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. 1. Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23-30 are pending and being examined. Claim Objections 2. Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 appears to inadvertently have a strike-through line across the number 3 that was supposed to indicate dependency on claim 3. 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. 3 . Claims 3 , 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 17, 18, 21, and 23-30 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 pre-AIA 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 method for treating, preventing, or reducing the risk of coronavirus infection, the method comprising administering to an individual in need thereof, a n effective amount of an antibody that binds to TMEM106B protein. The claims require the anti-TMEM106B antibody of the method to perform the functions of: Binding a TMEM106B protein (claim 3 and 10) ; treating, preventing, or reducing the risk of coronavirus infection (claim 3 ); reduces coronavirus replication, and/or transmission (claim 4); reduces coronavirus cell entry and/or release from an infected cell (claim 7); binds to the cytoplasmic domain of TMEM106B protein (claim 11); binds to the luminal domain of TMEM106B protein (claim 12); binds a truncated TMEM106B protein comprising amino acids 122-210 of SEQ ID NO:1 (claim 17); is in Bin 2, meaning it competes for binding to the same or overlapping TMEM106B region as the TM3, TM9, TM10, TM11, TM12, TM13, TM18, TM19, TM21, TM24, TM25, TM32, TM35, TM37, TM42, TM45, TM48, TM54, TM59, TM60, TM61, and/or TM76 antibodies (specification [61]) (claim 18); is in Bin 3, meaning it competes for binding to the same or overlapping TMEM106B region as the TM7, TM15, TM83, and/or TM84 antibodies (specification [62]) (claim 18); is in Bin 4, meaning it competes for binding to the same or overlapping TMEM106B region as the TM 5 , TM28, TM29, TM30, TM63, TM64, TM72, TM78, TM80, TM86, and/or TM88 antibodies (specification [63]) (claim 18); is in Bin 1, meaning it competes for binding to the same or overlapping TMEM106B region as the TM1, TM17, TM22, TM26, TM79, and/or TM82 antibodies (specification [60]) (claim 21); is in Bin 5, meaning it does not bind to a truncated TMEM106B comprising amino acids 122-210 of SEQ ID NO:1 (specification [64]) (claim 21); and reduces a cytopathic effect in a cell infected with SARS-CoV (claim 23). Thus, the claims identify the antibody by function only. No antibody structure is recited. The claims are drawn to a vast genus of antibodies of any unknown sequence structure that perform the functions listed above. The instant specification discloses the six specific heavy and light chain variable domain CDR sequences of 85 anti-TMEM106B antibodies TM-1, TM-2, TM-3, TM-4, TM-5, TM-6, TM-7, TM-8, TM-9, TM-10, TM-11, TM-12, TM-13, TM-14, TM-15, TM-16, TM-17, TM-18, TM-19, TM-20, TM-21, TM-22, TM-23, TM-24, TM-25, TM-26, TM-27, TM-28, TM-29, TM-30, TM-31, TM-32, TM-33, TM-34, TM-35, TM-37, TM-39, TM-41, TM-42, TM-44, TM-45, TM-46, TM-47, TM-48, TM-49, TM-50, TM-51, TM-52, TM-54, TM-56, TM-59, TM-60, TM-61, TM-62, TM-63, TM-64, TM-65, TM-66, TM-68, TM-69, TM-70, TM-71, TM-72, TM-73, TM-74, TM-75, TM-76, TM-77, TM-78, TM-79, TM-80. TM-81, TM-82, TM-83, TM-84, TM-85, TM-86, TM-87, TM-88, TM-89, TM90, TM-91, TM-92, TM-93, and TM-94 in Tables 1-4, and discloses the specific heavy and light chain variable domain sequences of each antibody in Table 5 and 6, wherein the antibodies are structurally distinct. Thus, the instant specification describes 85 structurally distinct antibodies produced that bind to TMEM106B protein as claimed (Example 1) . The specification further discloses testing epitope binding of the antibodies and placing some of them in “Bins 1-4” in Example 4 , Table 7. The specification discloses testing antibody ability to reduce cytopathic effects of SARS-CoV-2 virus on cell lines (Examples -7; Figures 2 and 3). The specification fails to disclose any structural sequence required of an y other antibody that functions as claimed. To provide adequate written description and evidence of possession of the claimed antibody genus, the instant specification can structurally describe representative antibodies that function to bind TMEM106B protein and function as claimed and 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 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 antibody function s as listed above. The instant specification fails to describe structural features common to the members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus because the instant specification fails disclose s 85 exemplary structurally distinct antibody sequence s that functions as claimed. A definition by function does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the antibody does, rather than what it is. Other than for each of the 85 antibody sequences, the specification fails to provide any structural features coupled to the claimed functional characteristics . The instant specification fails to describe a representative number of antibody sequences for the genus of antibodies 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 perform the claimed method. In the instant case, the specification discloses 85 structurally distinct antibodies that functions as claimed . The instant specification does not disclose any exemplary sequence of an antibody that functions as claimed, and does not disclose the six complementarity determining region s (CDR s ) or variable light chain domain (VL) + variable heavy chain domain (VH) sequences necessary for the antibody to function as claimed. The specification does not disclose the sequence structure of any antibody that would predictably function as claimed. The claims broadly encomp ass any anti- TMEM106B antibody that functions as listed above . Applicants have not established any reasonable structure-function correlation with regards to the sequences in the variable domains or CDRs that can be altered form those disclosed, and still maintain TMEM106B - binding function and the additional claimed functions listed above . The instant claims attempt to claim every antibody that would achieve a desired result, i.e ., bind TMEM106B, and the functions listed above , wherein the instant specification does not describe representative examples to support the full scope of the claims because the instant specification discloses 85 structurally distinct antibodies . Given the well-known high lev el of polymorphism of antibody CDR sequences and structure , the skilled artisan would not have been in possession of the vast repertoire of antibodies encomp assed by the claimed invention. One could not reasonably or predictably extrapolate the structure of a ny of the single monoclonal anti- TMEM106B antibod ies disclosed to the structure of any and all anti- TMEM106B antibodies as broadly claimed in the methods. Therefore , one could not readily envision members of the broadly claimed genus that are required to practice the invention . Although Applicants may argue that it is possible to screen for antibodies that bind TMEM106B 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 antibodies yet to be discovered that may function as claimed. The TMEM106B antigen provides no information about the structure of an antibody that binds to it and performs the claimed functions . Given the lack of representative examples to support the full scope of the claimed antibodies used in the claimed method, and lack of reasonable structure-function correlation with regards to the unknown sequences in the variable domains or CDRs that provide TMEM106B -binding function and additionally claimed functions , the present claims lack adequate written description. Thus, the specification does not provide an adequate written description of antibodies that bind TMEM106B and function as listed above that is required to practice the claimed invention. Since the specification fails to adequately describe the product to which the claimed method uses, it also fails to adequately describe the method. Examiner Suggestion: Amend the limitations of claim 14 into claim 3. 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. 4. Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/133512, Rosenthal et al ; as evidenced by the instant specification. Rosenthal teaches preventing, reducing risk, or treating a disease in a subject, comprising administering to the subject a monoclonal anti-TMEM106B protein antibody that comprises VH and VL SEQ ID NOs:225-314 that are 100% identical to instant SEQ ID NOs:374-463 , respectively, wherein the subject is human ([151-172]; [279-281] ; Tables 4A and 4B ). Given humans can become infected with SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, the humans of Rosenthal are encompassed by individuals at risk of coronavirus infection, and the method of Rosenthal necessarily prevents and reduces the risk of coronavirus infection because Rosenthal is administering the same claimed antibody to the same claimed subject population. Rosenthal teaches the antibody competes for binding to TMEM106B with antibody TM-3 ([173] ; Table 7; Table 7; Example 14 ), therefore the antibody is in Bin 2 . Rosenthal teaches the antibody competes for binding to TMEM106B with antibody TM- 7 ([173] ; Table 7; Example 14 ), therefore the antibody is in is in Bin 3 . Rosenthal teaches the antibody competes for binding to TMEM106B with antibody TM- 5 ([173] ; Table 7; Example 14 ) , therefore is in Bin 4 . Rosenthal teaches the antibody competes for binding to TMEM106B with antibody TM- 1 ([173] ; Table 7; Example 14 ) , therefore is in Bin 1 . The antibodies taught by Rosenthal comprising the same VH and VL sequences as the instantly claimed sequences binding to TMEM106N protein, therefore, as evidenced by the instant specification, the antibodies inherently have the same functions instantly claimed as recited in claims 4, 6, 7, 10-12 , 17, 18, 21, and 23. Rosenthal further teaches the antibody is IgG class, IgM class, or IgA class (claim 16; [25]; [195]); the antibody is IgG class and a IgG1, IgG2, or IgG4 isotype (claim 17; [25]; [195]); the antibody is a fragment and the fragment is a Fab, Fab’, Fab’-SH, F(ab’)2, Fv or scFv fragment (claims 18-19; [25]; [195]); and the antibody is a full-length antibody ([45]; [195]). 5. Conclusion: No claim is allowed. Relevant prior art made of record but not relied upon is Baggen et al (Nature Genetics, published March 8, 2021, 53:435-444). Baggen identified TMEM106B protein as required for SARS-CoV-2 infection of cells (p. 438) and utilized a commercially available anti- TMEM106B antibody to stain for TMEM106B protein in cells after virus infection ( Immunofluorescence assays in Methods section ). Baggen does not teach or suggest administering an anti- TMEM106B antibody to a subject for the treatment or prevention of coronavirus infection. 6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LAURA B GODDARD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8788 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri, 7am-3:30pm . 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. /Laura B Goddard/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1642