DETAILED ACTION 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. 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 , claim(s) 1-16 , drawn to an ultraviolet reflective layer comprising a UV reflective material . Group II , claim(s) 17 , drawn to a method of producing an ultraviolet reflective layer . Group III , claim(s) 18 , drawn to a n ultraviolet reflective material composition . 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 the UV reflective material , this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of US 2015/0087785 , JP 2019159140 , JP 2019068026 , JP 2012094776 and/or US 2013/0011617 , as shown below . During a telephone conversation with Joel S. Armstrong on 3/23/26, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I , claim s 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 11 and 12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 11, there is a reference to “a Q unit” in the body of the claim, however the preamble doesn’t reference said units. It is unclear how these “Q units” are related to the main ingredients for the silicone resin. Thus, the claimed composition of the silicone resin is indefinite. C laim 12 recites wherein the organic material is selected from the group including imide resins and polyimide resins , however it is unclear what if any distinction there is between these two. Thus, it is unclear what applicant is claiming as the organic material for the support . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1- 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) / (a)( 2 ) as being anticipate d by Oowada et al. (US 2015/0087785) . In ¶ ’s 4 , 34 and 42 , Oowada et al. teach a CVT seal ring deposi te d with a material comprising a c ondensation-cured resin , such as from a silicone-based elastomer , and inorganic fillers , such as alumina fibers, which represents the ultraviolet reflective material ha ving a reflectance consistent with the present claims 1-7, according to the present disclosure where the ultraviolet reflective material includes neither titanium oxide nor potassium titanate nor barium sulfate. Thus, the requirements for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) / (a)( 2 ) are met. Claim(s) 1-1 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipate d by Satou et al. (JP 2019159140 ) . In the abstract and the examples , Satou et al. teach a heat-curable silicone resin composition for white reflectors, to provide a white reflector , the heat-curable silicone resin composition containing : a resinous organopolysiloxane comprising the average composition formula ( I ), the organopolysiloxane being generally represented by a combination of Q units ( SiO /2), T units ( CHSiO /2), D units ((CH) SiO /2), and M units ((CH) SiO /2), and an inorganic filler (c) having a thermal expansion coefficient less than 0 ppm/K in a temperature range of 30-500°C as measured by the X-ray diffraction method blended with the silicone resin composition , exemplified by alumina and aluminum nitride, which represents the ultraviolet reflective material having a reflectance consistent with the present claims 1-7 ; wherein the average particle size of the inorganic filler is preferably 0.5 to 40 μm . In the examples of Satou et al. , the cured product prepared on a c opper substrate from the composition is taught to have a thickness of 0.20 mm (200 µm ). Thus, the requirements for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) are met. Claim(s) 1-1 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipate d by Takane et al. (JP 2019068026) . In the abstract, claims 1 and 2, ¶ ’s 13, 15, and examples 1 and 2, Takane et al. teach a reflective material electrodeposited on a metal substrate, the reflective material (corresponding to the "ultraviolet reflective material") including an organopolysiloxane crosslinked body and alumina particles with average particle size s of 0. 2 - 2 µm (corresponding to the "ultraviolet reflective filler particles" , which represents the ultraviolet reflective material having a reflectance consistent with the present claims 1-7 ), wherein the reflective layer is formed to have a thickness of 5 - 200 µm. The organopolysiloxane crosslinked body is considered to be a condensation-type silicone resin. Thus, the requirements for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) are met. Claim(s) 1-1 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipate d by Sakai (JP 2012094776) . In claims 1, 3, and 6, ¶ 24, and examples, Sakai teaches a reflective material layer on an LED sub s tra te such as a glass lens, the reflective material (corresponding to the "ultraviolet reflective material") including 1.1 µm magnesium particles (corresponding to the "ultraviolet reflective filler particles") (see examples) which represents the ultraviolet reflective material having a reflectance consistent with the present claims 1-7, and a condensation-type silicone (corresponding to the "condensation curable silicone resin"); w herein the light reflecting surface side as a light reflecting layer 12 in figure 2. i s a made of the reflecting material composition of the present invention , and the thickness of the light reflecting layer 12a is preferably 500 μm or less . Thus, the requirements for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) are met. Claim(s) 1- 1 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipate d by Taaki et al . (US 201 3 /00 11617 ) . In the abstract, ¶ ’s 12-18, claims 1, 4, 5, and 10, examples, fig. 5, etc.) Taaki et al. teach a reflective layer coating from a reflective-layer base material composition on a support body , the reflective material composition (corresponding to the "ultraviolet reflective material") including a polyphenylsiloxane resin , a condensation-type silicone resin , and a white inorganic filler powder , exemplified by alumina (corresponding to the "ultraviolet reflective filler particles") , which represents the ultraviolet reflective material having a reflectance consistent with the present claims 1-7 . In ¶ 22 , Taaki et al. teach that the white inorganic filler powder has an average particle size of 0.05-50 µm . In ¶ 16 , Taaki et al. teach wherein the reflective layer is formed to have a thickness of 1-2,000 µ m. In ¶ 27 , Taaki et al. teach w herein the reflective layer is polished, with the conductive pattern exposed to the air is of a metal film. In ¶ 1 18 , Taaki et al. teach where the silicone resin is p referably an arbitrary combination of, for example, triorganosiloxane unit (R 3 SiO 1 /2 unit: M unit), diorganosiloxy unit (R 2 SiO unit: D unit), monoorganosiloxy unit (RSiO 3 /2 unit: T unit), siloxy unit (SiO 2 unit: Q unit) . In ¶ 18 4 , Taaki et al. teach that the material of the support body may be various organic materials or inorganic materials consistent with the present claims. Thus, the requirements for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) / (a)( 2) are met. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KELECHI CHIDI EGWIM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1099 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 9-7 . 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 Robert Jones can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7733 . 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. /KELECHI C EGWIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 KCE