The previous rejection mailed on October 22, 2025 is herewith WITHDRAWN.
DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is in response to the Applicant's reply filed January 22, 2026 to the office action made on October 22, 2025.
Claims 117-146 are currently pending and Claims 117-146 are examined on the merits herein.
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 03/28/2025 is a continuation of 19/008,882 filed on 01/03/2025, which is a continuation of 18/648,049 filed on 04/26/2024, which is a continuation of 17/449,785 filed on 10/01/2021 which is a continuation of PAT 11135214 filed on 05/13/2019 , which has a PRO 62/670,253 filed on 05/11/2018.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed on 1/22/26 is in compliance with the provisions of S7 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
The arguments over the rejection of claims 117-146 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Vernier et al. ( US20110003850 A1) in view of Johannessen et al. (Management of Focal-Onset Seizures. Qrugs, 2006, Volume 66, Number 13, Page 1704} is not persuasive. The rejection is herewith maintained. The Examiner points out that the prior art teaches of treating or preventing a disease, disorder, or condition that is affected by modulation of at least one potassium ion channel selected from KCNQ2/3, KCNQ4, and KCNQ5, such as treating or preventing a seizure disorder in a patient comprising administering compound A:
PNG
media_image1.png
171
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in an amount of from about 10 mg to about 2000 mg per day to a patient. [0337] Tests examples show oral administration of the compound. [0529]. The Examiner points out the Vernier teaches the same disorder, the same active, and a concentration range of the active which falls within the scope of the prior art.
The nonstatutory double patenting over U.S. Applic. No. 18679045 is maintained as both the copending claims and claims herein teach the same active in the same amounts useful in treatment of the same condition.
The nonstatutory double patenting over U.S. Applic. No. 17093183 (US Pat US12178811B2), U.S. Applic. No. 18958937 U.S. Applic. No. 18921788, U.S. PAT. No. 11957675 and U.S. Patent No. 11091441B2 are maintained as both the copending claims and claims herein teach the same active in the same amounts useful in treatment of the same conditions. Additionally, the Examiner points out that the current MPEP guidelines do not yet reflect the PTAB decision. The rejection is maintained.
The nonstatutory double patenting over U.S. Applic. No. 19008882– is maintained as both the copending claims and claims herein teach the same active in the same amounts useful in treatment of the same conditions.
The nonstatutory double patenting over U.S. Patent No. 11135214 is maintained as both the copending claims and claims herein teach the same active in the same amounts useful in treatment of the same conditions.
The nonstatutory double patenting over U.S. Applic. No. 18/648,049 is maintained as both the copending claims and claims herein teach the same active in the same amounts useful in treatment of the same conditions.
The rejections are as below:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 117-146 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vernier et al. ( US20110003850 A1) in view of Johannessen et al. (Management of Focal-Onset Seizures. Qrugs, 2006, Volume 66, Number 13, Page 1704}
Vernier et al. teaches a method of treating or preventing a disease, disorder, or condition that is affected by modulation of at least one potassium ion channel selected from KCNQ2/3, KCNQ4, and KCNQ5, such as treating or preventing a seizure disorder in a patient comprising administering compound A:
PNG
media_image1.png
171
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in an amount of from about 10 mg to about 2000 mg per day to a patient. [0337] Tests examples show oral administration of the compound. [0529]. A syrup formulation [0330] is taught by the reference (reads on an immediate release formulation).
Vernier et al. does not specify seizure focal onset.
Johannessen et al. teaches focal onset seizures are manifestations of abnormal epileptic firing of brain cells in a localized area or areas of the brain.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to treat focal onset seizures. The motivation to treat focal onset seizures is because the compound A is generally useful in treatment of seizure disorders. Hence, a skilled artisan would have had reasonable expectation of successfully achieving similar results.
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 117-146 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 117, 124-135, and 143-146 of U.S. Applic. No. 18679045. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims are drawn to a method of administering Compound A to a human in need thereof; wherein Compound A is N-[4-(6-fluoro-3,4-dihydro- 1 H-isoquinolin-2-yl)-2,6-dimethylpheny1]-3,3- dimethylbutanamide; the improvement comprising administering Compound A to the human without dose titration while the claims herein are drawn to a method of treating a disease, disorder, or condition associated with Kv7 potassium channel dysfunction in a human in need thereof, comprising orally administering 10-50 mg of Compound A to the human; wherein Compound A is N-[4-(6-fluoro-3,4-dihydro- 1 H-isoquinolin-2-yl)-2,6- dimethylpheny1]-3,3-dimethylbutanamide. The claims are rendered obvious.
Claims 117-146 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 26-32, 35-46 of U.S. Applic. No. 17093183 (US Pat US12178811B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims are drawn to a method of treating a depressive disorder in a human in need thereof, comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of Compound A to the human; wherein Compound A is N-[4-(6-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-1H-isoquinolin-2-yl)-2.6- dimethylphenyl]-3,3-dimethylbutanamide; wherein Compound A is orally administered to the human under fed conditions while the claims herein are drawn to a method of treating a disease, disorder, or condition associated with Kv7 potassium channel dysfunction in a human in need thereof, comprising orally administering 10-50 mg of Compound A to the human; wherein Compound A is N-[4-(6-fluoro-3,4-dihydro- 1 H-isoquinolin-2-yl)-2,6- dimethylpheny1]-3,3-dimethylbutanamide. The claims are rendered obvious.
Claims 117-146 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 8-21, 24, 35 of U.S. Applic. No. 18921788 – claims filed on 2/28/25; IDS filed 1/23/25. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims are drawn to a method of enhancing the opening of a Kv7 potassium channel in a human, comprising administering an effective amount of Compound A to the human; wherein Compound A is N-[4-(6-fluoro-3,4-dihydro- 1 H-isoquinolin-2-yl)-2,6- dimethylpheny1]-3,3-dimethylbutanamide; and wherein the human is suffering from anhedonia while the claims herein are drawn to a method of treating a disease, disorder, or condition associated with Kv7 potassium channel dysfunction in a human in need thereof, comprising orally administering 10-50 mg of Compound A to the human; wherein Compound A is N-[4-(6-fluoro-3,4-dihydro- 1 H-isoquinolin-2-yl)-2,6- dimethylpheny1]-3,3-dimethylbutanamide. The claims are rendered obvious.
Claims 117-146 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-35 of U.S. Applic. No. 18958937 – claims filed on 11/25/24; IDS filed 1/23/25. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims are drawn to a method of treating one or more somatic symptoms of a depressive disorder in a subject in need thereof, the method comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of azetukalneror a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereofwhile the claims herein are drawn to a method of treating a disease, disorder, or condition associated with Kv7 potassium channel dysfunction in a human in need thereof, comprising orally administering 10-50 mg of Compound A to the human; wherein Compound A is N-[4-(6-fluoro-3,4-dihydro- 1 H-isoquinolin-2-yl)-2,6- dimethylpheny1]-3,3-dimethylbutanamide. The claims are rendered obvious.
Claims 117-146 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 117-136 of U.S. Applic. No. 19008882– claims filed on 1/3/25; IDS filed 1/23/25. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims are drawn to a method of enhancing opening of a Kv7 potassium channel in a human in need
thereof, comprising orally administering an effective amount of Compound A to the human under fed conditions; wherein Compound A is V-[4-(6-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-1H-isoquinolin-2-yl)-2,6- dimethylphenyl]-3,3-dimethylbutanamide, the human suffering from a seizure disorder; while the claims herein are drawn to in a method of orally administering Compound A to a method of treating a disease, disorder, or condition associated with Kv7 potassium channel dysfunction in a human in need thereof, comprising orally administering 10-50 mg of Compound A to the human; wherein Compound A is N-[4-(6-fluoro-3,4-dihydro- 1 H-isoquinolin-2-yl)-2,6- dimethylpheny1]-3,3-dimethylbutanamide. The claims are rendered obvious.
Claims 117-146 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 19-34 of U.S. PAT. No. 11957675. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims are drawn to a Method of treating anhedonia, comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of Compound A to a human in need thereof; wherein Compound A is N-[4-(6-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-1H-isoquinolin-2-yl)-2,6-dimethylphenyl]-3,3-dimethylbutanamide, wherein Compound A is orally administered to the human from between about 30 minutes before to about 2 hours after eating a meal and Compound A is administered at a dose of 5-150 mg per day to the human , while the claims herein are drawn to a method of treating a disease, disorder, or condition associated with Kv7 potassium channel dysfunction in a human in need thereof, comprising orally administering 10-50 mg of Compound A to the human; wherein Compound A is N-[4-(6-fluoro-3,4-dihydro- 1 H-isoquinolin-2-yl)-2,6- dimethylpheny1]-3,3-dimethylbutanamide. The claims are rendered obvious.
Claims 117-146 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11135214. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the US Patented claims are drawn to a method of orally administering Compound A to a human in need thereof, wherein Compound A is N-[4-(6-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-1H- isoquinolin-2-yl)-2,6-dimethylphenyl]-3 ,3-dimethyloutanamide; wherein the improvement comprises orally administering an amount of Compound A to the human from between 30 minutes prior to consuming food until 2 hours after consuming food while the claims herein are drawn to a method of treating a disease, disorder, or condition associated with Kv7 potassium channel dysfunction in a human in need thereof, comprising orally administering 10-50 mg of Compound A to the human; wherein Compound A is N-[4-(6-fluoro-3,4-dihydro- 1 H-isoquinolin-2-yl)-2,6- dimethylpheny1]-3,3-dimethylbutanamide. The claims are rendered obvious.
Claims 117-146 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11091441B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the US Patented claims are drawn to method of preparing the pharmaceutical composition of claim 7, the method comprising combining the crystalline form of Compound A with the pharmaceutical excipient, carrier, and/or diluent to form the pharmaceutical composition wherein the crystalline form is administered to the human from between 30 minutes before to 2 hours after eating a meal while the claims herein are drawn to a method of treating a disease, disorder, or condition associated with Kv7 potassium channel dysfunction in a human in need thereof, comprising orally administering 10-50 mg of Compound A to the human; wherein Compound A is N-[4-(6-fluoro-3,4-dihydro- 1 H-isoquinolin-2-yl)-2,6- dimethylpheny1]-3,3-dimethylbutanamide. The claims are rendered obvious.
Claims 117-146 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 117, 119-123, 126-135,139-151 of U.S. Applic. No. 18/648,049 – claims filed on 1/3/25; IDS filed 1/23/25. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims are drawn to a method of treating a disease, disorder, or condition associated with Kv7 potassium channel dysfunction in a human in need thereof, comprising orally administering a therapeutically effective amount of Compound A to the human under fed conditions; wherein Compound A is V N-[4-(6-fluoro-3,4-dihydro- 1 H-isoquinolin-2-yl)-2,6- dimethylphenyl]-3,3-dimethylbutanamide while the claims herein are drawn to in a method of orally administering Compound A to a method of treating a disease, disorder, or condition associated with Kv7 potassium channel dysfunction in a human in need thereof, comprising orally administering 10-50 mg of Compound A to the human; wherein Compound A is N-[4-(6-fluoro-3,4-dihydro- 1 H-isoquinolin-2-yl)-2,6- dimethylpheny1]-3,3-dimethylbutanamide. The claims are rendered obvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAYLA SOROUSH whose telephone number is (571)272-5008. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, James Henry Alstrum-Acevedo, can be reached on (571)272-5548. 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.
/LAYLA SOROUSH/