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 1. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and under examination in this action. Priority 2. The present application is a Continuation-in-Part of PCT/US22/25619 filed on 4/20/2022 which claims the benefit of provisional application 63/177,224 filed on 4/20/2021. The present claims were reviewed and claims were determined to have the following priority and benefit indicated below: Claims 1-8 and 10-12 were granted priority of the provisional application and the effective filing date of 4/20/2021. Claims 9 and 13-15 were granted priority of the PCT/US22/25619 and the effective filing date of 4/20/2022. Claims 16-18 were determined to be new subject matter from PCT/US22/25619 and were granted priority for the present application and the effective filing date of 10/20/2023. Claim Objections 3. Claims 4 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: use of the phrase “a scFv of claim [1 or 17]” please amend to cite “the scFv of claim [1 or 17]”. Appropriate correction is required. 4. Claim 12 is free of the art but is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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. 5 . Claims 1-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a WRITTEN DESCRIPTION rejection. The claims are drawn to a single-chain variable fragment ( scFv ) that binds to a vir al F peptide , wherein the scFv blocks F-mediated membrane fusion and spread of the virus. The virus of target is claimed as measles (claim 1) or Nipah, Human parainfluenza, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (claim 17 and 18). Dependent claims require the scFv to function by interacting synergistically with a MeV fusion inhibitory peptide (claim 2), and by preventing and treating measles or viral infection in a subject (claims 4 and 18). Thus, the claims identify the scFv by the function of : binding to the F peptide of Measles, Nipah, Human Parainfluenza, or Respiratory Syncytial Virus ; blocking F-mediated membrane fusion and spread of the virus; interacting synergistically with a MeV fusion inhibitory peptide; and preventing and treating measles or viral infection in a subject. Thus the claims encompass a vast genus of scFv variants comprising any binding regions that are capable of binding any of the four different viral F peptides and functioning as claimed and listed above . Dependent claims 10 and 11 define one variable region sequence of the scFv but do not define or require both the VH and VL sequences in SEQ ID NO:3 critical to performing the claimed functions listed above. The instant specification discloses one distinct structural scFv derived from the MeV monoclonal antibody 77.4 that specifically targets the F protein in its pre-fusion state. (See pg. 20 [0076]). Further, the specification discloses the VH region of the scFv variant (SEQ ID NO: 1), the VL region of the scFv variant (SEQ ID NO: 2) and the entire s c Fv variant of the VH , VL, and linker regions (SEQ ID NO: 3). Thus, the instant specification discloses making one structurally distinct species of scFv binding to the MeV F peptide in a specific state as described including the full VH region, VL regions and included linker regions. The specification fails to disclose any other sequences of variants capable of binding to MeV F peptide or variants capable of binding to F peptides for Nipah, Human parainfluenza, or RSV. To provide adequate written description and evidence of possession of the claimed scFv genus, the instant specification can structurally describe representative scFv variants that function to bind the representative F peptide and function as listed above , or describe structural features common to the members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus. Alternatively, the specification can show that the claimed invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combinatio n of such characteristics (see University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co ., 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and Enzo Biochem , Inc. V. Gen-Probe Inc. ) . A dditionally, a disclosure that does not adequately describe a product itself logically cannot adequately describe a method of using that product. In this case, the only factor present in the claims is a recitation of the scFv function to bind the MeV F peptide, or a virus F peptide and that the binding function blocks membrane fusion. T he instant specification fails to describe structural features common to the members of the scFv genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus because the instant specification fails to disclose representative scFv variant sequences that function as claimed. A definition by function does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the scFv does, rather than what it is. Other than the one scFv SEQ ID NO:3 , the specification fails to provide the structural features coupled to the claimed functional characteristics. The instant specification fails to describe a representative number of scFv sequence variants for the vast genus of scFv that function as claimed. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient recitation of distinguishing identifying characteristics, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the claimed genus required to make the claimed scFv and practice the claimed methods . The claims broadly encompass any scFv that functions to bind the F peptide of MeV, Nipah, Human Parainfluenza, or RSV that functions to block binding of the F-mediated membrane fusion and spread of the associated virus , and that functions as listed above . Applicants have not established any reasonable structure-function correlation with regards to the sequences in the VH and VL regions that can be altered and still maintain F peptide binding function , and functions as listed above . Given the well known high-level polymorphism of CDR sequences and structure, the skilled artisan would not have been in possession of the vast repertoire of scFv encompassed by the claimed invention. One could not reasonably predictably extrapolate the structure of a single scFv that binds a MeV or a virus F peptide to the vast genus of scFv as broadly claimed. Therefore, one could not easily envision members of the broadly claimed genus. Although Applicants may argue that it is possible to scr een for scFv that bind virus F peptides and function as claimed, the court found in ( Rochester v. Searle , 358 F.3d 916, Fed Cir., 2004) that screening assays are not sufficient to provide adequate written description for an invention because they are merely a wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention. “As we held in Lilly , “[a]n adequate written description of a DNA … ‘requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties,’ not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention.” 119 F.3d at 1566 (quoting Fiers , 984 F.2d at 1171). For reasons stated above, that requirement applies just as well to non-DNA (or RNA) chemical inventions.” Knowledge of screening methods provides no information about the structure of any future scFv yet to be discovered that may function as claimed. The virus F peptide provides no information about the structure of a scFv that binds to it and how to block membrane fusion , or function as listed above . Given the lack of representative examples to support the full scope of the claimed variant scFv , and lack of reasonable structure-function correlation with regards to the unknown variable sequences in the VH and VL regions that provide virus F peptide binding function to block membrane fusion, the present claims lack adequate written description. Thus, the specification does not provide an adequate written description of scFv variants that bind virus F peptides to block F-mediated membrane fusion and spread of the virus , and function as listed above . Examiner Suggestion: Examiner suggests amending the limitation of claim 12 into claim 1 and into claim 16 to overcome the rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-18 . 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. 6 . Claim 15 is 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 15 is deemed indefinite because of the phrase “for preventing measles in a subject.” The phrase is indefinite because it is unclear what the preventing of measles in a subject is referring to. It is suggested to amend this claim to recite, “wherein the method is for preventing measles in a subject.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 7 . Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yee-Pang (WO2015/112836 pub. 7/30/2015) . Yee-Pang discloses an antibody or antibody fragment , including in the form of a scFv , that binds to the Nipah virus F glycoprotein to disrupt virus host membrane fusion and inhibit infection. (See Yee-Pang, pg. 21 -22 [0054] , [0058]) . Yee-Pang also discloses a method for treating Nipah virus in a subject comprising administering to the subject the scFv in a pharmaceutical composition . (See Yee-Pang, pg. 29 [0079]). 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 . 8 . Claims 1-9 and 13-1 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garry (WO2005/044992 A2, pub. 5/19/2005) in view of Porotto (US2017/0216448, pub. 8/3/2017) . In regards to claim 1 , Garry teaches a n scFv that binds to a Measles Virus F peptide (See Garry, pg. 11 Fig. 9 explanation, also Fig. 9), that are capable of interfering with the virus to cell interaction to prevent or reduce infection by the virus. (See Garry, pg. 20 [0062]). In regard to claim 2 , Garry teaches the scFv synergistically interacting with MeV fusion inhibitory peptides to the FIR of RNA viruses, (See Garry, pg. 19, 21-22 [0058] [0062], [0067] ) . In regard to claims 4-6 and 14-15 , Garry discloses a method of preventing and treating RNA viruses, including measles, by administering a combination of antibody fragments and inhibitory peptides in a pharmaceutical composition. (See Garry, pg. 22 {0067] -[ 0068]). In regard to claims 3 , 7-9, and 13 Garry does not disclose the inhibitory peptide being specifically, HRC4 peptide and the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 4 or the composition being administered intranasally or subcutaneously. Porotto discloses the inhibitory peptide, HRC4, for inhibition of fusion for MeV cells and the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 4. (See Porotto , SEQ ID NO:1, Example 13, also Table 4, also alignment below). Porotto further discloses the method of administ ering the composition through both intranasal and subcutaneous methods. (See Porotto , pg. 9 [0077] and pg. 19 [0138]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the specific inhibitory peptide of Porotto to the disclosed method of Garry to produce the present claimed invention. It would have been obvious because Garry teaches that a combination of inhibitory proteins including an antibody fragment and a peptide that bind to the viral F peptide, including the Measles virus F1 peptide, is an effective method for treating or preventing measles viral cell membrane fusion and Porotto had identified a specific inhibitor peptide for Measles V irus F peptide , HRC4 . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use the specific inhibitory peptide, HRC4, in a known strategy for targeting the viral F peptide with a reasonable expectation of success at preventing and treating the Measles Virus. Each of the agents, the antibody fragment binding to MeV F peptide of Gar r y and the inhibitory peptide HRC4 of Porotto , ha ve been taught by the prior art to be effective in the treatment of measles infection , thus the instant situation is amenable to the type of analysis set forth in In re Kerkhoven , 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) wherein the court held that: “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose. In re Susi, 58 CCPA 1074, 1079-80, 440 F.2d 442 , 445, 169 USPQ 423 , 426 (1971); In re Crockett, 47 CCPA 1018, 1020-21, 279 F.2d 274 , 276-77, 126 USPQ 186 , 188 (1960). As this court explained in Crockett, the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In the instant case, it is prima facie obvious to combine the compositions of Gary and Porotto , each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose of treating measles infection. SEQ ID NO: 4 is 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 ( Porotto ): RESULT 1 US-15-330-795-1 (NOTE: this sequence has 2 duplicates in the database searched. See complete list at the end of this report) Sequence 1, US/15330795 Publication No. US20170216448A1 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Cornell University TITLE OF INVENTION: INHIBITORS OF FUSION BETWEEN VIRAL AND CELL MEMBRANES AS WELL AS TITLE OF INVENTION: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USING THEM FILE REFERENCE: 29543.7491 (6077-02-PC) CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/330,795 CURRENT FILING DATE: 2016-11-07 PRIOR APPLICATION NUMBER: 61/989,917 PRIOR FILING DATE: 2014-05-07 NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 38 SEQ ID NO 1 LENGTH: 42 TYPE: PRT ORGANISM: Artificial FEATURE: OTHER INFORMATION: Measles Virus HRC1 peptide derived from C-terminal heptad repeat region Query Match 100.0 %; Score 209; Length 42; Best Local Similarity 100.0%; Matches 42; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0; Qy 1 PPISLERLDVGTNLGNAIAKLEDAKELLESSDQILRGSGSGC 42 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Db 1 PPISLERLDVGTNLGNAIAKLEDAKELLESSDQILRGSGSGC 42 Allowable Subject Matter 9 . The scFv comprising SEQ ID NO:3 recited in claim 12 appears to be free of the prior art. Conclusion 10 . Claims 1-11 and 13-18 are rejected. Claim 12 is objected to base on dependency. 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LINDSAY DUNN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5825 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8-4:30 . 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 Samira Jean-Louis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3503 . 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. /LINDSAY DUNN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1644 /Laura B Goddard/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1642