Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 17/620,015

ATOMOXETINE HYDROCHLORIDE EXTENDED RELEASE COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 16, 2021
Examiner
JUSTICE, GINA CHIEUN YU
Art Unit
1617
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Celista Pharmaceuticals LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
63%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
520 granted / 944 resolved
-4.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
992
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
43.9%
+3.9% vs TC avg
§102
15.5%
-24.5% vs TC avg
§112
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 944 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Applicant’s amendment filed on December 15, 2025 has been fully considered. The previous claim rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Boehm et al. (US 20050152974 A1), indicated in the Office action dated September 17, 2025, has been withdrawn in view of the claim amendments submitted on December 15, 2025. A new rejection has been made to address the amended claims. Claims 18, 21, 37, 39, 44 and 46 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to nonelected inventions. New claims 47 and 48 are also withdrawn from consideration, as these are process claims depending on claims 37 and 44, respectively. Claim Rejections - 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, 3, 9-12, 15, 24-27, 29, 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehm et al. (US 20050152974 A1, published July 14, 2005) (“Boehm” hereunder). Regarding the present claims 3, 15 and 32, Boehm teaches a controlled-release atomoxetine dosage form which releases 30-80% of the drug is released after 1 hour the drug is place in 0.1N HCl, 40-85 % after 2 hour, 45-90 % after 3 hour, and 50-95 % of the drug after 4 hours. See [0294-0295]. The reference further discloses a press coat formulation comprising 5 mg atomoxetine in an immediate-release coatining, 55 mg atomoxetine between the core and the coatining composition. See [0168]. In this example the reference teaches that the 0-4 hour cumulative release of atomoxetine in 0.1 N hydrochloric acid may be at least about 25- 50%, more preferably about 35-40% of the loaded dose. It is viewed that such amount released represent the amount of the immediate release portion, and meets the presently claimed limitation, “about 10% to about 50 % of the total weight of the active agent in the composition”. Also disclosed in Boehm is a press-coat formulation comprising atomoxetine in the core: press coat: immediate-release coat in the ratio of 3:2:1, with the core composition comprising 30 mg, a coating composition comprising 20 mg, and an immediate-release loading dose comprising 10 mg of atomoxetine hydrochloride. The portion of the coating composition and/or core composition can be considered as the “extended release portion” of the present claims. Boehm further teaches that its sustained-release oral dosage forms provide steady-state and a maximum plasma concentration of the drug Cmax and a plasma concentration of the drug at about 24 hours after administration wherein the ratio of Cmax to C24 is less than bout 4:1. See [0019]. Although the reference does not specifically disclose the drug release profile after 6 or 8 hours in the in vitro dissolution test, the reference teaches and suggests that the sustained-released formulation is designed to release 50-95 % of the drug after 4 hours the drug is administered. Since the reference teaches sustained-release should provide a drug release for at least 8 or at least 12 hours in at steady-state, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application would have been motivated to make such sustained-release formulation comprising atomoxetine or its salt. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of making such sustained-release dosage form, as the reference suggests the ranges of the release rate and the release time which overlap with the limitations of the present claims, and also teaches rate-retarding materials to be used and the parameters that affects release rates such as altering the relative amount of the retarding materials used, the type of the material used, altering the manner a plasticizer is used and using other excipients, etc. See [0079--81]. The reference further teaches that the dose of atomoxetine HCl include 18, 40, 80, 100 mg in the dosage form; making a dosage form comprising such amount of the active ingredient as suggested by the reference would have been prima facie obvious. See [0064]. Regarding claim 9, Boehm teaches a sustained -release powder made from a slurry comprising atomoxetine hydrochloride (45.7 grams) and EUDRAGIT, a release-retarding material (50 grams). The ratio of the amount of the active agent to the amount of sustained release agent is about 1:1.09 and well within the presently claimed range. As indicated above, the release rate depends on facts other than the relative amount of the retarding materials, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had numerous parameters, including the relative amount of the sustained release agent, to manipulate and achieve the targeted release profile. Regarding claims 12, Boehm further teaches multiple dose layered pellets or tablets, optionally in combination with pellets or tablets having instant-release. See [0097]. The reference states, “[t]The immediate and pulsed delayed-release of the drug can be achieved according to different principles, such as by single dose layered pellets or tablets, by multiple dose layered pellets or tablets, or by two or more different fractions of single or multiple dose layered pellets or tablets, optionally in combination with pellets or tablets having instant-release.” Incorporating a pre-determined amount of the atomoxetine in each distinct release layer to obtained a targeted release profile would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. The reference also teaches that same or different release-retarding materials can be used in the different subunit of the dosage form. See [0323]. Regarding claims 24 and 26, since Boehm teaches and suggests that the release characteristic of the atomoxetine or its salts can be designed to treat symptoms when the symptoms are problematic. See [0004]. Given the teachings and suggestions on how to adjust the release rate of the active ingredients, adjusting the parameters to make the multi-release dosage form to meet a targeted release profile would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. See [0314]. Regarding claim 27, the sustained release agents disclosed in Boehm include the release retarding agents such as alkyl cellulose, hydrogenated vegetable oils, poly(methacrylic acid), etc. See [0064-0071]. Regarding claim 34, incorporating a pre-determined amount of the atomoxetine in each distinct release layer to obtained targeted therapeutic effects and release profiles would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 49, the release-modifying agents suitable for the prior art include hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (hyprocellulose), hydroxypropylcellulose, etc. See [0070]. Although the reference does not specifically disclose the drug release profile after about 10 hours in the in vitro dissolution test, the reference teaches and suggests that the sustained-released formulation is designed to release 50-95 % of the drug after 4 hours the drug is administered. Since the reference teaches sustained-release should provide a drug release for at least 8 or at least 12 hours in at steady-state, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application would have been motivated to make such sustained-release formulation comprising atomoxetine or its salt. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of making such sustained-release dosage form, as the reference suggests the ranges of the release rate and the release time which overlap with the limitations of the present claims, and also teaches rate-retarding materials to be used and the parameters that affects release rates such as altering the relative amount of the retarding materials used, the type of the material used, altering the manner a plasticizer is used and using other excipients, etc. See [0079--81]. Regarding claim 50, the reference teaches press coat formulations can contain atomoxetine in the amount 18 mg, 25 mg or 40 mg. See [0168]. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 9-12, 15, 24-27, 29, 32, 34, 49 and 50 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection as indicated above. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GINA JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)272-8605. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5 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 at 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. /GINA C JUSTICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 16, 2021
Application Filed
Sep 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 15, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 31, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599610
SOLID DOSAGE FORMULATIONS OF AN OREXIN RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599548
Method of Treating Oxidative Stress in Skin and Compositions Therefor
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589105
HUMAN MILK FORTIFIER COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582605
EXTENDED RELEASE FORMULATIONS OF CANNABINOIDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582636
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITE FORMULATION COMPRISING PROTON PUMP INHIBITOR AND ANTACID
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
63%
With Interview (+8.2%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 944 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