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 The office acknowledges Applicants filing of the claims dated 7/27/2023. Claims 1-11 are pending and are examined based on the merits herein. Application Priority This application filed on is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2022/055003, International Filing Date: 02/28/2022, claims foreign priority to 21159807.3, filed 02/28/2021. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed on 7/27/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner. 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. Claims 1 -11 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 is directed to: Is the preamble drawn to a compound (oxybutynin)? It is noted that t he body of the claim has method steps. What is intended? Is the invention to oxybutynin or to the method of treatment administering oxybutynin? Clarification is required. Note : Claims are examined to the extent that they read on the compound, oxybutynin. Claim Objections Claims 5-11 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). 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(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (A)(1) as being anticipated by ScienceLab (ScienceLab.com, 2005). The instant claims 1-11 are to oxybutynin compound. ScienceLab’s teach oxybutynin compound (see p 1, Section 2) , thus anticipating claims 1-11. For example, c laim 1, the recited limitation of ‘ for use in the treatment of a medical condition, wherein oxybutynin is administered to the subject in need of treatment by means of a vaginal ring, that comprises a drug reservoir for the liquid formulation of oxybutynin and a pump for dispensing the oxybutynin ’ is an intended use . Such intended use is not afforded patentable weight since it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robbie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). It is noted that claim language which merely recites a purpose or intended use of a claimed invention that is otherwise fully and intrinsically set forth by the remainder of the claim, such language is of no consequence to the construction of the invention claimed. MPEP 2111.02(II). Recitation of an intended to use or utility in the preamble which can otherwise stand alone is not considered a further limitation of the claim and therefore cannot impart patentability to a known composition of matter. See, in re Spada, 15 USPQ.2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990). F or the purpose of applying prior art, the claims are being properly construed to be drawn to oxybutynin compound. Hence the other limitations in claims 1-11 are not given patentable weight. Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (A)(1) as being anticipated by Aberg et al. ( US 5532278 ). The instant claims 1-11 are to oxybutynin compound. Aberg teach r acemic oxybutynin is used therapeutically in the treatment of intestinal hypermotility and in the treatment of urinary incontinence due to detrusor instability. Racemic oxybutynin exerts a direct antispasmodic effect on smooth muscle and inhibits the action of acetylcholine on smooth muscle (see col. 1, Background, lines 15-20) . -- S-Oxybutynin (col. 2). The preparation of racemic oxybutynin is described in British Patent Specification 940,540 (col.2, lines 11-13). Aberg is explicit in teaching the optically pure (S)-oxybutynin compound thus anticipating claims 1-11 (See title, abstract). C laim 1 recites the limitation of ‘ for use in the treatment of a medical condition, wherein oxybutynin is administered to the subject in need of treatment by means of a vaginal ring, that comprises a drug reservoir for the liquid formulation of oxybutynin and a pump for dispensing the oxybutynin ’ is an intended use . Such intended use is not afforded patentable weight since it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robbie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). cannot impart patentability to a known composition of matter. See, in re Spada, 15 USPQ.2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990). F or the purpose of applying prior art, the claims are being properly construed to be drawn to oxybutynin compound. Hence the other limitations in claims 1-11 are not given patentable weight. Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (A)(1) as being anticipated by De Laat ( WO 2016120402 ). De Latt teach ings relates to oxybutynin for use in the treatment of urinary and bladder problems, in particular urge incontinence (Abstract). De Latt anticipates the claimed oxybutynin compound. Claim 1 recites the limitation of ‘ for use in the treatment of a medical condition, wherein oxybutynin is administered to the subject in need of treatment by means of a vaginal ring, that comprises a drug reservoir for the liquid formulation of oxybutynin and a pump for dispensing the oxybutynin ’ is an intended use . Such intended use is not afforded patentable weight since it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robbie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). cannot impart patentability to a known composition of matter. See, in re Spada, 15 USPQ.2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990). F or the purpose of applying prior art, the claims are being properly construed to be drawn to oxybutynin compound. Hence the other limitations in claims 1-11 are not given patentable weight. 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 . Claims 1- 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1 -2 of U.S. 11717477 (‘477) or claims 1, 14-15, 25-27 of co-pending application, 18 / 802794 (‘794). The instant claims are directed to: The dependent claims are limited to specific conditions to be treated, dosage amount, peristaltic pump, further comprising electronic circuit board, wireless connection to external devices, for transmission and receiving of data, external device selected from computer, smart phone, tablet, data received is measurement of volume, temperature, data transmitted is volume to be delivered, point of time of delivery and delivery pattern. ‘477 reference claims are directed to a method of administering a therapeutically active compound for the treatment of a medical condition, the method comprising: administering the therapeutically active compound , oxybutynin . ‘794 reference claim 1 is directed to a vaginal delivery device that comprises an active agent, oxybutynin. Claims 15, 25 are directed to oxybutynin compound for use in a treatment. Claims 26-27 are to a method for treating urinary or bladder problem using an anticholinergic compound, oxybutynin. Ther e is no patentable distinction between oxybutynin compound (instant claim) and the compound used in the method(s) of the reference claims. The instant c laims are to oxybutynin compound and the rest of the limitations are to the intended use. Recitation of an intended to use or utility in the preamble which can otherwise stand alone is not considered a further limitation of the claim and therefore cannot impart patentability to a known composition of matter. See, in re Spada, 15 USPQ.2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note: In regards to 18 / 802794 , t his is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT UMAMAHESWARI RAMACHANDRAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9926 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F- 8:30-5:00 PM (PST) . 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 at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712705239 . 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. /Umamaheswari Ramachandran/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1627