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 Amendment/remarks and Information Disclosure Statements filed April 29,
2026 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. Also, the application has been amended as directed.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112, (New Ground)
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 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 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 16
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 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.
Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 103, (Overcome)
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha, (U.S. 2024/0474594) in view of Reynolds et al., as set forth in the previous Office action dated January
30, 2026 has been overcome and is hereby withdrawn in light of at least Applicant's amendment
to claim 1.
Applicant's claim 1 now requires "wherein the dosage form comprising the release modifier provides an AUC that is less than the AUC that would result from orally administering 4.5 mg of minoxidil in an immediate release formulation" and such cannot be said to be inherent in the teachings of the prior art or to have been obvious from the teachings in the prior art.
In particular, the requirement cannot be said to be inherent because the host of the prior
art is not the same as the host of the present claims, i.e., a human being experiencing central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, thus making the presently claimed AUC characteristic merely a possible characteristic.
For inherency, though, the result must be a necessity and not merely a possibility. Also,
there is no teaching in Sinha or Reynolds correlating any pharmacokinetic parameter of a dosage form containing a release modifier to any such parameter occurring in an immediate release dosage form in the particular host as defined by present claim 1.
Double Patenting
Provisional
Claims 1-20 remain 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).19/094,716; 19/253,703; 19/253,708; 19/255,878; 19/215,242, (claims 1-21); 19/230,054, (claims 1-21); 19/230,047, (claims 1-21); 19/258,817; 19/267,447; 19/267,464; 19/308,124; 19/315,454, (claims 1-19); 19/328,077, (claims 1-19); or 19/329,494, (claims 1-19), each of record, for the reasons of record as set forth in the previous Office action
dated January 30, 2026, which reasons are here incorporated by reference.
Applicant's remarks have been carefully considered, but fail to persuade the Examiner of
error in his determination of provisional double-patenting.
In particular, Applicant has merely referenced the amendments to at least claims 1, 4 and 7 and requests for reconsideration, (page 8 of Applicant's remarks). This does not persuade the Examiner of error in his determination because the supposed errors in the Examiner's determination, even with the newly added language to claim 1, have not been specifically addressed by Applicant. Also, because previous claim 4 already required a release modifier and claim 7 the pharmacokinetic parameters of present claim 1, such requirements were already addressed by the Examiner and thus Applicant's argument is non-persuasive.
This remains a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably
indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Non-Provisional
Claims 1-20 remain 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. Patent No. 12,491,184, (cited by the Examiner), each of record, for the reasons of record as set forth in the previous Office action dated January 30, 2026, which reasons are here incorporated by reference.
Applicant's remarks have been carefully considered, but fail to persuade the Examiner of
error in his determination of provisional double-patenting.
In particular, Applicant has merely referenced the amendments to at least claims 1, 4 and 7 and requests for reconsideration, (page 8 of Applicant's remarks). This does not persuade the Examiner of error in his determination because the supposed errors in the Examiner's determination, even with the newly added language to claim 1, have not been specifically addressed by Applicant. Also, because previous claim 4 already required a release modifier and claim 7 the pharmacokinetic parameters of present claim 1, such requirements were already addressed by the Examiner and thus Applicant's argument is non-persuasive.
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
July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights