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 filed on 01/10/2023 is a continuation of 16/964174 filed on 07/22/2020 is a national stage entry of PCT/IB2019/050522, International Filing Date: 01/22/2019, PCT/IB2019/050522 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62621290, filed 01/24/2018.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11, 15-16, 18, 20-23, 28-29, 31, 33-35, and 37-38 are pending and under consideration herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (WO 2010/010458) in view of Marra et al. (US 9,040,533) and Ronzoni (CNS US 2009/027555).
Yao teaches the following compound, which is compound IA of the instant claims (page 89, see last paragraph).
PNG
media_image1.png
277
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Example 18, p 119 establishes the efficacy of the receptor binding adnd activity response of compound 362 to ORL-1. The reference teaches the substituted-quinoxaline type bridged piperidine compound, pharmaceutical salts its composition and its utility. The reference teaches that the compounds of the invention are modulators of the ORL-1 receptor (see p 2, lines 15-32, p 44, lines 10-15) and is useful as chronic pain, an agent to treat withdrawal from alcohol, agent to treat withdrawal from drug(s) of addiction etc. (See p 5, lines 5-7, 12, p 41, lines 3-11 p 57, line 12), for chronic neuropathic pain caused by nerve damage from chronic alcoholism (p 57, lines 9-18). The reference teaches treating a condition comprising administering to an animal in need thereof an effective amount of substituted-quinoxaline type bridged piperidine compound (see p 5, last para). Suitable effective dosage amounts range from about 0.01 mg/kg to about 3000 mg/kg of body weight of an animal per day (p 64, lines 16-17).
Yao do not teach the use of the compound in the treatment of insomnia and wherein the subject further suffers from interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome.
Marra teaches the utility of ORL-1 receptor modulators, oxime substituted quinoxaline type piperidine compounds in the treatment of sleep disorders including insomnia, hypersomnia, sleep deprivation, delayed sleep phase syndrome (DSPS), advanced sleep phase syndrome (ASPS), non-24-hour sleep-wake syndrome (e.g., circadian rhythm sleep disorder), situational circadian rhythm sleep disorders, hypopnea, irregular sleep wake rhythm (col. 271, lines 21-42). Suitable effective dosage amounts range from about 0.01 mg/kg to about 3000 mg/kg of body weight of an animal per day (col. 278, lines 13-15).
Ronzoni teaches a method wherein certain substituted indoles are powerful ligands for the ORL-1 receptor and can therefore be useful in the treatment of diseases dependent on the activation of this receptor. ‘The invention relates in particular to a group of new compounds possessing antagonistic activity for the receptors ORL-1 useful in treatment illness dependent on the activation of these receptors, that can be useful in treating bladder pain. ‘The compounds of the invention are therefore useful in the therapy and/or prophylaxis of all those illnesses dependent on activation of the ORL-1 receptor. Accordingly they can be used as analgesics in man or animals in treating or preventing, for example, acute pain, chronic neuropathic or inflammatory pain, including..visceral pain including that associated with..hyperreflexia of the bladder..’ See para [0003], [0001], [0230], and entire disclosure.
From the teachings of Marra and Ronzoni a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to administer the compound of Yao (formula IA compound of the instant claims) in the treatment of insomnia wherein said human subject further suffers from bladder pain syndrome because (i) Yao teaches the compound of formula IA as a ORL-1 modulator compound (ii) Marra teaches that ORL-1 modulators are useful in the treatment of sleep disorders including insomnia; (iii) Ronzoni teaches that compounds possessing antagonistic activity for the receptors ORL-1 useful in treatment illness dependent on the activation of these receptors, that can be useful in treating bladder pain. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the ORL-1 modulator compounds of formula IA in treating a symptom, e.g. insomnia wherein the subject further suffers from bladder pain. Thus claims 37 and 38 are addressed by the combined teachings of the prior art.
6. Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11, 15-16, 18, 20-23, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (WO 2010/010458) in view of Ronzoni (CNS US 2009/027555).
Yao teaches the following compound, which is compound IA of the instant claims (page 89, see last paragraph).
PNG
media_image1.png
277
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Example 18, p 119 establishes the efficacy of the receptor binding adnd activity response of compound 362 to ORL-1. The reference teaches the substituted-quinoxaline type bridged piperidine compound, pharmaceutical salts its composition and its utility. The reference teaches that the compounds of the invention are modulators of the ORL-1 receptor (see p 2, lines 15-32, p 44, lines 10-15) and is useful as chronic pain, an agent to treat withdrawal from alcohol, agent to treat withdrawal from drug(s) of addiction etc. (See p 5, lines 5-7, 12, p 41, lines 3-11 p 57, line 12), for chronic neuropathic pain caused by nerve damage from chronic alcoholism (p 57, lines 9-18). The reference teaches treating a condition comprising administering to an animal in need thereof an effective amount of substituted-quinoxaline type bridged piperidine compound (see p 5, last para). Suitable effective dosage amounts range from about 0.01 mg/kg to about 3000 mg/kg of body weight of an animal per day (p 64, lines 16-17). Suitable effective dosage amounts range from about 0.01 mg/kg to about 3000 mg/kg of body weight of an animal per day to ranges such as 0.025 mg/kg to about 20 mg/kg of body weight of an animal per day (p 64, starting at line 16). Administration of instant claim 9 is taught (p 59, starting at line 21). Regarding the dosages and administration frequency the claims, (taught on p. 64), see MPEP as follows: “[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). Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on ranges by showing the criticality of the claimed range. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g) for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and reasonably would expect success. Further see See MPEP 2144.05.I:
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.")…Absent any evidence demonstrating a patentable difference between the methods and the criticality of the claimed amounts with the overlapping ranges, the determination of the optimum or workable range(s) given the guidance of the prior art would have been generally prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan.
Yao do not teach the use of the compound for the treatment of interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome.
Ronzoni teaches a method wherein certain substituted indoles are powerful ligands for the ORL-1 receptor and can therefore be useful in the treatment of diseases dependent on the activation of this receptor. ‘The invention relates in particular to a group of new compounds possessing antagonistic activity for the receptors ORL-1 useful in treatment illness dependent on the activation of these receptors, that can be useful in treating bladder pain. ‘The compounds of the invention are therefore useful in the therapy and/or prophylaxis of all those illnesses dependent on activation of the ORL-1 receptor. Accordingly they can be used as analgesics in man or animals in treating or preventing, for example, acute pain, chronic neuropathic or inflammatory pain, including..visceral pain including that associated with..hyperreflexia of the bladder..’ See para [0003], [0001], [0230], and entire disclosure.
From the teachings of Ronzoni a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to administer the compound of Yao (formula IA compound of the instant claims) in the treatment of bladder pain syndrome because (i) Yao teaches the compound of formula IA as a ORL-1 modulator compound (ii) Ronzoni teaches that compounds possessing antagonistic activity for the receptors ORL-1 useful in treatment illness dependent on the activation of these receptors, that can be useful in treating bladder pain. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the ORL-1 modulator compounds of formula IA in treating a symptom, e bladder pain. Thus the claims are addressed by the combined teachings of the prior art.
7. Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 11, 15-16, 18, 20-23, 28-29, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (WO 2010/010458) in view of Ronzoni (CNS US 2009/027555) in further view of Lewis et al. (WO 2005/117862).
Yao teaches the following compound, which is compound IA of the instant claims (page 89, see last paragraph).
PNG
media_image1.png
277
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Example 18, p 119 establishes the efficacy of the receptor binding adnd activity response of compound 362 to ORL-1. The reference teaches the substituted-quinoxaline type bridged piperidine compound, pharmaceutical salts its composition and its utility. The reference teaches that the compounds of the invention are modulators of the ORL-1 receptor (see p 2, lines 15-32, p 44, lines 10-15) and is useful as chronic pain, an agent to treat withdrawal from alcohol, agent to treat withdrawal from drug(s) of addiction etc. (See p 5, lines 5-7, 12, p 41, lines 3-11 p 57, line 12), for chronic neuropathic pain caused by nerve damage from chronic alcoholism (p 57, lines 9-18). The reference teaches treating a condition comprising administering to an animal in need thereof an effective amount of substituted-quinoxaline type bridged piperidine compound (see p 5, last para). Suitable effective dosage amounts range from about 0.01 mg/kg to about 3000 mg/kg of body weight of an animal per day (p 64, lines 16-17). Various amounts and modes are administration are taught throughout this section of the prior art reference. Regarding these ranges and administration frequency, “[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). Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on ranges by showing the criticality of the claimed range. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g) for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and reasonably would expect success. Furthermore, absent any evidence demonstrating a patentable difference between the compositions and the criticality of the claimed amounts, the determination of the optimum or workable range(s) given the guidance of the prior art would have been generally prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan.
Yao do not teach the use of the compound for the treatment of interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome.
Ronzoni teaches a method wherein certain substituted indoles are powerful ligands for the ORL-1 receptor and can therefore be useful in the treatment of diseases dependent on the activation of this receptor. ‘The invention relates in particular to a group of new compounds possessing antagonistic activity for the receptors ORL-1 useful in treatment illness dependent on the activation of these receptors, that can be useful in treating bladder pain. ‘The compounds of the invention are therefore useful in the therapy and/or prophylaxis of all those illnesses dependent on activation of the ORL-1 receptor. Accordingly they can be used as analgesics in man or animals in treating or preventing, for example, acute pain, chronic neuropathic or inflammatory pain, including..visceral pain including that associated with..hyperreflexia of the bladder..’ See para [0003], [0001], [0230], and entire disclosure.
Yao and Ronzoni do not teach the limitations of claims 28-29. Regarding instant claims 28-29, Lewis teaches the use of antagonists of the nociception receptor (endogenous agonist of ORL-1 receptor) for treatment of urinary conditions and increased bladder capacity and urinary incontinence. There was found to be no effect on blood pressure (Example 1) p 43.
From the teachings of Ronzoni and Lewis a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to administer the compound of Yao (formula IA compound of the instant claims) in the treatment of bladder pain syndrome because (i) Yao teaches the compound of formula IA as a ORL-1 modulator compound (ii) Ronzoni teaches that compounds possessing antagonistic activity for the receptors ORL-1 useful in treatment illness dependent on the activation of these receptors, that can be useful in treating bladder pain and Lewis teaches the use of antagonists of the nociception receptor (endogenous agonist of ORL-1 receptor) with no effect on blood pressure. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the ORL-1 modulator compounds of formula IA in treating a symptom, bladder pain, with no effect on blood pressure. Thus the claims are addressed by the combined teachings of the prior art.
8. Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (WO 2010/010458) in view of Ronzoni (CNS US 2009/027555) in further view of Marra et al. (US 9,040,533) and Landolt (CNS Drugs, 15, 5, 413-425, 2001).
Yao teaches the following compound, which is compound IA of the instant claims (page 89, see last paragraph).
PNG
media_image1.png
277
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Example 18, p 119 establishes the efficacy of the receptor binding adnd activity response of compound 362 to ORL-1. The reference teaches the substituted-quinoxaline type bridged piperidine compound, pharmaceutical salts its composition and its utility. The reference teaches that the compounds of the invention are modulators of the ORL-1 receptor (see p 2, lines 15-32, p 44, lines 10-15) and is useful as chronic pain, an agent to treat withdrawal from alcohol, agent to treat withdrawal from drug(s) of addiction etc. (See p 5, lines 5-7, 12, p 41, lines 3-11 p 57, line 12), for chronic neuropathic pain caused by nerve damage from chronic alcoholism (p 57, lines 9-18). The reference teaches treating a condition comprising administering to an animal in need thereof an effective amount of substituted-quinoxaline type bridged piperidine compound (see p 5, last para).
Yao do not teach the use of the compound in the treatment of interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome wherein the subject suffers from a sleep disorder.
Ronzoni teaches a method wherein certain substituted indoles are powerful ligands for the ORL-1 receptor and can therefore be useful in the treatment of diseases dependent on the activation of this receptor. ‘The invention relates in particular to a group of new compounds possessing antagonistic activity for the receptors ORL-1 useful in treatment illness dependent on the activation of these receptors, that can be useful in treating bladder pain. ‘The compounds of the invention are therefore useful in the therapy and/or prophylaxis of all those illnesses dependent on activation of the ORL-1 receptor. Accordingly they can be used as analgesics in man or animals in treating or preventing, for example, acute pain, chronic neuropathic or inflammatory pain, including..visceral pain including that associated with..hyperreflexia of the bladder..’ See para [0003], [0001], [0230], and entire disclosure.
From the teachings of Ronzoni a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to administer the compound of Yao (formula IA compound of the instant claims) in the treatment of bladder pain syndrome because (i) Yao teaches the compound of formula IA as a ORL-1 modulator compound (ii) Ronzoni teaches that compounds possessing antagonistic activity for the receptors ORL-1 useful in treatment illness dependent on the activation of these receptors, that can be useful in treating bladder pain. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the ORL-1 modulator compounds of formula IA in treating a symptom, e.g. bladder pain.
Regarding claim 34, Marra teaches the utility of ORL-1 receptor modulators, oxime substituted quinoxaline type piperidine compounds in the treatment of sleep disorders including insomnia, hypersomnia, sleep deprivation, delayed sleep phase syndrome (DSPS), advanced sleep phase syndrome (ASPS), non-24-hour sleep-wake syndrome (e.g., circadian rhythm sleep disorder), situational circadian rhythm sleep disorders, hypopnea, irregular sleep wake rhythm (col. 271, lines 21-42). Suitable effective dosage amounts range from about 0.01 mg/kg to about 3000 mg/kg of body weight of an animal per day (col. 278, lines 13-15).
Regarding claim 35, Landolt teaches that insomnia, hyperinsomnia, circadian rhythm sleep disorders, parainsomnias may occur in alcohol dependent patients during periods of drinking, withdrawal and abstinence (See p 414, col. 1, para 1, p 418, col. 1, lines 3-7). Also taught is that alcohol dependent patients may continue drinking or resume drinking after abstinence to avoid insomnia (p 417, col. 1, para 3, lines 1-5).
From the teachings of Marra and Landolt a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to administer the compound of Yao (formula IA compound of the instant claims) because (i) Yao teaches the compound of formula IA as a ORL-1 modulator compound and its use as an agent to treat withdrawal from alcohol, (ii) Ronzoni teaches that compounds possessing antagonistic activity for the receptors ORL-1 useful in treatment illness dependent on the activation of these receptors, that can be useful in treating bladder pain, (iii) Marra teaches that ORL-1 modulators are useful in the treatment of sleep disorders including insomnia; (iv) Landolt explicitly teaches that insomnia is associated in both subjects who have withdrawn alcohol consumption and in alcohol dependent patients during periods of drinking. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the ORL-1 modulator compound of formula IA in treating the aforementioned condition(s). Thus the claims are addressed by the combined teachings of the prior art.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/ file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
9. Claims 37-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10974081. Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10974081 anticipate the instant claims.
The instant claims are drawn is to a method for treating insomnia.
‘081 reference claims are directed to a method for treating or preventing a sleep disorder, comprising administering to a human patient in need thereof from about 0.05 mg to about 100 mg of a compound of Formula (1D):
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
10. Claims 37-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11738023. Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11738023 anticipate the instant claims.
The instant claims are drawn is to a method for treating insomnia.
‘023 reference claims are directed to a method for treating or preventing a sleep disorder, comprising administering to a human patient in need thereof a compound of Formula (1C).
11. Claims 37-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12371427. Claims 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12371427 anticipate the instant claims.
The instant claims are drawn is to a method for treating insomnia.
‘427 reference claims are directed to a method for treating or preventing a sleep disorder, insomnia, comprising administering to a human patient in need thereof a compound of Formula (I) of claim 1.
12. Claims 37-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11576913. Claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11576913 anticipate the instant claims.
The instant claims are drawn is to a method for treating insomnia.
‘913 reference claims are directed to a method for treating or preventing a sleep disorder, comprising administering to a human patient in need thereof a compound of Formula (1C).
13. Claims 37-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12171762. Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12171762 anticipate the instant claims.
The instant claims are drawn is to a method for treating insomnia.
‘762 reference claims are directed to a method for treating or preventing a sleep disorder, comprising administering to a human patient in need thereof a compound of Formula (1C).
13. Claims 37-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12370191. Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12370191 anticipate the instant claims.
The instant claims are drawn is to a method for treating insomnia.
‘191 reference claims are directed to a method for treating or preventing a sleep disorder, comprising administering to a human patient in need thereof a compound of Formula (1C).
14. Claims 37-38 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 97-112 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19239541. Claims 97-112 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19239541 anticipate the instant claims.
The instant claims are drawn is to a method for treating insomnia.
‘541 application claims are directed to a method for treating or preventing insomnia, comprising administering to a human patient in need thereof a compound of Formula (1C).
Conclusion
15. No claims allowed.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha Shterengarts whose telephone number is (571)270-5316. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday 9-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Adam Milligan can be reached on 571-270-7674. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMANTHA L SHTERENGARTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1623
Prosecution Insights