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- 7 and 9-14 are currently pending. Claim Objections Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The words “ingredient”, “carrier”, and “excipient” should all be pluralized. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 10- 11 and 14 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 regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 10, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 11 recites “pharmaceutical composition of claim 4”; however, Claim 4 describes only a compound and not a composition thereof. Claim 14 is rejected by virtue of dependency. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action . Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. PROVISIONAL : Claims 1-7, 9-14 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of anticipatory and obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2, 4-11, 17 of copending Application No. 17615056 (hereinafter referred to as Chiesi). FILLIN "Insert an explanation of the obviousness analysis." Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to overlapping genera of P2X3 inhibitors for the treatment of cough. For example Chiesi teaches while the instant app teaches , differing by a single methyl. Chiesi teaches the Y heterocycloalkyl, oxetane, can be substituted with a C1 alkyl group, rendering the instant species obvious. Further, compounds which are homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.09. The Chiesi compound sans modification is encompassed within the instant genus of formula (I) Chiesi does not claim methods of use. Regarding the Chiesi claims directed to exclusively compositions of matter, In AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust , 764 F.3d 1366, 112 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court explained that it is also proper to look at the disclosed utility in the reference disclosure to determine the overall question of obviousness in a nonstatutory double patenting context. See Sun Pharm. Indus., Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 611 F.3d 1381, 95 USPQ2d 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See MPEP 804 (II) (B) (1). Chiesi teaches the use of the compounds of the copending claims in methods of treating cough through oral administration (Pages 96-99) . Since both applications teach overlapping genera of P2X3 inhibitors , by which the Chiesi compounds are encompassed , the examiner maintains that the aforementioned claims of the instant application are substantially overlapping in scope as discussed hereinabove and are prima facie obvious over the cited claims of Chiesi. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. NONPROVISIONAL Claims 1-7, 9-14 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of anticipatory nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-9 of US Patent No. 12466820 (hereinafter referred to as Chiesi). FILLIN "Insert an explanation of the obviousness analysis." Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to the same P2X3 inhibitors for the treatment of cough and COPD . For example, both applications teach the following compound: which can be used to treat various forms of cough. Regarding the claims directed to compositions of matter, In AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust , 764 F.3d 1366, 112 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court explained that it is also proper to look at the disclosed utility in the reference disclosure to determine the overall question of obviousness in a nonstatutory double patenting context. See Sun Pharm. Indus., Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 611 F.3d 1381, 95 USPQ2d 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See MPEP 804 (II) (B) (1). Chiesi teaches the use of the claimed compositions for treating cough and COPD in the abstract. Since both applications teach the same P2X3 inhibitors, the examiner maintains that the aforementioned claims of the instant application are substantially overlapping in scope as discussed hereinabove and are prima facie obvious over the cited claims of Chiesi. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Allowable Subject Matter The closest prior art is found in Rosenthal (Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters 21 (2011) 3152–3158). Rosenthal teaches the following two compounds: , wherein the OMe is displaced from the claimed orientation to the adjacent carbon (Page 3153, Scheme 2). The modification of Compounds 14 or 15, however, would not be obvious because Rosenthal teaches the compounds possessing an OMe rather than H to be ineffective for their purported use, Clk4 and Dyrk1A inhibition (IC50(nM) >10,000) (Page 3154, Table 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not be motivated to select and modify the above compounds because Rosenthal demonstrates them to not even be slightly effective as Clk4 and Dyrk1A inhibitors—let alone P2X3 inhibitors as claimed. Conclusion Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected. Claim 6 is objected to. Inquiries Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Richard G. Peckham whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4621 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30am - 4:30pm 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 Kortney Klinkel can be reached on 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. /RICHARD GRANT PECKHAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1627 /Kortney L. Klinkel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1627