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. provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Priority and Status of the Claims 1. This application claims benefit of the provisional application: 634 34697 12 / 22 /2022 . 2 . Claims 1- 17 are pending in the application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 3 . The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION-The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim s 1- 1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 ( pre AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites a limitation “ R’”, “FA” and “ Psyc ” which is indefinite and ambiguous. It is unclear what the scope or definition of “ R’”, “FA” and “ Psyc ” are . Clarification is required. Claim 1 recites compound N. “A’”, “F” and “F’” without a psychedelic moiety, which are indefinite and ambiguous. Clarification is required. Claim 8 recites the limitation “ where B is connected through a linker, L, that is a self immolative polymer, PEG, or PVP ”, which is indefinite and ambiguous. It is unclear how the polymer, PEG or PVP links to the variable L. Clarification is required. Claim 9 recites the limitation “ where B is connected through a linker, L, that is amino acid-based, a peptide, dipeptide or tripeptide. ”, which is indefinite and ambiguous. It is unclear how the a peptide, dipeptide or tripeptide links to the variable L. Clarification is required. Claim 1 0 and 13 recite s the limitation “ compris ing ” is ambiguous and indefinite . A compound claim cannot use open-ended language when defining the parameters of the gene or compound, see M.P.E.P. 2111.03. Replacement of the limitation “ compris ing ” with a limitation “is” would overcome this rejection. Claim 14 recites a limitation “ R’”, “FA” and “ Psyc ” which is indefinite and ambiguous. It is unclear what the scope or definition of“ R’”, “FA” and “ Psyc ” are. Claim 14 recites compound N. “A’”, “F” and “F’” without a psychedelic moiety, which are indefinite and ambiguous. Clarification is required. 4 . 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 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 10 3 5 . The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 non-obviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Clark et al. WO 2022/235587 A1. It is noted that Clark et al. ‘587 is designated to US. Applicants claim a psychedelic prodrug having compounds No. A, A’, A”, B, B’, C, C’, D, D’, E, E’, G and G’, wherein R is alkyl, or cycloalkyl, and L is a linker, see claim 1 Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01) Clark et al. ‘ 587 discloses a compound of formula (I), i.e., , wherein L is a linker, X or Y is O, and R1 and R 2 are Hydrogen, aliphatic chain (i.e., alkyl) or carbocyclic ring, and ring A is , see claims 1 and 21 on pages 142-150. Determination of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02) The difference between instant claims and Clark et al. ‘587 is that the instant claims are embraced within the scope of Clark et al. ‘587. Finding of prima facie obviousness-rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2143) One having ordinary skill in the art would find the claim 1 prima facie obvious because one would be motivated to employ compounds of Clark et al. ‘587 to obtain instant invention. The motivation to make the claimed compounds derived from the known compounds of Clark et al. ‘587 would possess similar activity to that which is claimed in the reference. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT REI TSANG SHIAO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0707 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30 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, Renee Claytor can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272- 8394 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /REI TSANG SHIAO/ Rei-tsang Shiao, Ph.D. Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691 March 23 , 2026