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. Status of Claims Claims 1 - 16 are pending. Claims 1 – 1 6 are rejected. Claim Objections Claims 2 - 14 objected to because of the following informalities: in the claims “A process…” should begin “The process…” . 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 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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 11 in the phrasing “a suitable leaving group”, the term “suitable” lack clarity as to what kind of leaving group it is, even in consideration of the description in the specification at paragraph [0043], and the common technical knowledge at the time of the filing of the instant claim. Claims 12 – 14 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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 provides use of a compound of formula (I) for preparing a compound of formula (VI) but, since the claim does not set forth all the steps involved in the method/process ; and there is no structure in the claim for formula (VI) , it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a process without any active, positive steps delimiting how this process is actually practiced. The elements of a method claim must be steps or acts, expressed as verbal statements or phrases. Claim 1 is rejected under MPEP 2173.05(q) which states that this type of rejection is more appropriate under 35 U.S.C. 101. ( Ex parte Dunki , 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967)). In this case, claim 1 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claims does not fall into one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it does not define “actions” for the listed step. As explained by the Supreme Court, a "process" is "a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing." Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972) (italics added) (quoting Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 788, 24 L. Ed. 139, 141 (1876)). Accord Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 ("The Supreme Court and this court have consistently interpreted the statutory ter m ‘process’ to require action") (MEPE 2106.03.I.). 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. Claim(s) 1 – 3 and 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kozlov (PetroChem i stry, 1975, see English translation) . The rejected claims cover, inter alia, process for the preparation of a compound of formula (I) comprising reacting a compound of formula (II) with a compound of formula (III) in the presence of an acid. Dependent claim 2 further limits the compound of formula (I). Dependent claim 3 further limits the compound of formula (III). Dependent claims 8 – 10 further limit the process. However, Kozlov discloses the reaction of o-cresol (=formula (II)) with cyclohexene (=formula (III)) in the presence of phosphoric acid to obtain monocyclohexyl-o-cresol in 75%. (Table ). Kozlov discloses the following on page 699: On page 699 to 700 is disclosed: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rendine et al. (WO2020/193387) . Claim 15 covers inter alia, compounds (V-1) to (V-(V). However, Rendine is discloses as having the following compound as described on page 8 at lines 10 – 15, The difference between Rendine and the claimed invention is that it does not teach the invention with particularity so as to amount to anticipation (See M.P.E.P. §2131: "[t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ...claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis ver bis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). However, based on the above, Rendine teaches the elements of the claimed invention with sufficient guidance, particularity, and with a reasonable expectation of success, that the invention would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill (the prior art reference teaches or suggests all the claim limitations with a reasonable expectation of success. (s ee M.P.E.P. § 2143). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim (s) 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Kozlov et al. (Petrochemistry, 1975, English translation) in view of Carpenter (US 2,054,885) . The rejected claims cover, inter alia, process for the preparation of a compound of formula (I) comprising reacting a compound of formula (II) with a compound of formula (III) in the presence of an acid. Dependent claim 2 further limits the compound of formula (I). Dependent claim 3 and 4 further limits the compound of formula (III). Dependent claims 5 – 7 further limit the acid. Dependent claims 8 – 10 further limit the process. However, Kozlov discloses the reaction of o-cresol (=formula (II)) with cyclohexene (=formula (III)) in the presence of phosphoric acid to obtain monocyclohexyl-o-cresol in 75%. (Table ). Kozlov discloses the following on page 699: On page 699 to 700 is disclosed: Kozlov does not discloses a process for use of the compound of formula (III) where X is halogen or a hydroxide group. However, Carpenter discloses the process for the preparation of the compound of formula (I), specifically Friedel-Crafts alkylation of o-cresol with isopropyl chloride in the presence of aluminum chloride (a Lewis acid) to produce carvacrol. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the process of Kozlov and react other alkylchlorides under Friedel-Crafts reaction conditions with an expectation of success. Motivation can be found in the fact that both Kozlov and Carpenter were conducting Friedel-Crafts alkylation reactions on o-cresol in the presence of a Lewis acid. Therefore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT YATE' K. CUTLIFF whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9067 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday (8:30 - 5:30) . 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 Scarlett Y. Goon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5241 . 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. /YATE' K CUTLIFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692