Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 15, 2026
Application No. 18/709,055

METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATING CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH CENTRAL HYPOVENTILATION

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
May 10, 2024
Priority
Nov 11, 2021 — provisional 63/278,324 +2 more
Examiner
RAHMANI, NILOOFAR
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Apnimed Inc. (Delaware)
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
882 granted / 1138 resolved
+17.5% vs TC avg
Minimal -3% lift
Without
With
+-3.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
1152
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§102
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
§112
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1138 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13-19, 21-26, 28-30 are pending in the instant application. 2. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 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 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13-19, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for treating sleep apnea does not enabled for treating a condition associated with central hypoventilation other than sleep apnea. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include 1) the breadth of the claims, 2) the nature of the invention, 3) the state of the prior art, 4) the level of one of ordinary skill, 5) the level of predictability in the art, 6) the amount of direction provided by the inventor, 7) the existence of working examples, and 8) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 1) The breadth of the claims. 2) The nature of the invention, 3) The state of the prior art, 4) The level of one of ordinary skill, 5) The level of predictability in the art, 6) The amount of direction provided by the inventor, 7) The existence of working examples, 8) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. The nature of the invention: The instant invention is drawn to method for treating a condition associated with central hypoventilation, the method comprising administering to a subject in need thereof an effective amount of (i) a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI) and (ii) a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor (CAI). The state of the prior art: As indicated by the prior art, there is not any association between (NRI) and (CAI) to treat a condition associated with central hypoventilation other than sleep apnea. There is no guidance in the prior art that (NRI) and (CAI) could be useful to treat a condition associated with central hypoventilation other than sleep apnea. Hypoventilation can lead to central sleep apnea by causing decreased respiratory drive. The predictability in the art: At present using (NRI) and (CAI) to treat a condition associated with central hypoventilation other than sleep apnea is purely speculative. It is noted that the pharmaceutical art is unpredictable, requiring each embodiment to be individually assessed for physiological activity. In re Fisher, 427 F. 2d 833, 166 USPQ 18 (CCPA 1970) indicates that the more unpredictable an area is, the more specific enablement is necessary in order to satisfy the statute. They have not shown a nexus to treat diseases but have provided only reports in vitro which, absent a correlation to treat of diseases, are not sufficient to enable the invention. The level of the skill in the art: The level of skill in the art is high. Amount of guidance/working examples: Applicant provides no examples of the test compounds to a condition associated with central hypoventilation. The breadth of the claims: The claims encompass a method for treating a condition associated with central hypoventilation. The quantity of experimentation needed: Since the guidance and teaching provided by the specification is insufficient for treating diseases associated with therapeutically effective amount of a compound of formula (I) is efficacious, one of ordinary skill in the art, even with high level of skill, is unable to use the instant compounds as claimed without undue experimentation. Taking all of the above into consideration, it is not seen where the instant claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13-19, 21-22, for treating diseases associated with therapeutically effective amount of a compound of Formula (I) is efficacious, have been enabled by the instant specification. 3. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13-19, 21-26, 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miller et al., US 2022/0362221. Miller et al. discloses the instant claimed pharmaceutical compositions comprising a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI) and . Therefore, the instant claims are anticipated by Miller et al. 4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Niloofar Rahmani whose telephone number is 571-272-4329. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Claytor, can be reached on 571-272-8394. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306. 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). /NILOOFAR RAHMANI/ 07/16/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 10, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12703700
GLP-1R Agonist and Therapeutic Method Thereof
1y 0m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12696901
PESTICIDALLY ACTIVE HETEROCYCLIC DERIVATIVES WITH SULFUR CONTAINING SUBSTITUENTS
4y 1m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12698270
ARYL ETHER-SUBSTITUTED HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUNDS AS GLP1R AGONISTS
3y 2m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12686660
Aza-Substituted Psilocin Analogs And Methods Of Synthesizing The Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12678444
SUBSTITUTED PYRAZINE-2-CARBOXAMIDES AS HPK1 INHIBITORS FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (-3.1%)
1y 11m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1138 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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