Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/451,557

METHODS OF TREATING TESTOSTERONE DEFICIENCY

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Aug 17, 2023
Examiner
HUI, SAN MING R
Art Unit
1627
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Tolmar, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
757 granted / 1284 resolved
-1.0% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1335
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
47.9%
+7.9% vs TC avg
§102
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
§112
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1284 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §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 . Applicant’s amendments filed 3/6/2026 have been entered. Claims 66-91 are pending. Claims 1-65 are cancelled. Claims 66-91 have been added. As the claims are directed to the use of a testosterone undecanoate formulation with specific excipients and amount range, in a specific dosage, to give rise to the herein claimed results of 75% of patients having Cavg in the range of about 300 ng/dL to about 1100 ng/dL, and less than about 5% having Cmax in the range of about 1800 ng/dL to about 2500 ng/dL, the prior art cited in the related application 18/433,069 will not be applicable. Criticality of such dosage to produce such effects are demonstrated. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 66-91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “at least about 75% of the population has a testosterone Cavg within a eugonadal range, and less than about 5% of the population has a testosterone Cmax in the range of about 1800 ng/dL to about 2500 ng/dL” is not supported by the originally filed specifications or claims. Appropriate correction is required. 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 66-91 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 31-36, 40, 42, 45, 46, 48-60 of copending Application No. 18/433,069 (‘069) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘069 teaches the method of treating testosterone deficiency and conditions associated therein with a testosterone undecanoate composition comprising the same dosage of TU and the same components, in the same amount range, producing the same results (see claims 31, 57 for example). ‘069 teaches the same starting dose of 237 mg (see claims 31 and 57). ‘069 also teaches additional steps to further measure the serum testosterone levels 6 hours after the administration (see claims 51 for example). Since the scope of ‘069 is narrower than that of the instant application, this is an anticipatory type of double patenting rejection. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN MING R HUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30. 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, Kortney Klinkel can be reached at 571-270-5239. 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. /SAN MING R HUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1627
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 17, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Apr 08, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 08, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594237
Mucoadhesive Gel Composition
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589081
CURCUMIN COMPOSITIONS FOR OSTEOARTHRITIS AND JOINT WELLNESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576045
METHODS AND NUTRACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS FOR THE PREVENTION AND/OR MITIGATION OF VEISALGIA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569465
METHOD FOR ACTIVATING FOLLICLES BY MEANS OF USING SMALL-MOLECULE COMPOUND, AND PREPARATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564581
PYRAZOLE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+19.7%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1284 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