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 Applicant's preliminary amendment filed on October 9, 2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 were amended. Claims 1-14 are pending and are examined on the merits herein. Priority Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 9, 2023, February 5, 2024, April 26, 2024, May 20, 2024, August 12, 2024, and October 10, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the informati on disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. The information disclosure statement filed October 9, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. A copy of the following non-patent literature document was not provided; therefore, this citation was lined through on the IDS. The information disclosure statement filed April 26, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. A copy of the following non-patent literature document was provided; however, the reference is not in English and a translation was not provided. Therefore, the citation was lined through on the IDS. The information disclosure statement filed August 12 , 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. A copy of the following non-patent literature document was provided; however, the reference is not in English and a translation was not provided. Therefore, the citation was lined through on the IDS. The information disclosure statement filed August 12 , 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. A copy of cite no. 2 and 3 of the non-patent literature documents was not provided; therefore, the citations were lined through on the IDS. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Drawings The drawings were received on October 9, 2023. The drawings submitted on October 9, 2023 is unaccept able because the replacement drawings for Figures 3 and 4 are not labeled as “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet”. The drawings are objected to because 37 CFR 1.84 (u)(1) states “View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG."” . In addition, the figure labels for Figures 1, 2, 6, 9, and 10 are not oriented in the same direction as the figure. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalit ies : Page 5: a period is missing at the end of the following paragraph: Page 8: Description of Figure 2 reads in part “middle und bottom” and should read “middle and bottom” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required. The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. See e.g., pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 27, and 32. Claim Objections Claim s 9 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9: there is a comma at the end of the claim after the period. Claim 12 is missing a period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required. 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 12 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 12 is indefinite because the word “preferably” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitation following the word “preferably” is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The Examiner will interpret the claim as limitations that are optional and are not required. 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. Written Description Claims 1-14 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. Claim 1 is drawn to the provision of a genus of aptamers comprising a nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 and/or a n ucleic acid sequence being at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 . In this context, the phrase “a nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 ” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, which is “any nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 ” and thus do es not require the full length of SEQ ID NO: 1. Moreover, the claim does not limit the target to which the recited aptamer may bind. The specification defines t he term “aptamer” as an oligonucleotide that binds specifically and with high affinity to a target molecule [page 13, fourth paragraph]. Thus, t he claims encompass a broad genus of aptamers that comprises any fragment of SEQ ID NO: 1 or a nucleic acid sequence at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 defined solely by function to bind specifically and with high affinity to a target molecule . To provide adequate written description and evidence of possession of a claimed genus, the specification must provide sufficient distinguishing identifying characteristics of the genus. The factors to be considered include disclosure of a complete or partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics, structure/function correlation, and any combination thereof. The specification discloses the following: [page 6]. [page 13]. Working example 2 discloses that the aptamer BC 007 of SEQ ID NO: 1 demonstrated highly efficient inhibition of virus replication at low doses in Vero as well as Calu-3 cell lines. Specifically, the half-maximal effective concentrations (EC 50 , alternatively termed half-maximal inhibitory concentration IC 50 ) determined for inhibition of viral infection were 3.74 µM for Calu-3 cells and 0.21 µM for Vero cells. The specification also discloses that for comparison purposes, several other antiviral agents implicated for potential treatment of SARS-CoV-2 as disclosed in Wang et al. (Cell Research 2020) were tested in a similar experimental setup using Vero E6 cells. Specifically, the specification discloses that Wang et al. taught that the EC 50 concentration for remdesivir was 0.77 µM. Based on the results obtained with remdesivir, it was concluded that remdesivir potently blocked virus infection at low micromolar concentration and lacked substantial cell toxicity at the concentrations used for testing its SARS-CoV-2 inhibiting effect. Therefore, in view of the results reported in Wang et al., the specification discloses that the results obtained in Vero cells with the aptamer of the present invention also demonstrates potent blockage of virus infection up to or even beyond the efficiency observed with other antiviral agents currently discussed as potential treatment options for Coronaviridae infections. Working example 6 discloses characterization of GPCR-AAB activity in long COVID-19 serum samples before and after administration of aptamer BC007 (SEQ ID NO: 1). Specifically, the working example demonstrated that GPCR autoantibodies which were found and identified in patients having overcome COVID-19 and suffering from symptoms persisting after infection and being associated with long COVID have direct and measurable effects on G-protein coupled receptors. Further, the specification discloses that it could clearly be demonstrated that administration of BC007 to long COVID patients was able to counteract the effects of said GPCR autoantibodies presumably by specific binding and persistent neutralization of such autoantibodies. The data represents experimental evidence that BC007 is able to neutralize GPCR autoantibodies appearing as one of the main causative agents of long COVID after an infection with SARS-CoV-2 has been overcome. Even if one accepts that the examples described in the specification meet the claim limitations of the rejected claims with regard to structure and function, the examples are only representative of aptamers c onsisting of the nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 . The results are not necessarily predictive of other aptamers falling within the broadly claimed genus . Thus, it is impossible for one to extrapolate from the limited examples described herein those aptamers that would necessarily meet the structural/functional characteristics of the rejected claims. The prior art does not appear to offset the deficiencies of the instant specification in that it does not describe a set of aptamers comprising a nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 and/or a nucleic acid sequence being at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 that could result in binding specifically and with high affinity to a target molecule. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have reasonably concluded applicants were not in possession of the claimed invention for claims 1- 14. Enablement Claims 1-1 2 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue". These factors include, but are not limited to: (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. All of the Wands factors have been considered with regard to the instant claims, with the most relevant factors discussed below. Breadth of claims : Claim 1 is drawn to a method of treating long COVID in a subject having overcome an infection with a virus from the Coronaviridae family comprising administering to a subject in need thereof an effective amount of an aptamer comprising a nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 and/or a nucleic acid sequence being at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 is a method of treating long COVID in a subject having overcome an infection with any virus from the Coronaviridae family comprising administering to a subject in need thereof an effective amount of an aptamer comprising a nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 , a nucleic acid sequence being at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 , or a nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 and nucleic acid sequence being at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 . Nature of the invention: The specification as filed envisions that the aptamers are useful for the treatment of infections with virus strains from the Coronaviridae family in human and animal subjects [page 17, last paragraph]. The specification also envisions the aptamer for use in therapy of a subject by treating, curing, or preventing disease symptoms associated with long COVID in a patient having overcome an infection with a virus from the Coronaviridae family wherein the aptamer comprises a nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 and/or a nucleic acid sequence being at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 [page 18, fifth paragraph]. The specification discloses that long COVID is a condition or a complex of symptoms which has been observed in patients which have overcome an infection with a virus from the Coronaviridae family. While the complex of symptoms associated therewith is still under examination, it becomes more and more evident that symptoms prevail even after disappearance of symptoms of an active infection [page 18, last full paragraph]. Amount of direction provided by the inventor and existence of working examples: Working example 2 discloses that the aptamer BC 007 of SEQ ID NO: 1 demonstrated highly efficient inhibition of virus replication at low doses in Vero as well as Calu-3 cell lines. Specifically, the half-maximal effective concentrations (EC 50 , alternatively termed half-maximal inhibitory concentration IC 50 ) determined for inhibition of viral infection were 3.74 µ M for Calu-3 cells and 0.21 µ M for Vero cells. The specification also discloses that for comparison purposes, several other antiviral agents implicated for potential treatment of SARS-CoV-2 as disclosed in Wang et al. (Cell Research 2020) were tested in a similar experimental setup using Vero E6 cells. Specifically, the specification discloses that Wang et al. taught that the EC 50 concentration for remdesivir was 0.77 µM. Based on the results obtained with remdesivir, it was concluded that remdesivir potently blocked virus infection at low micromolar concentration and lacked substantial cell toxicity at the concentrations used for testing its SARS-CoV-2 inhibiting effect. Therefore, in view of the results reported in Wang et al., the specification discloses that the results obtained in Vero cells with the aptamer of the present invention also demonstrates potent blockage of virus infection up to or even beyond the efficiency observed with other antiviral agents currently discussed as potential treatment options for Coronaviridae infections. Working example 5 discloses the identification and characterization of GPCR autoantibodies in sera of patients having recovered from active SARS-CoV-2 infections. Working example 6 discloses characterization of GPCR-AAB activity in long COVID-19 serum samples before and after administration of aptamer BC007 (SEQ ID NO: 1). Specifically, the working example demonstrated that GPCR autoantibodies which were found and identified in patients having overcome COVID-19 and suffering from symptoms persisting after infection and being associated with long COVID have direct and measurable effects on G-protein coupled receptors. Further, the specification discloses that it could clearly be demonstrated that administration of BC007 to long COVID patients was able to counteract the effects of said GPCR autoantibodies presumably by specific binding and persistent neutralization of such autoantibodies. The data represents experimental evidence that BC007 is able to neutralize GPCR autoantibodies appearing as one of the main causative agents of long COVID after an infection with SARS-CoV-2 has been overcome. State of the prior art, level of predictability in the art, and level of one of ordinary skill: A review of the prior art shows that the state of the art of treating long COVID in a subject having overcome an infection with a virus from the Coronaviridae family comprising administering to a subject in need thereof an effective amount of an aptamer comprising a nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 and/or a nucleic acid sequence being at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 is immature and nascent. Quantity of experimentation: In view of the breadth of the claims which embrace treating long COVID in a subject having overcome an infection with any virus from the Coronaviridae family comprising administering to a subject in need thereof an effective amount of an aptamer comprising a nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1, a nucleic acid sequence being at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1, or a nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 and nucleic acid sequence being at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1, the state and level of predictability in the art, the lack of working examples to show treatment of long COVID in a subject having overcome an infection with any virus from the Coronaviridae family , and the f ailure to provide adequate guidance to overcome the state and level of predictability of the art, one of skill would have to perform undue experimentation in order to practice the invention commensurate in scope with the claims. 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 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schimke et al. ( US 9,234,201 ) . Regarding claims 13 and 14, Schimke et al. teaches an aptamer comprising or consisting of the nucleic acid sequence of SEQ ID N O: 1 for use in therapy and/or diagnosis of autoimmune diseases [abstract] . Schimke et al. teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising at least one aptamer and optionally at least one pharmaceutically acceptable excipient [column 6, second full paragraph]. Schimke et al. SEQ ID NO: 1 (designated as Db) has a 100% match to instant SEQ ID NO: 1 (designated as Qy ) as shown in the alignment below. Query Match 100.0%; Score 15; DB 1; Length 15; Best Local Similarity 100.0%; Matches 15; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0; Qy 1 GGTTGGTGTGGTTGG 15 ||||||||||||||| Db 1 GGTTGGTGTGGTTGG 15 Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTINA TRAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0550 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30 - 5:00pm . 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 Jennifer Dunston can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-2916 . 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. /C.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 1637 /Jennifer Dunston/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1637