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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitation of “any and all of the antihistamines or antiemetics ” as a “medication to treat or alleviate symptoms of nausea, vertigo, photophobia and phonophobia”. It is known in the art some antihistamines are known to alleviate other symptoms than what is claimed thus would not apply to claimed invention. Additionally, applicants’ specification is directed towards specific antihistamines or antiemetics and not “all antihistamines or antiemetics ”, therefore applicants claims are not enabled by the scope of the specification. Claims 2-7 and 9-13 are equally failing to comply with enablement requirement as being dependent from claims 1 and 8 without further limiting all antihistamines or antiemetics . Applicant is enabled for first generation antihis tamines and antiemetics known in the art to alleviate symptoms of nausea, vertigo, photophobia , phonophobia and pain associated with a medical condition that the above symptoms exhibit. 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- 3, 6-10 and 13 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. Regarding claims 1-2, 6-10 and 13, 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). Regarding claim 1, the phrase "including but not limited to" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear the other antihistamines or antiemetics and analgesics included in treating or alleviating the claimed symptoms . Regarding claim s 2 and 9 , the phrase "allowable ad dition" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear the limitations of allowable addition as the claim nor the specification provide a standard for asserting the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the invention. Ultimately, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear . Regarding claims 3 and 10, the phrase "a method of treating the symptoms, according to claim" renders the claim indefinite because claims 3 and 10 are dependent from claims 1 and 8 which reads to a pharmaceutical composition and not a method of treatment, Ultimately, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear . 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bosse et al. (US 20090175939 A1) . Regarding claims 1-13, Bosse teaches a method for treating or preventing a migraine headache and photophobia comprising administering to a subject in need thereof an effective amount of (a) an opioid analgesic agent; (b) an antiemetic agent; and (c) a stimulant agent (para. 0025 and 0028) . In specific embodiments Bosse teaches an effective amount of a) hydrocodone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof or oxycodone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; (b) acetaminophen from about 290 to about 360 mg, (c) promethazine from about 11 mg to about 14 mg and (d) about 0.75 mg of naltrexone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof; and (2) a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or vehicle (para. 0020-0021). 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 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10124005 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 5 of US ‘005 anticipates claimed invention of a method of treating migraine comprising administration of 6.25mg of meclizine, 250 mg of acetaminophen and 60 mg of caffeine . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MIKHAIL O'DONNEL ROBINSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0777 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:30am-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, 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 MIKHAIL O'DONNEL. ROBINSON Examiner Art Unit 1627 /MIKHAIL O'DONNEL ROBINSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1627 /SARAH PIHONAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1627