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. The preliminary amendment filed 09/25/2023 is entered. Claims 1-31 are currently pending. The Drawings filed 09/25/2023 are approved by the examiner. The IDS statement filed 09/25/2023 has been considered. An initialed copy accompanies this action. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 5 is objected to because the claim fails to end with a period and is therefore not in proper form. The preliminary amendment caused the claim to end with “to about 120.,”. See: Applicant is required to amend the claim such that it properly ends with a period. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period . Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See also MPEP 608.01(m). 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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 7, 8 , 11, 18-20, and 28-30 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 7 recites “KH550, KH560, KH792, KH602, KH570, dynasylan®114” as potential alternate species of a treatment agent for treating the thermally conductive filler. However, each of these species appear to be a trademark/trade name which renders the claim indefinite. The claim does not comply with the requirements of 112(b) because the trademark/trade name is being used in the claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material, e.g., the potential treatment agent . However, a trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Furthermore, the recited trademark/trade name causes confusion as to the scope of the claim because the structure and/or metes and bounds of the recited treatment agent products are not disclosed in the disclosure. See also MPEP 2173.05(u). Claim 8 recites a limitation to a relative weight percentage of “the polyfunctional group modified thermally-conductive filler”. However, this term lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claims and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Note that parent claim 1 recites “a polyfunctional group modified polysiloxane” component as “a base material” that “is a polysiloxane modified by a polyether functional group and a functional group having antioxidant properties” and a distinct “thermally-conductive filler” component. Nowhere is it stated or implied there is a presence of a “polyfunctional group modified thermally-conductive filler” or that the thermally conductive filler is “polyfunctional group modified”. It is seriously unclear what component the “the polyfunctional group modified thermally-conductive filler” is referring to. Claims 28 and 29 are also indefinite for their dependency on claim 8, and claim 29 is also indefinite for continuing limitations to the same indefinite term. For purposes of further examination (or else the limitations to “the polyfunctional group modified thermally-conductive filler” could not be considered relative to prior art), the term “the polyfunctional group modified thermally-conductive filler” is construed as referring to “the thermally-conductive filler”. If this interpretation is incorrect then additional clarification is required. Claim 11 recites “A method of making a thermally-conductive phase-change substance, the method comprising making the substance using the base polymer defined in claim 1.” This claim is indefinite for at least two reasons : First, it is seriously unclear (under an indefiniteness rationale rather than a clear-cut 112(d) rationale) whether the limitation(s) of claim 11 further limit and/or include all the limitations of the parent claim 1. Parent claim 1 is drawn to “A thermally-conductive phase-change composition ” with a particular base polymer and thermally conductive filler rather than “a thermally-conductive phase-change substance” as recited in the instant claim. As the antecedent basis of the preambles do not match (nor are recited to correspond to each other), it is unclear if claim 11 further limits and/or includes all the limitations of the parent claim (i.e., further limits and/or includes the base polymer and filler recited in the parent claim). This is further complicated by the body of the claim only reciting the method uses the base polymer (no thermally conductive filler is mentioned). A claim dependent on a composition with two+ components reciting distinctly making/using one of the components without the other component(s) does not further limit and/or include all the limitations of the composition claim. Does the claim require the composition of claim 1 or just one of the components of claim 1? Note that the ladder is seriously improper. Second, the claim is also is indefinite because the claim ed method comprising the step of “making the substance using the base polymer defined in claim 1” merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. See MPEP 2173.05(q) For purposes of further examination, prior art reading on claim 1 will also read on claim 11 since there inherently already exists a base polymer (and a thermally-conductive phase change composition thereof) in reference(s) meeting claim 1. Claim 18 recites a limitation to the identity of “the hindered phenol”. However, this term lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claims and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Note that parent claim 3 recites there may be “a hindered phenolic functional group” as the functional group having antioxidant properties in the modified polysiloxane/base polymer. Nowhere is it previously stated or implied there is a presence of “a hindered phenol” component. Even if the limitations to “the hindered phenol” somehow corresponded to the polysiloxane base polymer’s “hindered phenolic functional group” it is even more confusing as the species are recited as complete compounds rather than as functional groups that could be bound to/in the base polymer (for example, hydroxyethane is a compound but hydroxyethyl is a substituent bound to or present in another compound; the claim recites compounds rather than substituents/functional groups as previously required). Accordingly, i t is seriously unclear what component the “the hindered phenol ” is referring to. Additionally, the species “octadecyl 3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy) propionate” in claim 18 is a seriously unclear compound. In fact, the compound does not appear to correspond to any compound nor exist. Notably, the “(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy)” portion is especially unclear. While this denotes there are two tertbutyl groups bound to some “3” or “5” positions and a hydroxyl group bound to some “4” position, it is not specified what they are bound to. This species cannot be construed relative to prior art due to its unclear scope. Claims 19 and 20 are also indefinite for their dependency on claim 18 and for continuing limitations to “the hindered phenol” . Claim 20 is even more confusing because all recited species “diphenylamine, p-phenylenediamine, dihydroquinoline and combinations thereof” are in no way hindered phenols; they lack hindered phenolic groups and even lack phenolic groups. It is seriously unclear what claim 20 means. There is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of these claims 18-20 due to it being unclear if the hindered phenol somehow refers to “the hindered phenolic functional group” (which is still very confusing as the species are recited as complete compounds rather than as functional groups that could be bound to/in the base polymer) or a distinct separate hindered phenol compound present in the composition, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention. W here there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06 . Claim 30 recites the thermally-conductive phase-change product “is provided in an easy-to-store form”. This is indefinite because it is a subjective claim limitation. The specification does not supply some objective standard for measuring the scope of the term and the exercise of what form is “easy-to-store” requires subjective judgement without restriction. What is an easy to store form to one skilled artisan could be very easily regarded as a complicated/complex to store form. S ome objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the claim phrase "unobtrusive manner" indefinite because the specification did not "provide a reasonably clear and exclusive definition, leaving the facially subjective claim language without an objective boundary"). F or example, in Datamize, the invention was directed to a computer interface screen with an "aesthetically pleasing look and feel." Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1344-45, 75 USPQ2d at 1802-03. The meaning of the term "aesthetically pleasing" depended solely on the subjective opinion of the person selecting features to be included on the interface screen. Nothing in the intrinsic evidence (e.g., the specification) provided any guidance as to what design choices would result in an "aesthetically pleasing" look and feel. 417 F.3d at 1352, 75 USPQ2d at 1808. The claims were held indefinite because the interface screen may be "aesthetically pleasing" to one user but not to another. 417 F.3d at 1350, 75 USPQ2d at 1806. See also Ex parte Anderson, 21 USPQ2d 1241 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991) (the terms "comparable" and "superior" were held to be indefinite in the context of a limitation relating the characteristics of the claimed material to other materials). During prosecution, the applicant may overcome a rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure. However, "[f]or some facially subjective terms, the definiteness requirement is not satisfied by merely offering examples that satisfy the term within the specification." DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1261, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For purposes of further examination, the claimed limitation “easy-to-store form” will be very broadly construed (extended near zero patentable weight) such that any form will read on the claim. Essentially, prior art reading on claim 9 will read on claim 30. Note that claim 31 is not rejected under indefiniteness because the claim recites five, albeit broad, forms. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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. 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 s 1, 2, 4, 6-15, 21, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1,2 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hirschi et al. (US 6,448,329 B1). As to claim s 1 , 2 , and 11 , Hirschi et al. teach a silicone composition for preparing a cured silicone product, the composition comprising an alumina filler in a concentration sufficient to impart thermal conductivity to the cured silicone product and an effective amount of a polyether (abstract) . See col. 5 line 32 to col. 6 line 23 for details to the thermally conductive filler. The polyether component is preferably a polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene copolymer (col. 6 lines 24+, e.g., lines 28-29 & 61-67 and col. 7 line 1 to col. 8 line 14), which means a polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene may be expressly present. A polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene is equivalent to the base polymer being a polyfunctional group (polyether functional group) modified polysiloxane as claimed. These polymers are also well known in the art to have antioxidant properties as claimed ; therefore the antioxidant-capable functional group(s) is regarded as inherent from the disclosed genus of polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene polyethers. The composition is curable (Id.) meaning the composition is a phase-change composition. The cited teachings anticipate the claimed limitations. In the event the cited teachings somehow fail to meet the claimed limitations under the meaning of anticipation (e.g., that selection of a polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene from the two preferred polyoxyalkylene and polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene polyether genera is required rather than met under an at once envisaged rationale insinuated above or that not all polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene exhibit some form of an antioxidant property however broad and selection of antioxidant-capable functional groups/structure is needed), the cited teachings of the reference nevertheless meet the claimed limitations under a strong prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been very obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select and provide a polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene polyether from the cited teachings of the reference with a reasonable expectation of success because the reference teaches only two preferred genera of the polyether (polyoxyalkylene and polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene) for provision in the thermally conductive composition. Additionally, note the details to the polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene that can be selected and modified in order for certain structure(s) to be present that certainly encompass antioxidant-capable functional groups and structures (cols. 7 & 8, Id.) ; t he antioxidant-capable functional group(s) flow naturally from the disclosed structures. If in the event the phase change limitations are not expressly inherent in the curable composition, then the limitation flows naturally from the selection(s) described above. As to claim s 4 and 21 , Hirschi et al. teach the polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene comprises a linear polydiorganosiloxane (see the formula at col. 7 line 20). Hirschi et al. teach the linear polydiorganosiloxane comprises a linear polydimethylsiloxane by the preference to all R7 groups being methyl (col. 7 especially lines 43-45 applied to the formula(e)). As to claim 6 and 7, the disclosed thermally conductive filler is alumina (Id.). The filler is preferably treated with organosilicon compounds such as, among others, vinyltrimethoxysilane (col. 5 lines 36-51); the alumina may expressly comprise a surface treatment with a treatment agent as claimed; the selection of the treatment agent, if necessary and not at once envisaged by the disclosed species in the reference, is certainly obvious from the same cited teachings and have a reasonable expectation of success. As to claim 8, a preferred amount of thermally conductive filler is 70-85 wt.% of the composition (col. 6 lines 4-8), which falls within the claimed range. Also, a more broad typical amount of the thermally conductive filler is 60-90 wt.% (Id.) which overlaps the claimed range. Any remaining limitations are optional as they are recited in the alternative. As to claims 9, 10, 30, and 31, the composition is provided to make a cured product (col. 12 lines 36+). The composition may be cured into sheets ( col. 12 lines 36-45 and col. 13 lines 42-45) . The product is useful for filling the gap between a heat sink and an electronic device (col. 13 lines 17-21) meaning it is a heat dissipation element. As to claim 12, the preferred polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene contains polyethylene oxide and/or polypropylene oxide (col. 7 lines 17-30). As to claims 13-15, the typical and preferred oxyalkylene units of the polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene (col. 7 lines 9-30) read on the polyalkylene oxide functional group being optionally substituted by an alkyl group such as a methyl group. Any remaining limitations are optional as they are recited in the alternative. Claim s 8, 14, 16, 17, 28, and 29 a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirschi et al. (US 6,448,329 B1). The disclosure of Hirschi et al. is relied upon as set forth above. These claims rejections are made solely under 103 because they are obvious from the cited teachings of the reference rather than having an anticipatory rationale as in the 102/103 rejection above. As to claims 16 and 17 (and alternatively regarding claim 14), while the cited teachings of the reference do not anticipate (explicitly teach or exemplify) the presence of an alkenyl, vinyl, or allyl group on the polyalkylene oxide (or polyethylene oxide thereof) polyether that modifies the polysiloxane, the teachings of the reference nevertheless encompass the claimed limitations and may be selected by a person of ordinary skill in the art to contain them with a reasonable expectation of success . The polymer may comprise vinyl and allyl groups as alkenyl groups (col. 7 lines 42-43). Also note that the R10 group that links the polysiloxane portion to the polyoxyalkylene portion of the formula is a divalent hydrocarbon group having 2 to 20 carbon atoms and is preferably selected as a -CH 2 CH 2 CH 2 - group (col. 7 lines 46-53) that encompasses the polyoxyalkylene (and polyoxyethylene thereof) originally having an allyl (CH 2 CHCH 2 -) group as claimed . An allyl group would be needed and is an operable way of obtaining the polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene copolymer (i.e., reacting the polyorganosiloxane with an allyl-functional polyoxyalkene to obtain the polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene copolymer with a R10 group of -CH 2 CH 2 CH 2 -, the reacted linking form of an allyl group, linking the polyorganosiloxane to the polyoxyalkylene). As to claim 28 (and alternatively regarding claim 8), the reference teaches the polyether (i.e., the polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene) is typically present in a concentration of about 0.05-2 wt.% of the composition with the reason that concentrations above 2 wt.% have little additional improvement in thixotropy (col. 8 lines 15-34) meaning there is diminishing returns in thixotropy improvement above 2 wt.%. While the preferred/typical range falls short of the claimed about 5-30 wt.% and about 8-20 wt.% ranges of the polyether modified polysiloxane base polymer, at the time of the effective filing date it would have still been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed ranges by increasing the amount of polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene present in the composition in order to improve the thixotropic property(ies) of the composition, albeit with diminishing returns, with a reasonable expectation of success. Diminishing returns are not a teaching away. As to claim 29, disclosed amounts of the thermally conductive filler are 60-90 wt.% and 70-85 wt.% of the composition (Id.), which overlap the claimed range. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. C laims 22-27 are also objected to for containing allowable subject matter by their dependency on claim 5 . The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fail to teach or suggest thermally conductive phase change compositions comprising a polysiloxane modified by (and containing) both a polyether functional group and an antioxidant functional group selected from hindered phenolic and/or hindered amine functional groups as recited in claim 3 or the polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene formula thereof recited in claim 5 (e.g., a core polydimethylsiloxane unit flanked with allyl-bridged/reacted polyoxyethylene units and terminated on each end with a particular hindered phenol functional group). Hirschi et al. (US 6,448,329 B1) teach a silicone composition for preparing a cured silicone product, the composition comprising an alumina filler in a concentration sufficient to impart thermal conductivity to the cured silicone product and an effective amount of a polyether (abstract) . See col. 5 line 32 to col. 6 line 23 for details to the thermally conductive filler. The polyether component is preferably a polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene copolymer (col. 6 lines 24+, e.g., lines 28-29 & 61-67 and col. 7 line 1 to col. 8 line 14), which means a polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene may be expressly present. While polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene are well known in the art to have antioxidant properties as claimed and/or the structure of the polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene may comprise (or be selected to comprise) various functional groups reading on antioxidant groups or are capable of exhibiting antioxidative properties, the reference fails to teach or suggest the antioxidant functional groups of the polysiloxane are selected from hindered phenolic functional groups and/or hindered amine functional groups as recited in claim 3 or the polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene having a structure as recited in claim 5 (e.g., a core polydimethylsiloxane unit flanked with allyl-bridged/reacted polyoxyethylene units and terminated on each end with a particular hindered phenol functional group). Mizutani et al. (US 2010/0112017 A1) teach compositions comprising a polyoxyalkylene-modified diorganopolysiloxane (abstract). While the composition may further comprise an antioxidant such as dibutylhydroxytoluene, i.e., 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4/p-cresol and a sterically hindered phenol, Mizutani et al. merely teach the antioxidant is added to the composition to function as a literal antioxidant additive for the polyoxyalkylene-modified diorganopolysiloxane (para. 0033, 0067, 0100) and fail to teach or suggest the antioxidant is modified or reacted with the polymer for it to be present as a functional group present in the polymer itself as claimed. Jiang et al. (CN 104592802 A) teach a polyether modified organic silicone useful as a flattening agent comprising reacting an allyl polyether with an antioxidant and a silicone oil (abstract & para. 0007-0011). The allyl polyether is preferably an allyl polyoxyethylene polyoxypropylene (para. 0013), the antioxidant is preferably ascorbic acid, propyl gallate, citric acid, and ascorbic acid palmitate (para. 0019), and the preparation method also entails addition of a phenolic polymerization inhibitor (para. 0009, 0017, & 0037). Jiang et al.'s mono-allyl polyether modified organic silicon is useful as a flatting agent of the preparation method, application in UV curing coating, a UV ink, UV oil, printing ink or printing ink and so on, the obtained coating film has good flatness, good glossiness and smooth to achieve good application effect, applied to the leather finishing field as touch and feel improver, layer, the obtained coating film has excellent smooth and fine grain effect (para. 0055). However, Jiang et al. fail to teach or suggest the presence of a thermally conductive filler as claimed and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Jiang et al. or combine Jiang et al. with the other references of record as there is no reason or motivation to utilize Jiang et al.'s UV curable, printing ink, or leather finishing modified silicone oil in the thermally conductive compositions of record with any reasonable expectation of success. The reference also fails to teach or suggest the antioxidant is a hindered phenolic functional groups and/or hindered amine functional groups as recited in claim 3 or the polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene having a structure as recited in claim 5 (e.g., a core polydimethylsiloxane unit flanked with allyl-bridged/reacted polyoxyethylene units and terminated on each end with a particular hindered phenol functional group). Yang et al. (CN 104818103 A) is a cited reference of interest that serves as evidence that a polyether modified silicone/polysiloxane has antioxidant properties ( “said antioxidant is polydimethylsiloxane and polyether modified silicone oil mixture”, p.6 of English language machine translation ). Ding (CN 105315414 A, a Y reference on Form PCT 210) teaches a phase change heat conducting silicon sheet 10-95 wt.% heat conducting filler, 5-90 wt.% ethylenic lipid material, a long chain alkyl antioxidant, and a surface treating agent for the heat conducting filler (abstract and p.2). Example(s) in ding also comprise silicone oil and hydrogen silicone oil (p.3). Ding fails to teach or suggest the silicone oil (or a polysiloxane) is modified with a polyether functional group as claimed. Ding also fails to teach or suggest the silicone oil (or a polysiloxane) is also modified with a hindered phenolic functional groups and/or hindered amine functional group as recited in claim 3 (or shown in the structure recited in claim 5) as claimed. Chen (CN 110776641 A, a Y reference on Form PCT 210) teaches an amino terminated polyether modified polysiloxane made by reacting a hydrogen-containing silicone oil with an unsaturated ether to obtain an epoxy polyether modified polysiloxane and then reacting this product with a diethylamine (abstract). The amino terminated polyether modified polysiloxane is useful as a woven fabric softener (see Technical Field, p.1). However, Chen fails to teach or suggest the presence of a thermally conductive filler as claimed and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Chen or combine Chen with the other references of record as there is no reason or motivation to utilize Chen's woven fabric softener amino terminated polyether modified polysiloxane in the thermally conductive compositions of record with any reasonable expectation of success. The reference also fails to teach or suggest the amino terminated polyether modified polysiloxane comprises hindered phenolic functional groups and/or hindered amine functional groups as recited in claim 3 or the polyorganosiloxane-polyoxyalkylene having a structure as recited in claim 5 (e.g., a core polydimethylsiloxane unit flanked with allyl-bridged/reacted polyoxyethylene units and terminated on each end with a particular hindered phenol functional group). Matsushima et al. (US 2022/0254701 A1) teach a thermally conductive resin composition comprising an addition reaction type silicone resin, a hindered phenol-based antioxidant, a dispersant having a hydrophilic functional group and a silicone chain, and a thermally conductive filler (abstract). Details to the hindered phenol-based antioxidant are disclosed at para. 0026-0035. The silicone-based dispersant may be a polyether-modified silicone-based compound (para. 0039, claims). While the composition may comprise both a polyether-modified silicone-based compound as a dispersant and a hindered phenol-based compound as an antioxidant this merely describes the discrete addition of two distinct compounds and the reference fails to teach or suggest the two are modified/reacted together for the polyether modified silicone to also comprise a hindered phenolic functional group (or a hindered amine functional group) with antioxidant properties as claimed. The remaining references listed on Forms 892, 1449, and PCT 210 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or discussed above. C orrespondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-270-0324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 a-5:00p EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 s ://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272- 2817 . 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. /MATTHEW R DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 /M . R . D . / March 30, 202 6