Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/356,972

PARENTERAL TREATMENTS INVOLVING AMINOADAMANTANE DERIVATIVES

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jul 21, 2023
Examiner
CORNET, JEAN P
Art Unit
1628
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Shinkei Therapeutics Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
42%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 42% of resolved cases
42%
Career Allow Rate
494 granted / 1171 resolved
-17.8% vs TC avg
Strong +48% interview lift
Without
With
+47.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
69 currently pending
Career history
1240
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
47.1%
+7.1% vs TC avg
§102
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
§112
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1171 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 is a Continuation of Application No. 16/840,561 filed on April 08,2019, which claims priority to Provisional Application No. 62/830,830, filed on 04/08/2019. Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination. Free of prior art The closest prior arts are Saniova (J Neural Transm (2004) 111: 511-514) Huang (PLOS One, January 2014, vol. 9, Issue, pages 1-14), and Brenner (J Neurol (1989) 236: 153-156). Saniova and PK-Merz® Infusion collectively do not teach amantadine hydrochloride amantadine hydrochloride in the amount of 0.1 mg/ml to about 10 mg/ml, and intravenous administration. Moreover, Saniova and PK-Merz® Infusion collectively do not teach mild traumatic brain injury and mild traumatic brain injury the is caused by stroke or an accident. Huang teaches a method for treating mild to severe traumatic brain injury in a rat subject comprising administering subcutaneously a mini-pump comprising amantadine hydrochloride. (See Abstract and page 2; right column, fourth paragraph.) Moreover, Huang teaches amantadine has emerged in the literature as a medication with potential benefits for patients with head injuries and has been used in basic animal studies and clinical trials [8]. Preliminary studies have shown that amantadine hydrochloride accelerates functional recovery during the active treatment of patients with brain injuries. (See page 2; left column, second paragraph.) Brenner teaches intravenous administration of amantadine has been shown to be a quick-acting and highly effective method for treating patients with Parkinson’s disease. (See Abstract.) Moreover, Brenner teaches treatment initially consisted of a daily infusion of 200 mg amantadine sulphate (500ml PK-Merz) between 8.00 and 11.00 a.m. over a period of 10 days. On the 10th day 3 × 1 tablet (100 mg) was additionally administered. From the 11th day on 3 × 2 tablets were administered for 6 months. (See page 153; right column, second paragraph.) None of the cited prior art references teach or suggest intravenous administration of amantadine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof at a dose of about 200 mg to about 400 mg once or twice daily, at a rate of about 15 mg/hr to about 135 mg/hr, and a volume of about 100 mg to about 1000 ml for treating traumatic brain injury in a human patient. 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,707,439B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The U.S. patent claims teach a method of treating traumatic brain injury (TBI) mild and severe in a human subject comprising intravenously administering a composition consisting of a pharmacologically effective amount of amantadine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof in sterile water and wherein the composition is free of any other excipients, the composition has a volume of about 100 ml to about 1000 ml and the composition is administered once or twice daily at a daily dose of about 200 mg to about 400 mg amantadine or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof at a rate of about 15 mg/hr to about 135 mg/hr. (See claims 1, 3 and 4.) Moreover, the U.S. patent claims teach the method comprising: (i) a first period of administrating of the composition consisting of about 200 mg to about 400 mg of amantadine hydrochloride in sterile water at a rate of about 15 mg/hr to about 135 mg/hr of amantadine hydrochloride, (ii) followed by a second period without administration of amantadine hydrochloride, and (iii) followed by a third period of administrating of the composition consisting of about 200 mg to about 400 mg of amantadine hydrochloride in sterile water at a rate of about 15 mg/hr to about 135 mg/hr of amantadine hydrochloride, whereby the administration comprises twice daily administration of the composition. (See claim 20.) The traumatic brain injury is caused by a stroke or an accident and the composition is administered in combination with other neuroprotective and/or anti-inflammatory compounds. (See claims 6 and 9.) The U.S. patent claims teach The method of the U.S patent claims anticipate the instant claims. Conclusion Claims 1-20 are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN P CORNET whose telephone number is (571)270-7669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 7.00am-5.30pm. 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, Amy L Clark can be reached on 571-272-1310. 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. /JEAN P CORNET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1628
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 21, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594267
CAPSID INHIBITORS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HIV
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582592
FLAVOR OR AROMA DETERIORATION INHIBITOR CONTAINING THEANAPHTHOQUINONE AND ANALOGUES THEREOF AS ACTIVE INGREDIENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576085
COMBINATION COMPRISING AN ATP ANALOG AND AN ADENOSINE RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST OR A NUCLEOBASE NUCLEOSIDE ANALOG FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576066
METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATMENT OF MYDRIASIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576067
METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATMENT OF MYDRIASIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
42%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+47.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1171 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month