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. Information Disclosure Statement T wo information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted : one on 10/25/2023 and one on 10/28/2025 . The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Specification The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink (see page 7 for example) and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. The specification also lacks a Detailed Description of the Drawings section. The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to Helv. Chim. Acta 2517-2526 (1963) and Synthesis 1978, 12, 888-889 is ineffective because the root words “incorporate” and/or “reference” have been omitted, see 37 CFR 1.57(c)(1) . Furthermore, t he incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper (see page 26 – “Partial hydrogenation” and “complete hydrogenation”) . Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g). Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show specific details (like what the steps a, b, b’, etc. comprise) and the specification also lacks a detailed description of these details. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7 and 16-19) in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 is acknowledged. In light of claim amendments, the election/restriction requirement of 01/08/2026 has been reconsidered and withdrawn. Claims 1-7 and 16-21 are under examination herein. Status of the Claims Claims 1-7 and 16-21 are pending in this application. Claims 8-15 have been cancelled by Applicant. Examiner Notes Claims 1-7 and 16-21 are free of the prior art, but stand rejected and objected over formal matters and the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection s presented herein. Claim Objections Claim s 1 and 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: While the claim provides the molar ratio of base catalyst relative to the product of Formula (I), Examiner believes Applicant might have intended the molar ratio of catalyst with respect to the compound of Formula (II), which is the starting material of the process . Furthermore, as shown in table 1 of the specification, the amount of base is shown as a ratio with the quinone compounds of Formula (II) . Claim 21 (line 3) should read: “comprising the steps of:” 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. Claim s 1-7 and 16-21 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. Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear what the term “conducting” entails. The term is not defined in the specification; therefore, Examiner suggests removing this term to read: “…wherein the process comprises a ring closing step…” Claims 2 -7 and 16-21 are rejected for depending upon the limitations of claim 1. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-7 and 16-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 18-25 of copending Application No. 18/557,648 (Copending ‘648). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Regarding instant claims 1-7 and 16-21 , Copending ‘648 claims a method of manufacturing the instant compounds of formula I from the compounds of formula II, comprising a base, thus anticipating the instant methods. Copending ‘648 also claims a method of making the compounds of Formula III and IV by partial or complete hydrogenation of their compound of Formula I, anticipating instant claims 20-21. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-7 and 16-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 , 11, 13-14 of copending Application No. 18/55 6,213 (Copending ‘ 213 ). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Regarding instant claims 1-7 and 16-21 , Copending ‘213 claims a method of manufacturing the instant compounds of formula IV via cyclization of the compounds of formula V, comprising a base, thus anticipating the instant methods. Copending ‘213 also claims a method of making their compounds of Formula VIII and IX by partial or complete hydrogenation of their compound of Formula I, anticipating instant claims 20-21 ( Copending ‘213’s claims 11 and 13-14 ). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JACKSON J HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5382 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Thurs 7:30 to 5 . 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://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kortney L. Klinkel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5239 . 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. /JACKSON J HERNANDEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 1627 /SARAH PIHONAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1627