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 Claims 1-12 are pending in the application. Claim 11 is rejected. Claims 1-10 and 12 are withdrawn. Restriction/Election of Species Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claim 11, in the reply filed on January 23, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 23, 2026. Priority This application is a 35 U.S.C. § 371 National Stage Filing of International Application No. PCT/KR2022/005867 , filed on April 25, 2022 , which claims priority to Korean Application No. KR10-2021-0076259, filed on June 11, 2021 , which claims priority to Korean Application No. KR10-2021-0053853, filed on April 26, 2021 . Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on July 8, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS documents and signed copies of the 1449 forms are attached. Drawings The specification states the drawings, filed on November 16, 2023, are in reference to “the number of patients with antipyresis according to the time of administration (t, h) of Pyramax ® Tab.” See paragraphs [45] and [46]. The drawings are, however, objected to because information regarding the x-axis in each of Figures 1-7 has not been provided in the drawings. To further improve the clarity and reproducibility of the aforementioned figures, Applicant should submit replacement drawings, wherein the x-axis is properly labeled (i.e., consistent with support from original disclosure) in each figure. 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. In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application. Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via EFS-Web or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via EFS-Web, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification: The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee. Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2). 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim 11 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 11 recites the expression “about 60 mg of artesunate...and about 180 mg of pyronaridine.” See third and fourth to last line of the claim. The term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill could reasonably determine the objective boundaries of the scope of the claim based on the aforementioned terms. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). 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. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" as being anticipated by Tshefu et al. ( The Lancet , 2010, 375(9724):1457-1467) as evidenced by Mayo Clinic (Fever: First aid. web.archive.org/web/20190212032648/https://www.mayoclinic.org/first-aid/first-aid-fever/basics/art-20056685; archived via Wayback Machine on February 12, 2019). Regarding instant claim 11, Tshefu et al. teach administering one “pyronaridine-artesunate tablet[] (containing 180 mg pyronaridine and 60 mg artesunate...)” to patients- having a bodyweight from 20 kg to ≤25 kg- “once a day...orally for three days” for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. See e.g., pages 1457 and 1460. Tshefu et al. further teach an inclusion criteria for the patients being treated is “documented history of fever in the previous 24 h.” See e.g., pages 1459. Note the attached Mayo Clinic reference which provides the following body temperatures that generally indicate a fever: . Further note that the following expression recited in claim 11 is drawn towards a characteristic which would necessarily be present from employing the instantly claimed method and is, therefore, non-limiting: “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 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. 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tshefu et al. ( The Lancet , 2010, 375(9724):1457-1467) in view of Sagara et al. ( The Lancet , 2018, 391(10128):1378-1390). Determining the scope and contents of the prior art (See MPEP § 2141.01) Tshefu et al. teach administering one “pyronaridine-artesunate tablet[] (containing 180 mg pyronaridine and 60 mg artesunate...)” to patients- having a bodyweight from 20 kg to ≤25 kg- “once a day...orally for three days” for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. See e.g., pages 1457 and 1460. Tshefu et al. further teach an inclusion criteria for the patients being treated is “documented history of fever in the previous 24 h.” See e.g., pages 1459. Note that the following expression as recited in instant claim 11 is considered to be drawn towards a characteristic which would necessarily be present from employing the instantly claimed method and is, therefore, non-limiting: “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). Ascertainment of the differences between the prior art and the claims (See MPEP § 2141.02) Tshefu et al. teach administering the instantly claimed pharmaceutical tablet to patients with fever (see e.g., page 1459). However, the difference- if any- between the teachings of Tshefu et al. and the instantly claimed invention concerns the “fever criteria” as recited in instant claim 11. With respect to this potential difference, Sagara et al., in the same field of endeavor, teach administering pyronaridine-artesunate tablets to adult patients having “fever (axillary temperature ≥37.5°C, or oral, or rectal, or tympanic temperature ≥38°C) or history of fever in the previous 24 h” which correlates with the instantly claimed “fever criteria” requirements. See e.g., page 1380. Finding of prima facie obviousness --- rationale and motivation (See MPEP § 2142-2143) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to administer the pyronaridine-artesunate tablet taught by Tshefu et al. to an individual having fever as characterized by Sagara et al. A skilled artisan would be motivated to emplace an eligibility criterion to identify patients with fever for the purposes of obtaining relevant data when assessing the effects of administering pyronaridine-artesunate to the patients. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID SHIM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1205 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM EST . 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 RENEE CLAYTOR can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8394 . 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. /D.M.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1626 /REBECCA L ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626