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. Priority This application, filed 08/01/2023 is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2022/052587, International Filing Date: 02/03/2022. PCT/EP2022/052587 claims foreign priority to 2101462.6, filed 02/03/2021. A certified copy of the foreign priority application is of record. Status of Claims Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-15, 17-18, 21-22, 26-28 are pending as of the claim set filed on 3/28/24. Claims 6, 8, 13, 16, 19-20, and 23-25 have been canceled. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-15, 17-18, 21-22, and 26-28 were examined. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 14-15, 17-18, 21-22, and 27-28 are rejected. Claims 12 and 26 are objected to. Claim Rejections-35 USC § 103 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 (s) 1- 5 , 7, 9 -11, 14-15, 17-18, 21-22, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maricich et. al., WO 2018200844 A1, publ. 11/1/2018. Maricich teaches a method for treating Dravet syndrome comprising administering an effective amount of a T type calcium channel antagonist to a subject in need thereof (title & abstract; p. 1, lines 7- 9 ). Maricich teaches Dravet syndrome as a genetic disorder that causes a severe form of epilepsy; additional symptoms include delayed development of language and motor skills, hyperactivity, chronic infection, growth and balance issues, cognitive impairment, and difficulty relating to others, e.g., impaired social skills (p. 2, line 21-p. 3, line 3). Maricich teaches the treatment reduces or ameliorates at least one neurological symptom in a subject, including seizure, autistic behavior, cognitive impairment, developmental delay, and impaired behavior (p. 5, lines 6-9 and lines 22-24; p. 6, lines 4-10). Maricich teaches administration of the T-type calcium channel antagonist in combination with one or more additional therapeutic agents, such as an anticonvulsive agent, wherein lacosamide and oxcarbazepine are included as exemplary anticonvulsives (p. 6, lines 23-30 ; p. 26, lines 12-16; p. 27, lines 8-12). Maricich teaches each compound is administered at an effective dose ranging from about 1 mg to about 2000 mg., wherein each dose is administered at a frequency of once daily, twice daily, etc. (p. 11, lines 7-33). Maricich teaches the combination of agents can be administered simultaneously or sequentially (p. 26, lines 22-25). Maricich teaches the pharmaceutical compositions comprising the active agents with one or more pharmaceutically acceptable carriers, and in packaged dosage forms (p. 29, lines 4-16; p. 33, lines 15-22). Maricich teaches the treatment period with the active agents to range from 1 week or longer, including about 24 months or longer (p. 12, lines 8-19). Maricich additionally teaches the therapeutic dose can vary according to the manner of administration, health and condition of the patient, severity of symptoms, and response of patient to the dose (p. 30, line 25-p. 31, line 17). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claims to have treated the executive function disorder, Dravet syndrome, which is characterized by cognitive impairment and autis m, comprising administering the combination of a T-type calcium channel antagonist, lacosamide, and oxcarbazepine in consideration of the teachings of Maricich . Maricich teaches a method of treating Dravet syndrome comprising administering a T-type calcium channel antagonist in combination with one or more anticonvulsives , with lacosamide and oxcarbazepine exemplified as anticonvulsives . Maricich further teaches Dravet syndrome is characterized by autistic behavior (e.g., autism), cognitive impairment, delayed development of language and motor skills, hyperactivity, and impaired social skills. Maricich further teaches a dose of each compound to range from about 1 mg to about 2000 mg., wherein each dose is administered at a frequency of once daily, twice daily, etc. for reduction or amelioration of one or more neurological symptoms. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the dose of lacosamide of at least 100 mg/day, and the dose of oxcarbazepine of at least 600 mg/day based on the teachings of Maricich , in the absence of evidence indicating the criticality of these doses. See MPEP 2144.05(II): Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Similarly, based on the teachings of Maricich , one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the dose of lacosamide of 200 mg/day and oxcarbazepine of between 600-1200 mg/day as recited by instant claim 28, in the absence of evidence indicating the criticality of these dose amounts. As Maricich teaches the combination of agents can be administered simultaneously or sequentially, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have administered the T-type calcium channel antagonist, lacosamide, and oxcarbazepine in a single pharmaceutical composition as recited by instant claim 21; or as separate packaged pharmaceutical compositions in a kit as recited by instant claim 22. Regarding instant claims 4-5, wherein lacosamide is administered at an initial dose of 100 mg/day, and oxcarbazepine is administered at an initial dose of 600-750 mg/day, it is noted that the increase in initial dose is optional in the claims as indicated by , “which if tolerated by the patient … ”. Therefore, the teachings of Maricich render instant claims 4-5 prima facie obvious. Regarding instant claim 7, wherein oxcarbazepine is administered at a dose of 600 mg/day for 6-7 weeks, followed by a dose of 900 mg/day afterwards, as discussed above Maricich teaches a treatment period that overlaps with 6-7 weeks, and indicates the dose amount can be adjusted depending on numerous factors, including the response of the patient to therapy. As such, the treatment regimen of instant claim 7 would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Maricich , in the absence of evidence indicating the criticality of this treatment regimen. Regarding instant claim 9, wherein lacosamide is administered at an initial amount of 100 mg/day, and oxcarbazepine administered at an initial dose of 600-750 mg/day, it is noted that the adjustment to these doses from the initial amounts in the claim is optional as indicated by “which if tolerated by the patient is…” . Therefore, the teachings of Maricich would render the treatment regimen of instant claim 9 prima facie obvious for the reasons discussed above. Regarding instant claim 10, wherein lacosamide is administered at an initial dose of 100 mg/day, and oxcarbazepine is administered at an initial dose of 600 mg/day, it is noted that the increase in dose is optional, “which if tolerated by the patient is… ”. Therefore, the teachings of Maricich render instant claim 10 prima facie obvious. Regarding instant claim 11, wherein lacosamide is administered at a dose of 100 mg/day for 1-2 weeks, followed by a dose of 200 mg/day, it is noted that these doses and treatment periods are taught by Maricich . Additionally, Maricich suggests the dose of compound can be adjusted over time. It is noted that the limitations of (iii) and (iv) recited in the claim are optional. Claim Objection Claim s 12 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Information Disclosure Statement The IDS filed on 8/1/23 has been considered. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SARAH PIHONAK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7710 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30 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 at 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT SARAH . PIHONAK Primary Examiner Art Unit 1627 /SARAH PIHONAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1627