DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to papers filed on 03/13/2025. Claims 16-25, and 27-31 of Sampedro et al., 17793669 (07/19/2022) are pending: claims 1-15 were previously canceled, claim 26 is newly canceled, and claims 19, 28 and 29 are amended. Claims 16-25, and 27-31 are rejected.
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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/051112, filed on 01/20/2021.
Withdrawn Objection/Rejection
The following have been withdrawn:
Objection-Duplicate Claims, Warning for claims 25 and 26. Applicant has since canceled claim 26. Applicant’s Remarks at page 5.
The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant has amended claim 19. Applicant’s Remarks at page 5.
The rejection of claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Applicant has amended claims 28 and 29. Applicant’s Remarks at page 5.
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.
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.
Claims 16-25, 27-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orfanoudaki et al., Journal of Phycology, Vol. 55, Issue 2, pp. 393-403 (“Orfanoudaki”), in view of Shick et al., Marine Ecology Progress Series, 90(2), 139–148 (“Shick”), and Bastian et al., Organic Process Research & Development, 4(5), 427–435 (“Bastian”).
Regarding independent claim 16, Orfanoudaki teaches mycosporine-like analogues “that are known as some of the strongest ultraviolet (UV) absorbing molecules in nature…” for use in sunscreens (Abstract & Discussion). For example, Fig. 1, Compound 3 (i.e., Asterina-330):
PNG
media_image1.png
235
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein: RA = methoxy; RB= hydroxy; RC=hydroxymethyl; RD=CH2CH2OH, where RM=H and n=1; RE=CH2CO2H, where RN=H and m=1; and k=1.
The difference between the prior art compound 3 and the claimed subject matter is the definition of RA and RE. The instant claims define RA and RE as:
PNG
media_image2.png
191
707
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Shick teaches the same ultra-violet radiation-absorbing mycosporine-like compounds in Fig. 2 (p. 142), particularly asterina, as discussed above by Orfanoudaki, with a lambda-max of 330nm:
PNG
media_image3.png
362
1003
media_image3.png
Greyscale
An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that it would have similar (useful) properties to a prior art compound. MPEP § 2144.09 (discussing the close structural relationship between homologs and that between position isomers). Moreover, "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976). MPEP § 2144.01.
In the instant case, Shick, for example, teaches different substituents in the RD and RE positions as shown by the compounds in Fig. 2, and further demonstrates that RD and RE, in some instances, may be equivalent, as shown in the mycosporine-2Gly compound. This equivalence, as it relates to equal substituents of RD and RE, resulted in a higher lambda-max of 331nm; thus, increasing the spectrum covered.
Consistent with this reasoning, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify compound 3 (i.e., asterina) as taught by Orfanoudaki, where RD=CH2CH2OH, and make the claimed compound, based on similarity in chemical structure and function, where RE is equivalent; that is both RD and RE = CH2CH2OH; and arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because, Shick teaches that having RD = RE increases the spectrum covered (see, also porphyra-334 in Fig. 2, resulting from a clear modification of mycosporine-2Gly, through further incorporating RD=CH2CH2OH as a branched substituent; resulting in further increase in the lambda-max to 334nm). It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to make the claimed compound, based on similarity in chemical structure and function, where RE is also CH2CH2OH; that is both RD and RE = CH2CH2OH; and arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, the similarity between the chemical structures and properties is sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the claimed compounds in searching for new ultraviolet radiation-absorbing mycosporine-like compounds for use in sunscreen.
Regarding the difference between RA of the prior art (RA= a methoxy), and the instant claims, which recites a preference for a methyl group (i.e., RA=methyl), while neither of the prior arts suggest this substitution, prior art structures do not have to be true homologs or isomers to render structurally similar compounds prima facie obvious. Compare In re Grabiak, 769 F.2d 729, 226 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (substitution of a thioester group for an ester group in an herbicidal safener compound was not suggested by the prior art); MPEP 2144.09 III. Moreover, as disclosed above, the similarity between the chemical structures and properties is sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the claimed compounds in searching for new ultraviolet radiation-absorbing mycosporine-like compounds for use in sunscreen.
Moreover, the prior art structures do not have to be true homologs or isomers to render structurally similar compounds prima facie obvious. In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979) (Claimed and prior art compounds were both directed to heterocyclic carbamoyloximino compounds having pesticidal activity. The only structural difference between the claimed and prior art compounds was that the ring structures of the claimed compounds had two carbon atoms between two sulfur atoms whereas the prior art ring structures had either one or three carbon atoms between two sulfur atoms. The court held that although the prior art compounds were not true homologs or isomers of the claimed compounds, the similarity between the chemical structures and properties is sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the claimed compounds in searching for new pesticides.).
Lastly, as demonstrated above, the level of skill and knowledge in the art is replete with regards to making new ultraviolet radiation-absorbing mycosporine-like compounds for use in sunscreen. Modifying the aforementioned positions does not impair the desired effect of ultraviolet radiation-absorption by the compounds of the prior art, as shown by Orfanoudaki and Shick. It thus follows that the presently claimed invention is obvious. Moreover, while the prior arts do not expressly disclose the modifications as recited, absolute predictability is not a necessary prerequisite to a case of obviousness. Rather, a degree of predictability that one of ordinary skill would have found to be reasonable is sufficient. MPEP 2141.03 also states (in part), “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v.Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 167 LEd2d 705, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. At 1396, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The “hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.” Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). Claim 16 is obvious over Orfanoudaki in view of Shick.
Regarding claims 17 and 24, Orfanoudaki in view of Shick teaches compounds of formula (I) according to claim 16.
Claim 17 and 24 relate to salt forms of a compound according to claim 16, wherein X is the anion. Orfanoudaki teaches that solvents used for extraction and isolation included ethyl acetate (p. 394, Chemicals and reagents), which reasonably suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that forming pharmaceutically acceptable salts of a compound according claim 16 include the acetate salt. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of a compound according to claim 16 as part of a “routine optimization”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered forming a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of as part of the routine optimization because salt formation is well-known and is a routine part of drug discovery. As suggested by Bastian, formulation of a pharmaceutical salt is needed in the development of a candidate drug to solve known problems of bioavailability, solubility, stability, manufacturability, etc. (Bastin abstract: “Selection of an appropriate salt form for a new chemical entity provides the pharmaceutical chemist and formulation scientist with the opportunity to modify the characteristics of the potential drug substance and to permit the development of dosage forms with good bioavailability, stability, manufacturability, and patient compliance.”). In Table 1 (p. 428), Bastian also discloses common pharmaceutical salts:
PNG
media_image4.png
581
1471
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bastian discloses also discloses that “The vast majority of salts are developed to enhance the aqueous solubility of drug substances” (p. 428). Claim 17 is therefore obvious over Orfanoudaki in view of Shick, as applied to claim 16, and in further view of Bastian.
Regarding claim 18, Orfanoudaki in view of Shick teaches the compound according to claim 16. Orfanoudaki in view of Shick also teach the limitation of wherein k is 1, as disclosed and applied above to claim 16. Claim 18 is therefore also obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Orfanoudaki in view of Shick teaches the compound according to claim 16. Orfanoudaki in view of Shick also teach the limitation of wherein RA is methyl as disclosed and applied above to claim 16. Claim 19 is therefore also obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Orfanoudaki in view of Shick teaches the compound according to claim 16. As disclosed above, Orfanoudaki in view of Shick teaches wherein RD=CH2CH2OH, where RM=H and n=1. Claim 20, as is claim 16, is also obvious.
Regarding claim 21, Orfanoudaki in view of Shick teaches the compound according to claim 16. As disclosed above, the difference between the prior art compound 3 and the claimed subject matter includes the definition of RE.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify compound 3 (i.e., asterina) as taught by Orfanoudaki, where RD=CH2CH2OH, and make the claimed compound, based on similarity in chemical structure and function, where RE is equivalent; that is both RD and RE = CH2CH2OH; and arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success, where RE = CH2CH2OH, (i.e., also RN=H, and m=1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because, Shick teaches that having RD = RE increases the spectrum covered (see, also porphyra-334 in Fig. 2, resulting from a clear modification of mycosporine-2Gly, through further incorporating RD=CH2CH2OH as a branched substituent; resulting in further increase in the lambda-max to 334nm). It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to make the claimed compound, based on similarity in chemical structure and function, where RE is also CH2CH2OH; that is both RD and RE = CH2CH2OH; and arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, the similarity between the chemical structures and properties is sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the claimed compounds in searching for new ultraviolet radiation-absorbing mycosporine-like compounds for use in sunscreen. Claim 21 is therefore also obvious.
Regarding claim 22, Orfanoudaki in view of Shick teaches the compound according to claim 16 where RD is CH2CH2OH (i.e., where RM=H and n=1); and RE is CH2CH2OH (i.e., where RN=H and m=1). Claim 22 is therefore also obvious.
Regarding claim 23, Orfanoudaki in view of Shick teaches the compound according to claim 16, where RB= hydroxy and RC=hydroxymethyl (Orfanoudaki (p. 396): Fig. 1, Compound 3, Asterina-330(3); Shick (p. 142): Fig. 2, Asterina-330).
As disclosed above, "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976). MPEP § 2144.01. While Orfanoudaki in view of Shick does not expressly disclose RB = RC, Orfanoudaki in view of Shick teaches RD = RE as discussed above. This equivalence, as it relates to equal substituents of RD and RE, resulted in a higher lambda-max of 331nm; thus, increasing the spectrum covered Shick (p. 142): Fig. 2, Asterina-330 vs mycosporine-2Gly.
Moreover, modifying the aforementioned positions does not impair the desired effect of ultraviolet radiation-absorption by the compounds of the prior art, as shown by Orfanoudaki: p. 396, Fig. 1; and Shick: p. 142; Fig. 2.
Consistent with this reasoning, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify compound 3 (i.e., asterina) as taught by Orfanoudaki, where RB= hydroxy and RC=hydroxymethyl, and make them equivalent, thus arriving at the claimed invention based on similarity in chemical structure and function, with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because, Shick teaches that, for example, having substituents RD = RE increases the UV spectrum covered (see, also porphyra-334 in Fig. 2, resulting from a clear modification of mycosporine-2Gly, through further incorporating RD=CH2CH2OH as a branched substituent; resulting in further increase in the lambda-max to 334nm). It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to make the claimed compound, based on similarity in chemical structure and function, to make RB = RC and arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. The similarity between the chemical structures and properties is sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the claimed compounds in searching for new ultraviolet radiation-absorbing mycosporine-like compounds for use in sunscreen with a broader spectrum similar to when RD and RE are equivalent as disclosed by Shick.
Lastly, as demonstrated above, the level of skill and knowledge in the art is replete with regards to making new ultraviolet radiation-absorbing mycosporine-like compounds for use in sunscreen. Modifying the aforementioned positions does not impair the desired effect of ultraviolet radiation-absorption by the compounds of the prior art, as shown by Orfanoudaki and Shick. It thus follows that the presently claimed invention is obvious. Moreover, while the prior arts do not expressly disclose the modifications as recited, absolute predictability is not a necessary prerequisite to a case of obviousness. Rather, a degree of predictability that one of ordinary skill would have found to be reasonable is sufficient. MPEP 2141.03 also states (in part), “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v.Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 167 LEd2d 705, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. At 1396, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The “hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.” Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). Claim 23 is obvious over Orfanoudaki in view of Shick.
Regarding claims 25 and 31, Orfanoudaki in view of Shick teaches the compound according to claim 16, wherein the compound is represented by Formula (IIb), for example. That is, where RA= methyl; RB = RC = H; and RD = RE CH2CH2OH (i.e., for RD, where RM=H and n=1 and (i.e., for RE, where RN=H and m=1) as disclosed above. This corresponds to:
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 25-26 and 31 are therefore obvious, as is claim 16, over Orfanoudaki in view of Shick.
Regarding claims 27-28, Orfanoudaki in view of Shick teaches the compound according to claim 16. Orfanoudaki also teaches that the above disclosed mycosporine-like compounds, which are known photoprotectants, are of high importance in the cosmetic industry for use as sunscreen. “Standardized algal extracts containing these compounds are already commercially available and used for their sun protection properties.” (p. 398), “and are interesting for cosmetic and pharmaceutical use as active ingredients in cos-meceuticals” (p. 394). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to formulate a cosmetic composition, comprising a compound according to claim 16, and using routine pharmaceutical components such as an emulsifier to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because these compounds are known photoprotectants, and are already in use within cosmetic industry as viable sunscreen options that are nature-based. Claims 27-28 are therefore obvious, as is claim 16 over Orfanoudaki in view of Shick.
Regarding claim 29, Orfanoudaki in view of Shick teaches compounds according to claim 16. Orfanoudaki in view of Shick teach said compounds as photoprotectants and for use as sunscreen, which is typically applied to body and is considered a body-care product. Therefore, claim 29, as is claim 16, is also obvious over Orfanoudaki in view of Shick.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orfanoudaki et al., Journal of Phycology, Vol. 55, Issue 2, pp. 393-403 (“Orfanoudaki”), in view of Shick et al., Marine Ecology Progress Series, 90(2), 139–148 (“Shick”), as applied above to claim 16, and in further view of Fuentes-Tristan et al., Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, Vol. 201, 2019, 111684 (“Fuentes-Tristan”).
Regarding claim 30, Orfanoudaki in view of Shick teaches compounds according to claim 16. Claim 30 recite the use of said compounds according to claim 16, as a light stabilizer, in a household cleaning and treating agent.
While Orfanoudaki in view of Shick does not expressly disclose a household cleaning and treating agent comprising a compound according to claim 16 as a light stabilizer, Fuentes-Tristan teaches that mycosporine-like amino acid compounds “MAAs act as sunscreens, provide additional protection as antioxidants, can be used as UV protectors, activators of cell proliferation, skin-care products, and even as photo-stabilizing additives in paints, plastics, and varnishes” and are “are capable of dissipating absorbed radiation as harmless heat without producing reactive oxygen species” (Abstract). Fuentes-Tristan also teaches Asterina-330, as does Orfanoudaki in view of Shick, and as discussed above.
Consistent with this reasoning, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to formulate a household cleaning and treating agent comprising a compound according to claim 16, in further view of Fuentes-Tristan and arrive at the claimed invention successfully of “A household cleaning and treating agent comprising a light stabilizer, wherein the light stabilizer is the compound according to claim 16”. One would have been motivated to do so, with reasonable expectation of success because the compounds according to claim 16 have been demonstrated to be useful as UV protectors, activators of cell proliferation, skin-care products, and even as photo-stabilizing additives in paints, plastics, and varnishes, and are “are capable of dissipating absorbed radiation as harmless heat without producing reactive oxygen species” (Fuentes-Tristan: Abstract). Therefore, in order to stabilize household products that may be sensitive to UV, adding said compounds as part of a formulation is expected to dissipate absorbed radiation as harmless heat without producing reactive oxygen species, thus ensuring product stability and effectiveness for the intended use. Claim 30, as is claim 16, is therefore also obvious. Claim 30 is obvious Orfanoudaki in view of Shick, as applied to claim 16, and in further view of Fuentes-Tristan.
Claim 16-25, and 27-31 represent an obvious modification of known mycosporin-like amino acid (MAA) compounds that are known in the art for use as sunscreen and light stabilizers. The invention represents analogues of known MAA compounds wherein, the similarity between the chemical structures and properties is sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the claimed compounds in searching for new ultraviolet radiation-absorbing mycosporine-like compounds for use in sunscreen or as a light stabilizer in a household cleaning and treating agent. Consistent with this reasoning, the invention is obvious over the cited prior arts.
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues that Orfanoudaki teaches mycosporine-like amino acids while the instant claimed invention is directed to the same invention with the provision of mycosporine-like amino acid (MAA) analogues that are particularly water soluble. Applicant cites page 2 of the international published application. Applicant’s Remarks at page 6. Applicant argues that Orfanoudaki does not teach water soluble MAA. Applicant also argues that Orfanoudaki nor Shick’s teachings would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the modifications and arrive at the claimed invention. Applicant asserts that instead, one of ordinary skill in the art would be led away as no motivation is present that would lead one of ordinary skill to modify the compounds based on water solubility as per the claimed invention. Applicant’s Remarks at pages 6-7.
Examiner’s Response
Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged and have been considered, but are not found to be persuasive in view of the rationale discussed above.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., water solubility, Applicant Remarks, at page 6) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). MPEP 2145 (VI).
Moreover, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art in combination teach the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. 2112.01(II).
Also, as provided in MPEP 2144 (IV), the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
Consistent with this reasoning, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify compound 3 (i.e., asterina) as taught by Orfanoudaki, where RD=CH2CH2OH, and make the claimed compound, based on similarity in chemical structure and function, where RE is equivalent; that is both RD and RE = CH2CH2OH; and arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because, Shick teaches that having RD = RE increases the spectrum covered (see, also porphyra-334 in Fig. 2, resulting from a clear modification of mycosporine-2Gly, through further incorporating RD=CH2CH2OH as a branched substituent; resulting in further increase in the lambda-max to 334nm). It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to make the claimed compound, based on similarity in chemical structure and function, where RE is also CH2CH2OH; that is both RD and RE = CH2CH2OH; and arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, the similarity between the chemical structures and properties is sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the claimed compounds in searching for new ultraviolet radiation-absorbing mycosporine-like compounds for use in sunscreen. The rejection is maintained as final.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHANTAL ADLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0923. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, 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.
/C A/Examiner, Art Unit 1622 September 15, 2025
/DANAH AL-AWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615