DETAILED ACTION Election/Restriction REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e). When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions: As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or (2) A product and a process of use of said product; or (3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or (4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or (5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process. Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c). 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 I, Claims 1 – 11 , drawn to a photocurable composition; Group II, Claim 12 , drawn to a urethane (meth)acrylate compound; and Group III, Claims 13 – 19 , drawn to a method for manufacturing a foam. 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: Groups I – III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a urethane (meth)acrylate compound represented by formula (A1), this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of JPH0633217 to Yamazaki et al. The reference teaches a urethane (meth)acrylate of formula (I) may be U2-02, which corresponds to a compound represented by instantly claimed formula (A1) in which R 1 and R 4 are ethylene, i.e. an alkylene group having two carbon atoms; R 2 and R 3 are hexamethylene, i.e. group s in which isocyanate groups are respectively removed from an a+1-valent aliphatic isocyanate compound and a b+1-valent aliphatic isocyanate compound (hexamethylene diisocyanate); R 5 is a hydrogen atom; and a and b are each 1. The molecular weight of the unit represented by –(O-R 1 ) n –O– can be calculated to be roughly 3,520 g/mol, as n corresponds to a value of 80 (see formula (I) depicted on Page 1 of the original publication and [0038] of the machine translation of the document furnished with this Office action). During a telephone conversation with Christian Drago on March 24, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I , Claims 1 – 11 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim s 12 – 19 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. 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. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus 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/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no 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. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 6 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the” photopolymerizable monomer (B) set forth in Claim 6. Neither independent Claim 1 nor Claim 6 set forth a photopolymerizable monomer (B) prior to the aforementioned recitation in Claim 6. For the purposes of examination, Claim 6 will be interpreted as depending on Claim 5, which does set forth a photopolymerizable monomer (B) and therefore provides antecedent basis for the recitation of “the” photopolymerizable monomer (B) in Claim 6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPH0633217 to Yamazaki et al. (hereinafter Yamazaki) For the purposes of examination, citations for Yamazaki are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in March 2026 , except where expressly noted. Regarding Claim s 1 and 2 . Yamazaki teaches a composition comprising (A) a polymerizable compound of formula ( I ) and (C) a photopolymerization initiator [0008] , i.e. a photocurable composition. The polymerizable compound of formula (I) may specifically be U2-02, which corresponds to a compound represented by instantly claimed formula (A1) in which R 1 and R 4 are ethylene, i.e. an alkylene group having two carbon atoms; R 2 and R 3 are hexamethylene, i.e. groups in which isocyanate groups are respectively removed from an a+1-valent aliphatic isocyanate compound and a b+1-valent aliphatic isocyanate compound correspond to hexamethylene diisocyanate; R 5 is a hydrogen atom; and a and b are each 1. The molecular weight of the unit represented by –(O-R 1 ) n –O– can be calculated to be roughly 3,520 g/mol, as n corresponds to a value of 80 (see formula (I) depicted on Page 1 of the original publication and [0038] of the machine translation of the document furnished with this Office action). Regarding Claim 3. Yamazaki teaches the photocurable composition according to Claim 1 wherein the polymerizable compound of formula (I) may be provided as component (A) [0009], i.e. a ratio of a mass of the urethane (meth)acrylate of instan t ly claimed formula (I) to a mass of the urethane (meth)acrylate (A) is 100% by mass. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPH0633217 to Yamazaki et al. (hereinafter Yamazaki), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further as evidenced by US 2024/0149197 to Yonezawa. For the purposes of examination, citations for Yamazaki are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in March 2026, except where expressly noted. Regarding Claims 5 and 6. Yamazaki teaches the photocurable composition of Claim 1 may further comprises NK Ester BPE-500 [0012]. Yonezawa provides evidence that NK Ester BPE-500 is an ethoxylated bisphenol A dimethacrylate [0273], i.e. a chain aliphatic dimethacrylate. [0063] of the PG-PUB of the instant application sets forth ethoxylated bisphenol A dimethacrylate as a photopolymerizable monomer. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH0633217 to Yamazaki et al. (hereinafter Yamazaki), as applied to Claim 1 above. Regarding Claim 4. Yamazaki teaches the photocurable composition of Claim 1. As detailed in the rejection of Claim 1 above, R 1 corresponds to ethylene, i.e. an ethane-1,2-diyl group. Thus, R 1 does not correspond to a propane-1,2-diyl group as instantly claimed in the inventive examples . However, in the general disclosure, Yamazaki teaches the R 4 group in its formula (I), which corresponds to the instantly claimed R 1 group, may correspond to isopropylene [000 9 ] , i.e. a propane-1,2-diyl group. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to substitute the ethylene group corresponding to the instantly claimed R 1 group with a propane-1,2-diyl group. The motivation would have been that it is obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. (MPEP 2144.06) Ethylene and propane-1,2-diyl are both set forth by Yamazaki as suitable species of this moiety [0009], thus providing obviousness of substituting one for the other in the disclosed structure. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH0633217 to Yamazaki et al. (hereinafter Yamazaki), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,338,613 to Tomotsugu et al. (hereinafter Tomotsugu). Regarding Claims 8 – 11. Yamazaki teaches the photocurable composition of Claim 1 may be, for example benzophenone [0018]. Yamazaki does not then expressly teach the photopolymerization initiator corresponds to one of the instantly claimed species. However, Tomotsugu teaches the concept of providing both benzophenone and acylphosphine oxides as photosensitizers/photopolymerization initiators in photocurable compositions based on urethane acrylate resin s (Column 4, Lines 1 – 9). Yamazaki and Tomotsugu are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely photocurable compositions based on urethane acrylate resins. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute an acylphosphine oxide for benzopheno ne in Yamazaki. The motivation would have been that it is obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose. (MPEP 2144.06) Tomotsugu teaches both benzophenone and acylphosphine oxides are known phot o polymerization initiators for urethane acrylate resins (Column 4, Lines 1 – 9), thus providing obviousness of substituting one for the other in such compositions. Claims 8 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH0633217 to Yamazaki et al. (hereinafter Yamazaki), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,929,491 to Kawakami et al. (hereinafter Kawakami). Regarding Claims 8 – 11. Yamazaki teaches the photocurable composition of Claim 1 and a step of photocuring by ultraviolet exposure [0029] . Yamazaki does not expressly teach said composition is used for manufacturing a foam through mixing with a gas before curing. However, Kawakami teaches the concept of manufacturing a foam through mixing with FE-788 as a foaming agent , heating to decompose the foaming agent , and then photocuring via ultraviolet ray radiation (Column 3, Lines 1 – 7 and Lin e 47). FE-788 corresponds to a commercially available form of azodicarbonamide, which would be readily recognized by person s of ordinary skill in the art to provide bubbles of carbon dioxide gas when exposed to heat. Yamazaki and Kawakami are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely photocurable compositions comprising acrylate compounds for the preparation of circuit boards. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to foam the photocurable composition of Yamazaki, as taught by Kawakami. The motivation would have been that foaming the material may provide advantages, such as allowing for control over the thickness of the layer prepared f ro m the photocurable composition and the preparation of a single layer instead of multiple layers (Column 3, Line 58 – Column 4, Line 11). The references are silent with respect to the size of the bubbles of the gas in a cured material which has been cured under atmospheric pressure. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Yamazaki, when modified with Kawakami in the manner proposed, teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. bubbles of the gas in a cured material which has been cured under atmospheric pressure with a size in the instantly claimed range, would implicitly be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. See In Re Spada , 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MELISSA RIOJA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3305 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7026 . 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. /MELISSA A RIOJA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764 18