Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/445,992

MODIFIED RELEASE FORMULATIONS OF LEVODOPA

Final Rejection §103§DP
Filed
Aug 26, 2021
Examiner
BARHAM, BETHANY P
Art Unit
1611
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Rubicon Research Private Limited
OA Round
5 (Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
6-7
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
263 granted / 506 resolved
-8.0% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
522
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.8%
+2.8% vs TC avg
§102
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 506 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/2/25 has been entered. It is noted that even though the RCE Transmittal letter checked the box for Amendment/Reply, it is noted that the RCE submission submitted on 9/2/25 does not include any claim amendments or new claims. Pending claims 1, 3-7, 9 and 11 have been previously examined in the instant application. Further, Applicants have not provided any arguments with respect to the Final Rejection dated 7/30/24. Therefore, the following rejections of record dated 7/30/24 have been maintained: Double Patenting Claims 1, 3-7, 9 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No.11147767 in view of US 20070196396 to Pilgaonkar et al. Both instant claims and the patented claims are directed to gastroretentive dosage forms comprising active agents and a swelling agent, in a bilayer tablet (instant claim 5). Instant claims recite multilayered and further claim 5 is directed to a bilayer tablet of patented claims. Patented bi-layered tablet meets instant claimed multi-layered tablet. The above patent claims carbidopa, levodopa or a combination thereof as the active agent as well as recite the swelling agent, polyethylene oxide, of instant claims 6 and 7. Instant claim 1 also recites a release retardant agent, whereas the patented claims recite a swelling retardant agent, ethyl cellulose. Therefore, the dosage form of the patented claims provides the same swelling index as claimed in the instant claim 11. The above patented claims lack the additional excipients of claim 9. Instant claims recite release retardant whereas patented claims state swelling retardant. Pilgaonkar teaches controlled release oral composition comprising one or more active agents having low bioavailability, one or more solubilizers, one or more swelling agents, which in combination with a swelling enhancer, swells in the presence of water in the gastric fluid, so as to provide retention of the dosage form in the stomach and gradually erodes within the gastrointestinal tract over a prolonged period of time (abstract; [0001], [0020-0025], 0035& 0050). Pilgaonkar teaches additional excipients such as lubricants, disintegrants etc [0057] in the tablet. Pilgaonkar teaches a multi-layered tablet having either an instant release layer and a gastroretentive sustained release layer, or one or more gastroretentive sustained release layers [0026]. Pilgaonkar teaches a number of active agents [0064]. Pilgaonkar teaches surfactants as solubilizers [0065]-[0070]. For the swelling agent, Pilgaonkar teaches the instant claimed polyethylene oxide, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, of instant claim 7 [0072-0076]. For the swelling enhancers, Pilgaonkar also teaches instant claimed low-substituted hydroxypropyl cellulose, crosslinked PVP, crosslinked polyacrylic acid etc [0078], and states that the swelling enhancer allows a rapid and dramatic increase in the size of the tablets [0080]. Pilgaonkar teaches that a synergistic combination of a swelling agent and a swelling enhancer allows rapid swelling and maintenance of integrity by polymeric network formed by swelling of the polymers [0081]. Pilgaonkar also teaches additional excipients such as fillers, disintegrants, binders, lubricants etc [0053-0056]. Pilgaonkar teaches that the solid composition can be in the form of a multi-layer system in which the first layer releases the drug immediately and the second layer provides an expanding nature of the dosage system, thereby making the system to have a greater retention in the stomach [0057]. Thus, both Pilgaonkar and patented claims are directed to gastroretentive compositions and therefore one of an ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the swelling ethylcellulose of the patented claims also acts as a release retardant and further polyethylene oxide acts as a swelling property, as described by Pilgaonkar. While Pilgaonkar does not use the term release retardant, Pilgaonkar teaches swellable properties of various polymers i.e., polyethylene oxide, HPMC of different viscosities such K4M and K100M (table 1), which also acts to control or retard the release of the active agent upon swelling. It is noted that while the reference teaches Methocel K4M as a swelling polymer, instant specification describes the same as a release retardant (see page 6, 1st full paragraph). Hence, one of an ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the swelling enhancer of Pilgaonkar also act as a release retardant and the swelling index of the instant claim 11. Further, one of an ordinary skill in the art would have been able to choose the optimum excipients such as lubricants, fillers, disintegrants as in the tablet of the patented claims depending on the desired effect. 3. Claims 1, 3-7, 9 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 11-14 of copending Application No. 16/943851 (US 20210121398) in view of US 20070196396 to Pilgaonkar et al. Both instant claims and the copending claims are directed to gastroretentive dosage forms comprising active agents and a swelling agent, in a bilayer tablet (instant claim 5). Instant claims recite multilayered and further claim 5 is directed to a bilayer tablet of copending claims. Thus, copending bi-layered tablet meets instant claimed multi-layered tablet. The above copending claims carbidopa, levodopa or a combination thereof as the active agent and hence meet instant combination. Copending claims recite the swelling agent, polyethylene oxide, of instant claims 6 and 7. Instant claim 1 also recites a release retardant agent, whereas the copending claims recite a swelling retardant agent, ethyl cellulose. Further instant claim 8 recites hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, lower viscosity, not recited by the copending claims. Copending claims lack the instant release retardant agent (claim 1) and the additional excipients of claim 9. Therefore, the dosage form of the patented claims provides the same swelling index as claimed in the instant claim 11. The above copending claims lack the additional excipients of claim 9. Instant claims recite release retardant whereas copending claims state swelling retardant. In this regard, Pilgaonkar teaches controlled release oral composition comprising one or more active agents having low bioavailability, one or more solubilizers, one or more swelling agents, which in combination with a swelling enhancer, swells in the presence of water in the gastric fluid, so as to provide retention of the dosage form in the stomach and gradually erodes within the gastrointestinal tract over a prolonged period of time (abstract; [0001], [0020-0025], 0035& 0050). Pilgaonkar teaches a multi-layered tablet having either an instant release layer and a gastroretentive sustained release layer, or one or more gastroretentive sustained release layers [0026]. Pilgaonkar teaches a number of active agents [0064]. Pilgaonkar teaches surfactants as solubilizers [0065]-[0070]. For the swelling agent, Pilgaonkar teaches the instant claimed polyethylene oxide, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, of instant claim 7 [0072-0076]. For the swelling enhancers, Pilgaonkar also teaches instant claimed low-substituted hydroxypropyl cellulose, crosslinked PVP, crosslinked polyacrylic acid etc [0078], and states that the swelling enhancer allows a rapid and dramatic increase in the size of the tablets [0080]. Pilgaonkar teaches that a synergistic combination of a swelling agent and a swelling enhancer allows rapid swelling and maintenance of integrity by polymeric network formed by swelling of the polymers [0081]. Pilgaonkar also teaches additional excipients such as fillers, disintegrants, binders, lubricants etc [0053-0056]. Pilgaonkar teaches that the solid composition can be in the form of a multi-layer system in which the first layer releases the drug immediately and the second layer provides an expanding nature of the dosage system, thereby making the system to have a greater retention in the stomach [0057]. Thus, both Pilgaonkar and patented claims are directed to gastroretentive compositions and therefore one of an ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the swelling ethylcellulose of the copending claims also acts as a release retardant and further polyethylene oxide acts as a swelling property, as described by Pilgaonkar. While Pilgaonkar does not use the term release retardant, Pilgaonkar teaches swellable properties of various polymers i.e., polyethylene oxide, HPMC of different viscosities such K4M and K100M (table 1), which also acts to control or retard the release of the active agent upon swelling. It is noted that while the reference teaches Methocel K4M as a swelling polymer, instant specification describes the same as a release retardant (see page 6, 1st full paragraph). Hence, one of an ordinary skill in the art would have expected that the swelling enhancer of Pilgaonkar also act as a release retardant and the swelling index of the instant claim 11. Further, one of an ordinary skill in the art would have been able to choose the optimum excipients such as lubricants, fillers, disintegrants as in the tablet of the patented claims depending on the desired effect. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 4. Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11033521 to Chase et al in view of US 2011/0229569 to Pilgaonkar et al (Pilgaonkar) and US 20070196396 to Pilgaonkar et al (Pilgaonkar ‘396). Chase teaches treatment of Parkinson’s disease by administration of a combination of levodopa (LD) and carbidopa (CD) in the form of a multi-score bilayered tablet, the tablet comprising a pharmaceutical composition comprising an admixture of CD/LD and a pharmaceutical carrier (col. 1, l 20-34 & col. 6, l 57-63). The multiscore tablet is a bilayered tablet consisting of two-score or three-score top layer comprising CD/LD, and a bottom layer comprising a pharmaceutical carrier without active ingredient, and wherein each score of said top layer penetrates said bottom layer without cutting it (col. 2, l 18-24 & col. 9, l 47-58). The pharmaceutical carriers include cellulose, polyalkylene glycols, alginates etc (col. 10, l 22-45). Example 1 of Chase is directed to a bilayer tablet with carbidopa and levodopa in a single layer and a second layer comprising a pharmaceutical excipient. Chase teaches a second layer comprising a carrier material but does not explicitly teach the instant claimed swelling or gastroretentive agent. Pilgaonkar teaches an oral gastrointestinal dosage form comprising fenugreek fibers that have excellent swelling property (0014-0019]. The composition further includes other swelling and mucoadhesive polymers for gastroretention and include the instant claimed (claims 6 and 7) polyalkylene oxide and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose [0050-0051]. Pilgaonkar teaches retardant polymers in [0055-0056]. The gastroretentive composition is in the form of a bi-layered or trilayered solid dosage form. In particular, the bilayered system is adapted to deliver a pharmaceutical agent from the first layer, a second agent from the second layer, the second agent may be same or different from the first layer [0059]. In a particular embodiment, Pilgaonkar teaches a solid pharmaceutical composition for oral administration contains two layers: one comprising of active ingredient along with a suitable release retardant and the other layer comprising fenugreek fibers in combination with other excipients [0060]. Pilgaonkar teaches several active agents to delivered from the bilayered tablet, and suggests the instant claimed levodopa [0044]. Even though Pilgaonkar fails to exemplify or teach levodopa with sufficient specificity, levodopa is taught as a suitable active agent in the multilayer composition. Pilgaonkar ‘396 teaches controlled release oral composition comprising one or more active agents having low bioavailability, one or more solubilizers, one or more swelling agents, which in combination with a swelling enhancer, swells in the presence of water in the gastric fluid, so as to provide retention of the dosage form in the stomach and gradual erodes within the gastrointestinal tract over a prolonged period of time (abstract; [0001], [0020-0025], 0035& 0050). Pilgaonkar ‘396 teaches that a synergistic combination of a swelling agent and a swelling enhancer allows rapid swelling and maintenance of integrity by polymeric network formed by swelling of the polymers [0081]. Pilgaonkar ‘396 teaches a multi-layered tablet having either an instant release layer and a gastroretentive sustained release layer, or one or more gastroretentive sustained release layers [0026]. Pilgaonkar ‘396 teaches that the solid composition can be in the form of a multi-layer system in which the first layer releases the drug immediately and the second layer provides an expanding nature of the dosage system, thereby making the system to have a greater retention in the stomach [0057]. [0058] teaches that the controlled release layer includes one or more solubilizers, one or more biocompatible swelling agent and a swelling enhancer [0058]. For the swelling agent, Pilgaonkar ‘396 teaches the instant claimed polyethylene oxide, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, and combinations thereof of instant claims 6 and 7 [0072-0076]. While the reference does not use the term release retardant, Pilgaonkar ‘396 teaches swellable properties of various polymers i.e., polyethylene oxide, HPMC of different viscosities such K4M and K100M (table 1). For claim 9, Pilgaonkar ‘396 also teaches additional excipients such as fillers, disintegrants, binders, lubricants etc [0053-0056]. Pilgaonkar ‘396 does not specify the claimed swelling index of instant claims 4 and 11. However, a product and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Pilgaonkar teaches the same swelling agents [0075] of instant claims and hence the property of claims 4 and 11 is inherent. Pilgaonkar ‘396 teaches a number of active agents such as levodopa [0064] but exemplifies actives such as simvastatin, azithromycin etc. Even though Pilgaonkar ‘396 fails to exemplify or teach levodopa with sufficient specificity, the reference levodopa as a suitable active agent in the multilayer composition. It would have been obvious for one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the bilayered composition of Chase comprising carbidopa and levodopa and further modify the composition by including a swelling polymer, such as polyethylene oxide or hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, and a gastroretentive polymer such as fenugreek fiber in the same or second layers of the composition, so as to arrive at the instant claimed composition. One of an ordinary skill in the art would have modified the bilayered tablet composition of Chase because both Pilgaonkar and Pilgaonkar ‘396 references teach that the inclusion of swelling polymers and gastroretentive polymers enables the retention of the dosage form in the stomach, which gradually erodes within the gastrointestinal tract over a prolonged time period, enables the release of the drug near absorption site to ensure better absorption of the drug resulting in increased bioavailability, which further reduces the dose and the frequency needed ([0045-0048] in Pilgaonkar ‘396 & [0014 & 0042] of Pilgaonkar). One of an ordinary skill in the art would have employed the swelling polymer and gastroretentive polymer (meets the instant release retardant) in the same or different layers of the bilayered tablet of Chase with an expectation to optimize the rate or speed of release of the drug from the drug containing layer. Pilgaonkar ‘396 teaches that a synergistic combination of a swelling agent and a swelling enhancer allows rapid swelling and maintenance of integrity by polymeric network formed by swelling of the polymers. Response to Arguments Applicants have not provided any arguments in the submission dated 9/2/25, regarding the Double patenting rejections or Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103. Therefore, the rejections dated 7/30/34 have been maintained. Conclusion All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAKSHMI SARADA CHANNAVAJJALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M- F 9 AM to 6 PM. 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, Bethany Barham can be reached on 571-272-6175. 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. /LAKSHMI S CHANNAVAJJALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 26, 2021
Application Filed
Sep 09, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Mar 15, 2023
Response Filed
Jun 14, 2023
Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Dec 21, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 28, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 10, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
May 15, 2024
Response Filed
Jul 25, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Jan 30, 2025
Notice of Allowance
Sep 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Apr 01, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599586
EDARAVONE SUSPENSION FOR ORAL ADMINISTRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590063
PHENOL DERIVATIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589130
ALOE EXTRACTS FOR MICROBIAL NEUTRALISATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569555
ORGANICALLY MODIFIED MINERAL MICRO-PARTICLES, METHODS OF PREPARING THE SAME AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12520840
METHOD FOR REDUCING PARASITE BURDEN IN A MOSQUITO
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+32.3%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 506 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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