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. Priority The instant application is a 371 National Stage Entry of PCT/US2021/038269 filed on June 21, 2021 which claims benefit to domestic application No. 63/042,458 filed on June 22, 2020. Status of Claims Acknowledgement is made of previously presented (1,7), amended ( 2, 5-6, 8, 13-14, 20, 22, 24, 26, 32-33 ), cancelled ( 3-4, 9-12, 15-19, 21, 23, 25, 27-31 ), and new ( 3 4 -41 ) claims filed on December 22, 2022 . Claims 1-2, 5-8, 13-14, 20, 22, 24, 26, 32 -41 are pending in instant application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed on December 22, 2022 has been considered . Claim Interpretation Claims 1, 7, 32, 40 recite “about” which is understood to be +/- 20% of the value (see instant specification at p. 2 lines 7-8). Claim Objections Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites “wherein the administering comprisesoronasally administering” which appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-2, 7, 14, 20, 22, 24, 26, 36-39 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. Regarding claim 26, the claim contains a Markush grouping which does not contain the coordinating conjunctions “and” or “or” to properly limit the alternatives defined in the list. See MPEP § 2117(l). Applicant may overcome this rejection by adding the proper coordinating conjunction to the Markush group. Regarding claim s 1, 7 the phrase "preferably " renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claim s 2, 14, 20, 22, 24, 26, 36-39, the phrase "for example" renders the claim s indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of applying art, the broadest reasonable interpretation is the broader limitation before the preferred/exemplary language (e.g. claim 2 “a respiratory virus” is examined, not limited to the “for example” species of a coronavirus, influenza virus, rhinovirus, RSV, or betacoronavirus only). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.— Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 recites prophylactic treatment. Claim 6 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites a method of treating. The specification defines “treating” as medical management of a condition, disease, or d isorder of a subject (e.g., patient) to reduce or eliminate a symptom, reduce the duration, or delay onset or progression of the condition, disease, or disorder (see instant spec. at p. 16 line 29 – p. 17 line 2). As defined by Applicant, treatment does not encompass prophylactic methods. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 1-2, 5-8, 13-14, 20, 22, 24, 26, 32-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0038513 A1 to Wilson in view of Mamber . The applied reference Wilson has a common inventor and assignee 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. Regarding claim s 1 and 7 and instantly claimed composition , Wilson teaches a topical formulation comprising a cannabinoid and N-L-alpha-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine (APM) or a lower alkyl derivative thereof (see Wilson claim 1), optionally for reducing pain and inflammation (Wilson at p. 1 ¶[ 0009]). Wilson teaches the concentration of the cannabinoid may be at 0.05% to 5% (see Wilson at claim 13) and the ratio of APM: cannabinoid may be 4:1 – 10:1 (see Wilson claim 14). Regarding claims 13 and 35 and treating a human , Wilson teaches the subject is preferably human (see Wilson at p. 7 ¶[ 0067]). Regarding claim s 14 , 20, 22, 36-38 and cannabinoids , Wilson teaches the cannabinoid may be a phytocannabinoid , an endocannabinoid, or a non-naturally occurring cannabinoid (see Wilson claims 2-6). Regarding claim s 24, 26 and 39 and additional components , Wilson teaches a composition further comprising a carrier (Wilson at p. 3 ¶[ 0029]), an additional active agent (Wilson claim 23) or a preservative (Wilson claim 15). Regarding claim 32 and 40 and a pH of 4.5 to 7 , Wilson teaches the pH of the formulation may be 4 to 7.5 (see Wilson at p. 5 [0049]). Regarding claims 33 and 41 and liquid/gel/powder formulation , Wilson teaches the formulation may be a liquid or gel (Wilson claim 26). Regarding claim 34 and 8 and administration routes, Wilson teaches aerosol, pulmonary, and nasal administration (see Wilson at p. 8 [0094]). Regarding primary formulation components, Wilson teaches an embodiment with cannabidiol and APM as the active ingredients (Wilson at p. 9 [0107]). The prior art differs from the instant application as follows: While Wilson teaches an instantly claimed composition for treating inflammation and pain optionally for a skin condition, Wilson does not specify for ( i ) treating a viral infection, (ii) supporting immune health, or (iii) prophylactic treatment. However, Regarding claims 1-2, 5, 7 and treating viral infections or supporting immune health , Mamber teaches SARS-Cov-2, also known as COVID-19 is a coronavirus ( Mamber at p. 3 ¶1). Mamber suggests cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol would be useful for treating COVID-19 because of their anti-inflammatory properties and ability to promote Th2 immune responses ( Mamber at p. 10). Regarding prophylaxis (instant claim 6) , it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to administer a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 to a patient without a viral infection diagnosis for a number of reasons. For example, a patient with an immunocompromised system who will be in a high-risk area, a patient not displaying symptoms but has known to be in high ly populated areas or attended a super spreader event, an unvaccinated patient, etc. would all be in want of reducing the effects of SARS-CoV-2 whether or not they had the virus in them. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the prior art for at least the following reason(s): Per MPEP § 2144.07, t he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support s a prima facie case of obviousness . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use an instantly claimed formulation taught by Wilson for treating a viral infection such a COVID-19 or supporting immune health because Mamber teaches known cannabinoids have anti-inflammatory and pro-immune properties, and suggests their use for treating COVID-19. In addition, it would have been obvious to prophylactically administer (see instant claim 6) the composition because a subject interested in preventing a viral infection would be motivated to administer the composition before being exposed. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 5-8, 13-14, 20, 22, 24, 26, 32-41 are obvious over Wilson in view of Mamber . Claim s 1 - 2, 5 -8, 13-14, 20, 22, 24, 26, 3 2- 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0060639 A1 to Wermeling in view of Rossi et. al. and US 2019/0365667 A1 to Wright . Regarding claims 1, 13, 7 -8 , 34- 35 and a composition comprising a cannabinoid and aspartame for nasal delivery to humans for treating a virus , Wermeling is drawn to a pharmaceutical composition for intranasal administration ( Wermeling at A bstract) to humans comprising at least one cannabinoid ( Wermeling at p. 2 ¶[ 0021]). Wermeling further teaches embodiments may include an organoleptic enhancing agent including aspartame ( Wermeling at p. 5, ¶ [ 0054] ), also known as N-L-alpha-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine 1-methyl ester (see instant spec. at p. 5 lines 4-7). Wermeling teaches for treating a cannabinoid receptor mediated condition or disorder modulated by CB1, CB2, or both ( Wermeling at p. 6 ¶[ 0066]). Wermeling teaches for optionally treating patients with HIV infections ( Wermeling at p. 6 ¶[ 0080]). Regarding claim s 14 , 20, 22, 36-38 and cannabinoids , Wermeling teaches that pharmaceutical composition of the reference comprises at least one tricyclic cannabinoid ( Wermeling at p. 2, ¶ [ 0026]-[0028] ), specifically listed cannabinoids include THC a n d THC isomers, THCV, CBV, nabilone, cannabinoid derivatives and pro-drugs ( Wermeling at p. 2 ¶ [0028] ). Wermeling also teaches intranasal application of anandamide in comparison to intranasal administration of THC ( Wermeling at p. 2 ¶ [ 0019] ) and intranasal delivery of cannabidiol ( Wermeling at p. 2 ¶[0017]). Regarding claim s 24, 26 and 39 and additional components , Wermeling teaches the composition may further comprise carriers, preservatives, stabilizers ( Wermeling at p. [0056]). Regarding claims 33 and 41 and liquid/gel/powder formulation , Wermeling teaches liquid to semi-solid formulations ( Wermeling at p. 2 ¶[ 0021]). Regarding claims 1 and 7 and .01-0.5% w/v of cannabinoid, Wermeling teaches cannabinoid present in a concentration of 1 to 200 mg/mL ( Wermeling at p. 4 ¶ [ 0040]). Regarding claim 32 and 40 and a pH of 4.5 to 7 , Wermeling teaches the composition may contain a pH modulating agent ( Wermeling at p. ¶[ 0056]). The prior art differ from the instant claims as follows: While Wermeling teaches a composition with instantly claimed components and methods for treating conditions including viral infections , Wermeling does not specify the instantly claimed ( i ) % w/v of cannabinoid, (ii) range of APM:cannabinoid , (iii) for treating SARS-CoV-2 or supporting immune health , (iv) pH of the composition or (v) prophylactic treatment. However, Regarding ( i -ii) claims 1 and 7 and APM:cannabinoid of 4:1 – 10:1, Wright teaches compositions comprising a cannabinoid (Wright at p. 3 [0046]) and a sweetener (Wright at p. 3 [0063]). Wright teaches an effective dose of cannabinoid in its reference invention that contains 0.5% by volume and preferably 1% by volume or more (Wright at p. 2 ¶[ 0034]) . Wright also teaches the cannabinoid may be 0.5 to 50 mg/m L ( Wright at p. 3 ¶ [ 0047] ) . Wright teaches the amount of sweetener in an amount from 0.1 to 15 mg/m L (Wright at p. 3 ¶[ 006 4 ]). Regarding (iii) and claims 2, 5, 7 and treating SARS-Co V -2 or supporting immune health , Rossi teaches the stimulation of CB2 receptors is known to limit the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, shift the macrophage phenotype towards the anti-inflammatory M2 type and enhance the immune-modulating properties of mesenchymal stromal cells (Rossi at Abstract). Rossi also teaches that CB2 receptor can be a therapeutic target for COVID-19 ( see id). Rossi teaches the phytocannabinoid (E)-b-caryophyllene binds to the CB2 receptor (Rossi at p. 5 ¶3) , THC is a CB1 and CB2 agonist (see id), CBD demonstrates a CB2-mediated role (Rossi at p.5 ¶6) . Regarding (iv) and pH, Wright teaches the inclusion of pH modifiers (Wright at. p. 1 ¶ [ 0011] ). Wright teaches the preservatives propyl paraben and methyl paraben exhibit antimicrobial activity between pH 4-8, and preservative efficacy decreases with increasing pH (Wright at p. 8 ¶[ 0154]). Wright teaches monitoring of the pH of samples over a 3 month period (Wright at p. 9 ¶[ 0174]) at around 3.38 – 3.49 (Wright at p. 10 Table 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the prior art for at least the following reason(s): Regarding ratios, per MPEP § 2144.05(I), i n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . In instant case, claims 1 and 7 recite 0.01 to 0.5% w/v of the cannabinoid and Wright teaches 0.5% w/v and above. In addition or in the alternative, per MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A), differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) . In instant case, claims 1 and 7 recite ratios of about 4:1 – 10:1 by weight of aspartame to cannabinoid and Wright teaches 0.5-50 mg/mL of cannabinoid and 0.1-15 mg/mL of aspartame. One skilled in the art could reasonably arrive at the claimed 4:1-10:1 ratio range through routine optimization within the taught Wright values. Regarding SARS-Cov-2, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to attempt treating COVID-19 with a composition comprising a component that targets the CB2 receptor, including a cannabinoid, because Rossi teaches cannabinoids that target the CB2 receptor and suggests their use for treating SARS-CoV-2. Regarding pH (instant claims 32, 40) , one skilled in the art would have been motivated to arrive at a desired pH range because Wermeling teaches the composition may contain a pH modulating agent, emphasizing the importance of pH in a composition comprising a cannabinoid and aspartame. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). In addition or in the alternative, Wright also teaches pH modifying agents in the cannabinoid compositions and a pH range of 3.38-3.49 in one embodiment, compared to the instant 4.5-7.5. Per MPEP § 2144.05(I), a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Wright also teaches an ideal pH range of 4-8 for compositions comprising preservatives. See MPEP § 2144.05(I). Regarding prophylaxis (instant claim 6) , it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to administer a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 to a patient without a viral infection diagnosis for a number of reasons. For example , a patient with an immunocompromised system who will be in a high-risk area, a patient not displaying symptoms but has known to be in high populated areas or attended a super spreader event, an unvaccinated patient, etc. would all be in want of reducing the effects of SARS-CoV-2 whether or not they ha d the virus in them. Furthermore, it is well-within the ordinary skill in art to alter ranges of components taught in the art to achieve an optimal ratio through routine optimization. Furthermore, it is well-within the ordinary skill in art to identify an optimum pH range through routine optimization. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 5-8, 20, 22, 24, 26, 32-41 are obvious over Wermeling in view of Rossi and Wright. Conclusion Claim 8 is objected to. C laims 1-2, 5-8, 20, 22, 24, 26, 32-41 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SOPHIA J REILLY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5669 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST M-F . 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 571-270-5239 . 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. /S.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1627 /Kortney L. Klinkel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1627