Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/534,888

SHIKIMATE ANALOGUES AND METHODS OF USE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 24, 2021
Examiner
SOROUSH, LAYLA
Art Unit
1622
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
The Board Of Regents Of The University Of Oklahoma
OA Round
2 (Final)
40%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 40% of resolved cases
40%
Career Allow Rate
349 granted / 868 resolved
-19.8% vs TC avg
Strong +43% interview lift
Without
With
+43.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
921
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
50.3%
+10.3% vs TC avg
§102
12.5%
-27.5% vs TC avg
§112
12.9%
-27.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 868 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Applicant’s response filed on August 25, 2025 to the non-Final rejection mailed on April 24, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 6-25 are herein acted on the merits. 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 . Information Disclosure Statement No new information disclosure statement(s) (IDS). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments over the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph of claims 1-26 is persuasive in view of amendments made to the claim. The rejection is herewith withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments over the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph of claims 1-11 and 13-26 is persuasive in view of amendments made to the claim. The rejection is herewith withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments over the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph of claims 1-26 is persuasive in view of amendments made to the claim. The rejection is herewith withdrawn. The following rejections are made: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata, et al. (Novel antitumour metabolites produced by a fungal strain from a sea hare. Tetrahedron letters 38.47 (1997): 8215-8218.) in view of Sarkar et al. (Induction of Apoptosis by Eugenol and Capsaicin in Human Gastric Cancer AGS Cells--Elucidating the Role of p53. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(15):6753-9. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.15.6753. PMID: 26434906), Prasad et al. (Neurorestorative effects of eugenol, a spice bioactive: Evidence in cell model and its efficacy as an intervention molecule to abrogate brain oxidative dysfunctions in the streptozotocin diabetic rat. Neurochemistry International Volume 95, May 2016, Pages 24-36) and Mizobuchi et al. (JP 06007417 A). Numata et al. teach Pericosine A with significant antitumour activity . While Numata et al. teach pericosine A has antitumour activity, it fails to teach the method of deodorizing skunk mercaptans or a secondary compound at a point-of-use form. Sarkar et al. teach eugenol could induce apoptosis both in presence and absence of functional p53. Agents which can induce apoptosis irrespective of the cellular p53 status have immense scope for development as potential anticancer agents. Prasad et al. teaches eugenol (EU, 4-allyl-2-methoxyphenol), an active principle of cloves, is found in various other plants such as basil, cinnamon and other herbs. It is widely used as flavouring agent in baked products, beverages, sweets and frozen dairy products. In ayurvedic practices it is used as an antiseptic, carminative and analgesic for dental problems. EU is a well-known antioxidant and anti-inflammatory agent whose potential to abrogate oxidative stress and inflammatory reactions is well established . Previously EU was shown to possess inhibitory effects on excitotoxin induced oxidative damage, neurotoxicity and convulsions. The depressant activity of EU on CNS and the local anesthetic effect have also been well documented. Mizobuchi et al. provides the sensory deodorizing effect with a small quantity of a deodorant used against the mercaptan odor and make the odor nonoffensive after its use by using one of eugenol, cinnamaldehyde, p-cymene, benzaldehyde, and benzyl acetate as the essential constituent. The deodorant for mercaptans, which is characterized by containing at least one selected from the group consisting of eugenol, cinnamaldehyde, p-cymene, bensaldehyde, and benzyl acetate which are volatile and fragrant materials is contained as the essential constituent in a deodorant against the mercaptan odor. Mizobuchi et al. teaches a method in which a spray can is enclosed with a propellant and the like, and sprayed. A spray reads on a point-of-use formulation and device. The reference teaches commercially available fragrance was placed in a closed container, and the inside of this container was saturated with the fragrance to obtain the deodorant. (This teaching renders obvious separate compartments combined and mixed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate Pericosine A with eugenol. The motivation to incorporate Pericosine A with eugenol is because of the teachings that Pericosine A and eugenol are both anticancer agents, while eugenol is also used as an antiseptic, carminative and analgesic for dental problems, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory agent and even further to deodorize mercaptan odors. Therefore, a skilled artisan would have had reasonable expectation of successfully combining Pericosine A with eugenol in achieving anticancer, as well as deodorizing properties. Claims 7-20 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata et al. (Novel antitumour metabolites produced by a fungal strain from a sea hare." Tetrahedron letters 38.47 (1997): 8215-8218.) in view of Sarkar et al. (Induction of Apoptosis by Eugenol and Capsaicin in Human Gastric Cancer AGS Cells--Elucidating the Role of p53. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(15):6753-9. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.15.6753. PMID: 26434906), Prasad et al. (Neurorestorative effects of eugenol, a spice bioactive: Evidence in cell model and its efficacy as an intervention molecule to abrogate brain oxidative dysfunctions in the streptozotocin diabetic rat. Neurochemistry International Volume 95, May 2016, Pages 24-36) and Mizobuchi et al. (JP 06007417 A), as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7 and 21-22 and further in view of Kasturi et al. (CA 2688927 A1). Numata et al., Sarkar et al., and Mizobuchi et al. are as discussed above. Numata et al., Sarkar et al., and Mizobuchi et al. do not specifically list the secondary compounds of claims Kasturi et al. teaches methods of improving the skin feel or mildness to the skin of various detergent compositions, such as hand dishwashing compositions, hand laundry bars, shampoos, and other personal cleansing compositions. The formulation comprises soothing agents, skin healing agents and the like, nonlimiting examples of these aesthetic components include panthenol and derivatives (e.g. ethyl panthenol), pantothenic acid and its derivatives, clove oil, menthol, camphor, eucalyptus oil, eugenol, menthyl lactate, witch hazel distillate, allantoin, bisabalol, dipotassium glycyrrhizinate and the like, The formulation comprises the secondary compounds such as substituted ammonium cations include methyl-, dimethyl-, trim ethyl-ammonium and quaternary ammonium cations, such as tetramethyl-ammonium, dimethyl piperidinium and cations derived from alkanolamines, e.g. monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, and triethanolamine, and mixtures thereof. Suitable cationic amino and quaternary ammonium monomers include, for example, vinyl compounds substituted with dialkyl aminoalkyl acrylate, dialkylamino alkylmethacrylate, monoalkylaminoalkyl acrylate, monoalkylaminoalkyl methacrylate, trialkyl methacryloxyalkyl ammonium salt, trialkyl acryloxyalkyl ammonium salt, diallyl quaternary ammonium salts, and vinyl quatemary ammonium monomers having cyclic cationic nitrogen-containing rings such as pyridinium, imidazolium, and quaternized pyrrolidine, e.g., alkyl vinyl imidazolium, and quaternized pyrrolidine, e.g., alkyl vinyl imidazolium, alkyl vinyl pyridinium, alkyl vinyl pyrrolidine salts. Preferred diamines for performance and supply considerations are 1,3- bis (methylamino)cyclohexane, 1,3-diaminopropane (pK1=10.5; pK2=8.8), 1,6- diaminohexane (pK1=l1; pK2=10), 1,3-diaminopentane (Dytek EP) (pK1=10.5; TM pK2=8.9), 2-methyl 1,5-diaminopentane (Dytek A) (pK1=11.2; pK2=10.0). A formulator may substitute other polyamines for polyalkyleneimines, for example, polyvinyl amines, or other suitable polyamine which provides for a source of cationic charge at a pH of from 7 to abut 11.5 and which results in a copolymer having an isoelectric point of from about 7 to about 11.5. Preferred pyridinethione salts are those formed from heavy metals such as zinc, tin, cadmium, magnesium, aluminum and zirconium. Zinc salts are most preferred, especially the zinc salt of 1-hydroxy-2-pyridinethione (zinc pyridinethione , ZPT). The invention may further preferably comprise one or more detersive adjuncts selected from the following: soil release polymers, polymeric dispersants, polysaccharides, abrasives. Suitable reducing sugars include glucose, fructose, maltose, lactose, galactose, mannose, and xylose. As raw materials, high dextrose corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, and high maltose corn syrup can be utilized as well as the individual sugars listed above. Suitable hydrophobic monomers for use in the organic styling polymer include, but are not limited to, acrylic or methacrylic acid esters of Cl-Clg alcohols, such as methanol, ethanol, methoxy ethanol, 1-propanol, 2-propanol, 1-butanol, 2- methyl-l- propanol, 1-pentanol, 2-pentanol, 3-pentanol, 2-methyl-l-butanol, 1-methyl-l- butanol, 3-methyl-l-butanol, 1-methyl-l-pentanol, 2-methyl-l-pentanol, 3-methyl-l- pentanol, t- butanol(2-methyl-2-propanol), cyclohexanol, neodecanol, 2-ethyl-l-butanol, 3- heptanol,benzy] alcohol, 2-octanol, 6-methyl-l-heptanol, 2-ethyl-l-hexanol, 3,5- dimethyl-l-hexanol, 3,5,5-tri methyl-l-hexanol, 1-decanol, 1-dodecanol, 1-hexadecanol, 1- octadecanol, and the like, the alcohols having from about I to about 18 carbon atoms. The compositions used in the methods of the invention will be subjected to acidic stresses created by soils, such as food, when put to use, i.e., diluted and applied to soiled dishes. The composition is for direct application to a persons, skin, hair etc. Examples of personal cleansing compositions includes, but is not limited to, body washes, facial scrubs, shampoos, conditions, medicated shampoos, anti- dandruff shampoos, so-called 2-in-1 shampoos and conditioners, toilet bars, hand soap (including liquid or bar), deodorant soap, and the like. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate one or more secondary agents with the formulation. The motivation to incorporate one or more secondary agents with the formulation is because of the teachings that the secondary agents act as surfactants, styling polymers, detersive adjuncts, and etc. in a deodorizing formulation. Therefore, a skilled artisan would have had reasonable expectation of successfully achieving similar efficacy and results. Conclusions No claims are allowed. The arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is made FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 LAYLA SOROUSH whose telephone number is (571)272-5008. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM 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, James Henry Alstrum-Acevedo, can be reached on (571)272-5548. 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. /LAYLA SOROUSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1622
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 24, 2021
Application Filed
Apr 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 22, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 24, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 25, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12564593
TOPICAL FORMULATION FOR A JAK INHIBITOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12544343
TREATMENT OF INFLAMMATORY CONDITION IN MUCOUS MEMBRANE OR SKIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12544381
TOPICAL FORMULATION FOR JAK INHIBITOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12527731
ACRYLATE-FREE COSMETIC EMULSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12522587
CANCER TREATMENTS TARGETING CANCER STEM CELLS
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
40%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+43.0%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 868 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