims (3) the state of the prior art, (4) the relative skill of those in the art, (5) the predictability of the art, (6) the presence or absence of working examples, (7) the amount of direction or guidance provided and (8) the quantity of experimentation necessary . These factors are always applied against the background understanding that scope of enablement varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability involved. In re Fisher, 57 CCPA 1099, 1108, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (1970). Keeping that in mind, the Wands factors are relevant to the instant fact situation for the following reasons: (1), The nature of the invention and ( 2 ) The breadth of the claims: The instantly claimed method is directed to: The claims are very broad in terms of (i) the viral infections to be treated (ii) the agents used in the method (iii) subjects to be treated. ( 3) S tate of the art and (4) R elative skill level: The specification teach that the ELV l ipids were discovered (Bhattacharjee et al. Sci Adv 2017 and Do et al. PNAS 2019) and have since been shown to have potent pro-homeostatic properties (Bhattacharjee et al. Sci Adv 2017; Do et al. PNAS 2019; and Bazan et al. Mol Aspects Med. 2018) (See [0412]). WO2016130522A1 and WO2018175288A1, each of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entireties. n-3 very-long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (“n-3 VLC-PUFA”, also “n3 VLC-PUFA”) can be converted in vivo to several types of VLC-PUFA hydroxylated derivatives named elovanoids (ELVs) that can protect and prevent the progressive damage to tissues and organs, whose functional integrity has been disrupted (see [0232]). Applicants in the specification teach the following in regards to the treatment and prevention, see [0235]. The viruses that cause viral infections include but not limited to Coronavirus, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), Rhinovirus, Influenza A, Influenza B, Influenza C, Human metapneumovirus, LCMV (lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus), hepatitis B virus, Coxsackie B virus (CBV), Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Parainfluenza virus type 1, Parainfluenza virus type 2, Parainfluenza virus type 3, Parainfluenza virus type 4, Adenovirus, Enterovirus, Varicella-zoster virus, Hantavirus, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), Herpes Simplex Virus, Cytomegalovirus (CMV), RNA virus selected from the group consisting of reoviridae, coronaviridae, picornaviridae, flaviviridae, hepeviridae, togaviridae, filoviridae, paramyxoviridae, pneumoviridae, retroviridae, rhabdoviridae, hantaviridae, and Orthomyxoviridae. RNA virus include rotavirus, coronavirus, SARS virus, poliovirus, rhinovirus, hepatitis A virus, yellow fever virus, west nile virus, hepatitis C virus, dengue fever virus, zika virus, rubella virus, sindbis virus, Chikungunya virus, Ebola virus, Marburg virus, measles virus, mumps virus, respiratory syncytial virus, rabies virus, human immunodeficiency virus, influenza virus A, influenza virus B, influenza virus C, and influenza virus D, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Hepatitis B Virus (HBV), Hepatitis C Virus (HBV), influenza virus, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV, Human gamma herpesvirus 4), herpes simplex virus (HSV-1, Human alpha herpesvirus). Viral infections include sore throat, sinusitis, and the common cold. Influenza is a viral respiratory infection. Some viruses (such as rabies, West Nile virus, and several different encephalitis viruses) infect the nervous system. Viral infections also develop in the skin, sometimes resulting in warts or other blemishes. Other common viral infections are caused by herpesviruses. Eight different herpesviruses infect people. Cytomegalovirus is a cause of serious infections in newborns and in people with a weakened immune system. Human herpesvirus 8 has been implicated as a cause of cancer (Kaposi's sarcoma) in people with AIDS. All of the herpesviruses cause lifelong infection because the virus remains within its host cell in a dormant (latent) state. Sometimes the virus reactivates and produces further episodes of disease. Reactivation may occur rapidly or many years after the initial infection. In a recently published article, Bazanow disclose “Viral infections remain one of the most significant challenges to global health, affecting humans and animals alike and posing continuous threats due to their high transmissibility, genetic variability, and capacity to disrupt host homeostasis at multiple biological levels” (Abstract). High mutation rates and genomic plasticity present major challenges (page 2, para 6); careful evaluation of experimental tools is essential to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of conclusions drawn from virological studies (p 3, para 3) (see Int J Mol Sci. 2026 Jan 17;27(2):940 ). Cleveland Clinic teach the overview of viral infections, different types, symptoms and causes. Further taught is that one of the ways to reduce the risk of a viral infection is to get vaccinated for select viral infections (see p 6, last para) ( Viral Infection: Causes, Symptoms, Tests & Treatment , 2022) . It is taught in the art that “ Some antiviral drugs are specific for a particular virus and others have been used to control and reduce symptoms for a wide variety of viral diseases ” (See p 6, para 1). The reference teaches that “ Some vaccines are in continuous development because certain viruses, such as influenza and HIV, have a high mutation rate compared to that of other viruses and normal host cells ” (See p 3, last para) ( https://pressbooks.umn.edu/introbio/chapter/virusesprevention/ , University of Minnesota, 2026). In summary, the number of viruses and the viral infections are large, each viral infection is treated differently and all anti-viral agents cannot be used for treating all types of viral infections and in all subjects. Further the risk of the occurrence of the viral infections can be reduced by taking vaccines or other preventative measures but cannot be completely prevented. (5) Predictability of the art: Despite the advanced training of practitioners in the art, it is still impossible to predict from the specification and prior art that all types of viral infections are treatable or preventable with VLC-PUFA and the agents of claim 1. It is well established that "the scope of enablement various inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved," and physiological activity is generally considered to be an unpredictable factor. See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (1970). Absent a mechanistic link between the method steps and the observed effect, the pharmaceutical and medical treatment arts are highly unpredictable. Most progress is established through empirical and anecdotal evidence as to the efficacy of certain treatments. Once a mechanistic link has been established between the method and the mechanism of action become more predictable. However, many uncertainties can still exist even when the mechanism of action is known. For example, factors such as the bioavailability, pharmacokinetic profile, and potency of a compound can still be uncertain even if it can be expected to be active in disease models. It is not predictable from the prior art or from the specification’s teachings that all viral infections can be treated with VLC-PUFA, arachidonic acid, DHA or its composition as claimed. Also all the viral infections cannot be prevented by using the agents of claim 1, including the elected VLC-PUFA, ELV-N32 as prevention requires the recited method to be completely effective in all patients at all times. It is respectfully pointed out that a method of preventing the diseases or disorders claimed means that the compounds or compositions are administered to subjects that do not have such diseases or disorders. The purpose is to prevent the condition before occurring but not to treat after it has occurred. Furthermore, the definition of "to prevent" and the “act of preventing" embraces the complete 100% inhibition. Thus, the burden of enablement in the assertion of this claim is much higher than would be the case of enabling the treatment of the condition and is not achieved. The claim is very broad insofar as they suggest that the subject will not experience the disease or disorder ever again when taking the claimed agent; that should one get the disease, it will not worsen; or that following its treatment, it will not recur. While such "prevention" might theoretically be possible under strictly controlled laboratory conditions, as a practical matter it is nearly impossible to achieve in the "real world" in which patients live. (6)/(7) The amount of direction or guidance provided and the presence or absence of working examples: Applicants provide data and evidence to the synthesis of specific VLC-PUFA compound; in vitro data with ELV-N32 and ELV-N34 in in human alveoli in cell culture and its effects in regards to SARS-Cov-2; data with four specific lipid mediators own-regulate injury-induced gene expression of NFkB/inflammation, senescence-associated secretory phenotype, and cytokine storm markers after cornea injury (Fig. 55), on attenuat ing IFNγ-induced ACE2 expression, senescence programming, and binding of Alexa 594-RBD in human corneal epithelial cells (HCEC ) (fig. 56), on gene expression of Ace2, Dpp4, Furin, and Tmprss2 after cornea injury (fig. 57), attenuation of the expression of cytokine-storm related genes and SASP after cornea injury (fig. 59), on expression of NFkB inflammatory genes after cornea injury (fig. 60), shows differential effect of lipid meditators on senescence programming gene expression after cornea injury (fig. 61), internalization of Spike's protein RBD is reduced by Elovanoids and their precursors in human primary alveolar cells (fig. 64). The data is provided in the specification are limited to four lipid mediators and specific ally for SARS-Cov-2 virus. Applicants have not provided any evidence that the agents of claim 1 were administered and tested in any subject for the treatment and/or prevention of other viral infections. It is also noted that the viral infections in animals and human subjects are different and different anti-viral therapies are required. Viruses typically adapt to bind with specific cellular receptors, limiting their ability to jump between species. A human virus may not fit the receptors found on a dog or cat, for example. Applicants have not demonstrated how the data known in the art and provided in the specification can be extrapolated to treating all types of viral infections in all types of subjects. Applicants have not provided any evidence to how the viral infections can be prevented for e.g. with EVL-N32 in any subject by administration of the agent to the subject prior to the occurrence of a viral infection, e.g. SARS-Cov-2. ( 8) The quantity of experimentation necessary: In summary, no single agent has been known in the art for treating all viral infections. Further certain anti-viral drugs can be administered only in specific dosage forms. The anti-viral drug development and testing is very challenging and as of date only select anti-viral drugs have been approved for few select viral infections. The literature teach the unpredictability of using a single agent for the treatment of all different viral infections. Because of the known unpredictability of the art, and in the absence of experimental evidence, no one skilled in the art would accept the assertion that the agents as claimed can be useful in the treating all the viral infections or prevention of all the viral infections with the VLC-PUFA or arachidonic acid or DHA as inferred by the claims and contemplated by the specification. To practice the invention claimed in the patent a person of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation, with no assurance of success. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT UMAMAHESWARI RAMACHANDRAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9926 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F- 8:30-5:00 PM (PST) . 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 Kortney Klinkel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712705239 . 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. /Umamaheswari Ramachandran/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1627