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/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of group I, polybutadiene-fluorine (taken as the BF species 4 of page 11 of the appendix to the specification), semiconductor, p type donor (taken as DPPTT, the example of page 22 of the appendix of the specification), light , in the reply filed on 11/4/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it is not considered unduly burdensome to examine all species together. This is not found persuasive because the base polymer of the semiconductor vs. dielectric is different and has different mechanical/physical properties wherein the choice of blended rubber and endgroups thereof depends on the base polymer. Further, not all endgroups would react the same and/or give the same semiconductor or dielectric properties. See also the explanation of the Office Action dated 4/21/25. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/4/25. 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 -9 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 has the following 2 issues: The overall ‘method’ does not achieve a semiconductor or dielectric being made. The overall method only requires the preparation of a secondary rubber matrix precursor. The precursor itself does not seem to make a semiconductor or dielectric. The claim will be treated as if carrying out the step of preparing makes the semiconductor, however, appropriate correction is required. “ can be attached ” renders the claim unclear because it is unclear whether the claim requires the crosslinkable group to be on the precursor, to be blended with the precursor, or to be part of the semiconductor polymer . The following is a suggestion of appropriate language for the claim: A method for obtaining polymer semiconductors or polymer dielectrics comprising an in-situ rubber matrix, the method comprising: preparing a secondary rubber matrix polymer precursor comprising a crosslinkable group on a chain end or backbone, wherein the secondary rubber precursor can undergo self-crosslinking upon UV irradiation after blending with a semiconductive or dielectric polymer, providing a semiconductive or dielectric polymer, and mixing the secondary rubber matrix precursor with the semiconductive polymer or dielectric polymer It is noted the above claim suggestion is merely suggestions to overcome the 112 issues, the suggestion is not for reasons of allowability. Claim 2 has the following issues: “ the crosslinkable groups” lacks antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear how “the precursor” of claim 1 is meant to react with “the polymer semiconductors or dielectrics” considering that claim 1 ‘forms’ the semiconductor or dielectric simply by preparing the precursor Claim 3 has the following issue: “ the two crosslinking” lacks antecedent basis Claim 4 has the following issue: “ crosslinking reactions” lack proper basis. Although the reactions are implicit, the wording of claims 1, 2, 4 should be consistent Claim 5 has the following issue: “ the crosslinking reactions” lacks proper basis Claim 6 has the following issues: “ secondary matrix backbone structure” should read “the secondary rubber matrix precursor’ for proper antecedent basis Claim 7 has the following issues: It is unclear how the MW of a polymer semiconductor relates to the preparation of a secondary rubber matrix precursor . E.G. the only polymer of claim 1 is the secondary rubber matrix, so it is unclear if this MW is of the prepared secondary rubber matrix or of something else . T he Examiner believes this to be a separate polymer, blended with the precursor, as the suggested language of claim 1 shows. However as it stands, it is indefinite Since the specification does not support the MW being that of the precursor, the Examiner will treat this claim as being the MW of a semiconductor polymer Claim 8 has the following issues: It is unclear how doping of polymer semiconductor relates to the preparation of a secondary rubber matrix precursor . It is unclear how the preparation method of claim 1 results in a polymer semiconductor being p or n type without requiring the addition of a second polymer. E.G. the only polymer of claim 1 is the secondary rubber matrix, so it is unclear if this doping is of the prepared secondary rubber matrix or of something else (the Examiner believes this to be a separate polymer, blended with the precursor, as the suggested language of claim 1 shows. However as it stands, it is indefinite) Claim 9 has the following issues: “ the secondary matrix” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 only has the secondary precursor, it is unclear how such can be crosslinked with the ‘product’ semiconductor or dielectric’. 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. 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. 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 . Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chung (US 2017/0331045) . Chung discloses semiconductor thin film compositions. See the semiconductor polymer of [0146]. This is very similar to DPPTT (and thus the p doped semiconductor polymer elected) except the R groups are C10H21 and C8H17 vs. C12H25 and C10H21 (of the appendix to the instant specification). Both R groups are saturated, thus would have very similar reactivity/electroconductivity. See the semiconductor polymer of [0147], this has an unsaturated group, and, is also very similar to the DPPTT. These semiconductor polymers are mixed with polymers such as SEBS or polyethylene-butylene [0152]. The mixed in polymer may be any of those of [0103] including polybutadiene, polystyrene-butadiene, e tc . Chung is not explicit as to the crosslinkable groups of these polymers. However, all those of [0103] and [0152] can implicitly either be hydrogenated (thus no unsaturation) or unhydrogenated (thus saturation found internal and endcaps). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), wherein the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. Picking unhydrogenated (e.g. unsaturated) species of those polymers of [0103] or [0152] is prima facie obvious. These unhydrogenated species would implicitly have endgroups and/or internal unsaturation available for crosslinking. Picking one thing ( unhydrogenated species) for any of those rubbers of [0103] is anticipated. Alternatively, such is prima facie obvious. Though picked from a laundry list, it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft , 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985) Thus, the method for obtaining a semiconductor of claim 1 is met and anticipated. Claims 2-9 are drawn to future intended use, e.g. ‘configured’ of claim 2 is met by the structure above, claim 3 is drawn to future crosslinking, claim 4 is drawn to future crosslinking (wherein the unsaturation of the SEBS would react with the thiol of DPPTT, a thio-ene reaction), claim 5 is drawn to initiation of crosslinking which, as written, is future intended use, claim 6 is met by those species of [0103] of Chung and/or the SEBS or polyethylene-butylene exemplified. Although claim 1 does not require semiconductor polymers, Chung does disclose such to be mixed with the rubbers (as discussed above). The MW of the semiconductor polymers of Chung may be 50k or more [0117], rendering claim 7 prima facie obvious. The above DPPTT being a polythiophene, as required by claim 8, though, claims 7 and 8 are also rejected as being drawn to future intended use since these polymers are not seemingly mixed/included in the final product of claim 1. Claim 9 is drawn to the future intended use , and is rejected as above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2451 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 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 Curt Mayes can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1234 . 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. /ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759