CLAIMS 1-20 ARE PRESENTED FOR EXAMINATION
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 .
Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements filed July 15, 2025 have been received and entered into the application. As reflected by the attached, completed copies of form PTO/SB/08, the cited references have been considered by the Examiner
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112, (New Grounds)
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 13-18 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.
Each of claims 6 and 13-18 recites a physiological result which either does not follow or
is lessened after the administration of minoxidil as per the method of claim 1. However, such a
result does not equate to a further limitation of the patient population, minoxidil dosage form or
the step of administration as recited in claim 1 and thus the supposed further limited metes and
bounds of the subject matter of these claims as compared to claim 1 would be unclear to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
For example, with respect to claim 13, the phrase "results in no tachycardia" makes
the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably determine the
metes and bounds of this limitation. Specifically, it is not clear how this limitation in claim 13
further limits claim 1 with respect to either the patient population, the dosage form, the dosage
amount, the method step of administration, or adds some of functional-descriptive limitation to
the claim.
The specification uses the term "tachycardia" on nine specific instances (see paragraphs
0031, 0033, 0034, 0151, 0153, 0369, 0372, 0466, and 0472). However, none of the appearances
of the limitation in claim 13 in the specification explains how a treatment method without
tachycardia is achieved.
"In some embodiments of the method described herein, administering results in
substantially no cardiac effects. In some embodiments, the cardiac effects are selected from
tachycardia, hypotension, premature ventricular contractions, and other tachyarrhythmias.
In some embodiments of the method described herein, administering results in hair
regrowth with substantially no clinically significant hemodynamic changes in blood pressure. In
some embodiments, administering results in hair regrowth with substantially no cardiac effects.
In some embodiments, the daily dose of minoxidil or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof
results in substantially no cardiac effects or hemodynamic effects as compared to administration
of an immediate-release oral minoxidil or a pharmaceutically".
The current Specification demonstrates a clinical trial using 5 mg that 1 patient
developed tachycardia, which appears contrary to claim 13's intended result of the functional
descriptive claim language.
Taken as a whole, it is still not clear how the disputed limitation of claim 16 further limits
claim 1, and is therefore indefinite.
The same rationale can be applied to the supposed limitations of claims 6 and 14-18 resulting in the same conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to reasonably ascertain the supposed further limiting metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, the claims are deemed properly rejected
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 103
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha, (U.S. 2024/0474594, (effective 09/29/21), in view of Reynolds et al., "Investigation of the Effect of Tablet Surface Area/Volume on Drug Release from Hydroxypropylmethylcellulose Controlled-Release Matrix Tablets", Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy, 28(4), 457-466 (2002), (hereinafter “Reynolds”, cited by Applicant).
Sinha teaches a method of treating male pattern hair loss, ([0022]), comprising orally administering a dosage form to a human patient experiencing hair loss, wherein the dosage form comprises “about 5 mg to about 10 mg” of minoxidil (see at least the abstract, [0013], [0012], (claims 10 and 16), i.e., the presently claimed “about 8.5 mg”. The dosage form may provide delayed, sustained or enteric release, [0043], and contain one or more diluents, carriers, excipients, coating agents, fillers, disintegrants, solubilizing agents, dispersing agents, lubricants, release aids, binders etc., [0046]-[0047].
The differences between the above and the claimed subject matter lie in that Sinha fails to teach (a) a release aid such as hydroxypropyl methylcellulose being present in the oral dosage form; (c) a dosage frequency of once or twice daily, (d) the pharmacokinetic parameters of present claims 4-5; (e) the lack of symptomology as in present claims 6 and 13-18); and (f) that the patient has a cardiac condition for which medication is being taken.
However, 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 because Sinha teaches that in extended release dosage forms, [0043]; auxiliary agents including release aids, carriers/excipients may be used, (e.g., [0046-7]); that the compositions he teaches may be produced in accordance with general practice in the pharmaceutical industry, ([0045]); and that large macromolecules such as polysaccharides can be used as carrier compounds for the compositions, ([0049]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ hydroxypropyl methylcellulose as an extended release carrier in the compositions of Sinha because Reynolds teaches that “hydrophilic polymers, such as hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), are commonly used as rate-controlling polymers for controlled drug release from matrix-type dosage forms”.
It is further believed that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the determination of the optimum ingredient percentages to employ would have been a routine determination of the skilled artisan. This is particularly true for active ingredient dosage frequency because the optimization of the dosing of active agents in the pharmaceutical/medical arts is a primary concern when considering an effective therapeutic regimen for a given patient or patient group.
Further, because the reference teaches the same presently claimed dosage amounts, dosage form and route of administration, it must be true that the pharmacokinetic parameters and non-symptomology associated with such amounts and form after oral administration would be present in the prior art whether reported or not or else recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Finally, cardiac disease, e.g., a cardiac condition, is prevalent in the adult population both treated and untreated. Sinha fails to teach the cardiac disease/treatment therefor status of the patients disclosed and thus it must be, whether recognized by Sinha or not, that the presently claimed patients suffering from a cardiac condition and their treatment therefor were elements within the scope of the disclosure of the prior art not amounting to a difference under 35 USC 103.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the claims are deemed properly rejected.
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.
Provisional
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20, (unless otherwise specified), of copending Application Nos. (reference applications). 19/094,703; 19/422,011; 19/413,834; 19/242,858; 19/404,931; 19/215,216; 19/230,051; 19/236,933; 19/235,535; 19/250,029; 19/324,046; 19/234,212; 19/329,476, (claims 1-19); 19/245,208; 19/303,300; 19/315,441; 19/230,007, (claims 1-21); 19/409,546; 19/414,251, 19/241,304 or 19/397,854.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the co-pending claims in each application are directed to either treating hair loss in general or to specific types of hair loss, including alopecia areata, as is presently claimed. Also, overlapping or the same percentages of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose appears in the either the dependent or independent claims of the copending applications.
The presently claimed dosage amount of “about 8.5 mg” of minoxidil, dosage frequency, other non-active agents and symptomology resulting from the administration are either recited in or else encompassed by the copending claims as are the pharmacokinetic parameters required by the present claims.
]This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Non-Provisional
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 12,268,688, (cited by Applicant) or (b) claims 1-20 of U.S. Application No. 19/094,703, (allowed and soon to be patented).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the minoxidil formulations of the patented or soon to be patented claims are species of the presently claimed dosage form which is orally administered. The blood concentration ranges of the patented and soon to be patented claims would also be within the scope of the presently claimed subject matter. The specific type of hair loss as is presently claimed is taught in the patented claim sets, (see ‘703 at claim 6 and “688 at claim 4, for example).
Accordingly, the claims are deemed properly rejected and none are currently in condition for allowance.
Accordingly, the claims are deemed properly rejected and none are currently in condition for allowance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND J HENLEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-0575. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2:30pm 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://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey S Lundgren can be reached on 571-272-5541. 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.
/RAYMOND J HENLEY III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1629
June 09, 2026
Prosecution Insights