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. Detailed Action This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 11 / 15 /23. Claims 1- 20 are pending in this application and are being examined in this Office Action. Election/Restrictions Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. Group 1, claim(s) 1-10, drawn to a total synthesis method of vitamin A . Group 2, claim(s) 11 and 13-20, drawn to an application of the total synthesis method of vitamin A . Group 3, claim(s) 12 , drawn to vitamin A. The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: The vitamin A compound in the groups clearly lack a special technical feature being anticipated or obvious over the X reference of US 5191110 (see search report and ebmodiments 7-9). Species Election This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. The species are as follows: On method step, (see claims 2-10, which expand on each of the method steps in claim 1) Thus the examiner requests the applicant select a single method step for search purposes. Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election. Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, the following claim(s) are generic: 1 Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include ( i ) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention. The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04(b). Additionally, in order to retain the right to rejoinder in accordance with the above policy, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product claims. Failure to do so may result in a loss of the right to rejoinder . Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. During a telephone conversation with Mary Anne Armstrong on 12/4/25, a provisional election was made w ith traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1- 10, and the method step as recited in claim 3 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Thus claims 2 and 4-20 , are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention and as being non-readable on the non-elected species. As a result, claims 1 and 3 are being examined in this Office Action. Priority The applicant claims benefit as follows: Objections Claim s 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities : Claim 1 recites “formula (A)“ for applicant’s synthetic scheme. The examiner recommends instead “Scheme (A)“ for clarity. Claim 1 includes the synthetic scheme “formula (A)”. However, the scheme is unreadable and blurry . The examiner requests the applicant include a larger and clearer depiction of their synthetic scheme. Claim 3 includes the synthetic scheme “reaction formula (b)”. However, the scheme has difficult to read substituents, especially substituents Ha and Hb. The examiner requests the applicant include a clearer depiction of their synthetic scheme. Claim 3 recites “as the basis” when referring to “reaction formula (b)”. The examiner does not know what “as the basis” means in this context. Applicant’s disclosure is also objected to because of the following informalities: Every scheme in applicant’s specification is blurry, especially the substituents on the compounds. The examiner requests the applicant include clearer depictions of their synthetic schemes in the disclosure. For reference, please see the schemes in applicant’s PGPUB ( US 20240166597 ). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 is indefinite because of the incomplete definitions for the substituents of applicant’s compounds. The claim includes a synthetic scheme “formula (A)”, in which the compounds in the scheme have variable substituents. The definitions for all the variable substituents on the compounds in the synthetic scheme should be included in the claim . Furthermore, the reaction conditions in applicant’s synthetic scheme “formula (A)” do not seem to correspond to the reaction conditions in applicant’s listed method steps (1) to (7). The reactions conditions, reagents and compounds in applicant’s synthetic scheme “formula (A)” should correspond to applicant’s method steps (1) to (7). Claim 1 is indefinite because of the recitation in the preamble of “deuterated compound” and then at the last line of the first page of the claim ‘hydrogen isotope”. Since there is also a tritium hydrogen isotope, the recitation of only “deuterated compound” in the preamble is confusing. Claim 3 includes B(pin) in their “reaction formula (b)” scheme. However, the definition of B(pin) is not included in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Conclusion Claims 1 and 3 are rejected . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Cho Sawyer whose telephone number is (571) 270 1690. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 AM - 6 PM PST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Renee Claytor can be reached on (571) 272-8394. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-274-1690. 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. Jennifer Cho Sawyer Patent Examiner Art Unit: 1691 /RENEE CLAYTOR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691