DETAILED ACTION 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 was filed 07/20/2023 and is a CIP of 17/723189 (04/18/2022, USPat 11753378) which has a PRO 63/175499 (04/19/2021). Claims 1- 24 are before the Examiner. 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. Claim s 1- 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiang US Patent 12209060, 11440874, 10836714 and 10683262. Xiang teaches a Markush of compounds, salts, pharmaceutical compositions, oral formulations, kits and AUC that anticipate the instant claims. Claim 1 (compound) is taught by claims 1-13 of ‘060 and the other patents. From the specification: Claims 2-3 and 10 are taught by paragraph 104. Claim 4 is paragraph 19. Claim 5 is taught by paragraph 9, 13 and 19. Claims 6 and 7 are taught by paragraph 5. Claims 8- 10 are taught by claims 1-17 of 060 . Claims 11-15 are taught by the claims and paragraph 19 of 060 . Claims 16-17 are taught by paragraph 183. Claim 18 is taught by the abstract. Claims 19-24 are taught by paragraph 5. This anticipates the instant claims. Claim s 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019137381, Xiang. Xiang teaches prodrugs of (S) and (R) ketamine along with pharmaceutical compositions and methods of use. Specifically, formula (IIIa) and (IIIb) on page 27. And compound #2 on page 33 and compounds #6-15 on page 35. Pharmacokinetics of ketamine are taught/discussed in the specification (see page 2) as well as a sustained release formulation. This anticipates the instant claims. 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 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 11753378 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patented parent have L being alkyl while the instant claims have L being alkenyl , alkynyl, alkoxy, alkylamino, aryl, substituted aryl and cycloalkyl . The originally filed claims in the patent had the L being alkyl, alkenyl, alkynyl, alkoxy, alkylamino, aryl, substituted aryl and cycloalkyl and during the prosecution, the claims were limited to L being alkyl. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT D MARGARET M SEAMAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0694 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8am-4pm Eastern . 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 Andrew Kosar can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-0913 . 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 MARGARET M SEAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1625