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. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 appears to include a typographical error. The term “2-chloro-3’,4’-dihydroxyacetophenon” should be amended to read -- 2-chloro-3’,4’-dihydroxyacetophenon e --. The following amendment to claim 1 is suggested to improve clarity and avoid potential issues relating to antecedent basis arising from reference to previous process steps : Claim 1. A method for preparing a bionic wet surface adhesion promoter, comprising: Reaction: a reaction step comprising reacting polyvinylpyrrolidone with 2-chloro-3’,4’-dihydroxyacetophenon e ; Purification: a purification step comprising purifying the product obtained in the reaction step; Drying: a drying step comprising drying the product obtained in the purification step; and Grinding: a grinding step comprising grinding the product obtained in the drying step into powder; wherein the mass ratio of polyvinylpyrrolidone to 2-chloro-3’,4’-dihydroxyacetophenon e is (0.8 ~ 1.2): 1, the purification step uses n-hexane for purification, the drying step adopts a vacuum drying process, and the grinding step adopts a ball milling process. Claim 5 includes chemical formulae where numerical values and variables are not properly displayed as subscripts. The alkoxy-terminated polyorganosiloxane molecular formula should be amended to read H 3 CO-[R 2 SiO] n -OCH 3 and the hydroxyl-terminated polyorganosiloxane molecular formula should be amended to read HO-[R 2 SiO] n -OH. 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 1-12 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. Claim 1 includes the numerical range “0.8 ~ 1.2”. The meaning of the tilde (“~”) symbol is unclear. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine if the claim encompasses an exact range of 0.8-1.2, or if the tilde is meant to impart some degree of imprecision. If the tilde is meant to indicate imprecision, neither the claims nor the specification indicate the range potentially encompassed by such imprecision. Therefore, the full metes and bounds of claim 1 cannot be determined. Claim 3 also includes numerical ranges including a tilde in steps b) and c) and is indefinite for the reasons articulated above. Claims 2 and 4- 12 depend from claim s 1 and/or 3 and are therefore similarly indefinite. For the purpose of examination on the merits, tilde symbols in numerical ranges will be interpreted as requiring the exact range specified in the claim, inclusive of both endpoints and all points in between. For example, the claim 1 recitation of “0.8 ~ 1.2” will be interpreted as having the same meaning as “0.8-1.2”. Claim Interpretation Claim 2 is a product-by-process claim requiring a bionic wet surface adhesion promoter prepared by the method of claim 1. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I). The product resulting from the process steps of claim 1 is a reaction product of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) and 2-chloro-3’,4’-dihydroxyacetophenone which has been subject to some degree of purification, drying, and grinding. The mass ratio of starting polymer to 2-chloro-3’,4’-dihydroxyacetophenone relates to a relationship between reactants and imparts no further structural limitations to the final product. The use of n-hexane for purification; vacuum drying for the drying step; and ball milling for the grinding step also do not appear to impart any further structural limitations to the product itself. The phrase “bionic wet surface adhesion promoter” is a statement of intended use. The se limitations do not require steps to be performed or limit the claims to a particular structure. Therefore, these limitations do not limit the scope of the instant claims and need not be taught by the prior art in order to anticipate the claims. See MPEP 2111.02. Claim 2 is interpreted as being drawn to a reaction product of PVP and 2-chloro-3’,4’-dihydroxyacetophenone which has been subject to some degree of purification, drying, and grinding. Any product otherwise meeting these compositional and structural requirements will be interpreted as reading on the claimed bionic wet surface adhesion promoter . The products of claims 3-11 and the method of claim 13 all require the product of claim 2 and will be interpreted similarly . 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US 2021/0207008; cited in Applicant’s IDS). Regarding claim 2, Gao teaches a reaction product of PVP and 2-chloro-3’,4’-dihydroxyacetophenone (Abstract): Gao’s examples illustrate such a reaction product that is purified by precipitation; dried; and ground (p. 4, [0051]). The purified, dried, and ground reaction product anticipates the bionic wet surface adhesion promoter of claim 2. 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. Claims 3 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao. Regarding claim 3, Gao remains as applied to claim 2 above. Claim 3 defines amounts of all ingredients in terms of parts by weight, but no baseline is indicated to show what these parts are relative to. Assuming no additional ingredients are present, the claimed parts by weight are understood as equivalent to the following amounts in terms of weight percent: Ingredient Amount (a) 0.06-3.36 wt% (b) 22.90-58.77 wt% (c) 6.85-28.70 wt% (d) 0.64-6.57 wt% (e) 0.63-4.69 wt% (f) 22.90-58.77 wt% (g) 0-6.49 wt% Gao ’s Example 2 illustrates the following silicone sealant formulation: Amount (g) wt% Ingredient Claimed component 20 0.9 Reaction product of PVP and 2-chloro-3’,4’-dihydroxyacetophenone (a) 700 33 Alkoxy-terminated polyorganosiloxane, viscosity = 20,000 cSt (b) 300 14.2 Branched silicone oil (c) 10 0.5 dimethyl methoxy silane (d) 50 2.4 vinyl trimethoxy silane (d) 40 1.9 titanium complex catalyst (e) 1000 47.2 Calcium carbonate nano-filler (f) Gao suggests the use of branched silicone oils having a viscosity of 25-10,000 cSt (p. 3, [0034]), which overlaps the viscosity of the claimed plasticizer. Gao’s Example 2 differs compositionally from claim 3 in that it includes two types of crosslinking agent, whereas the claim requires more than three (i.e. at least four) types of crosslinking agents. Gao discloses a variety of equivalent crosslinking agents at page 3, [0041], each of which include at least two reactive groups. Example 2 illustrates the use of a combination of crosslinking agents selected from this list present in a combined amount falling within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select and combine two or more additional crosslinking agents from the list at [0041] for use in combination with the two already present in Example 2 such that the combined amount remains consistent with the total amount present in unmodified Example 2. This represents selection and combination of equivalent crosslinking agents recognized by the prior art as being suitable for the same purpose. It is prima facie obvious to select known material s based on art-recognized suitability for their intended use , and to combine equivalent materials when the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06 and 2144.07 . Table 1 (p. 5) illustrates that the formulation of Example 2 leads to tensile adhesive strength on dry substrates of 1.03 MPa and tensile adhesive strength on wet substrates of 0.71 MPa. These values fall within the claimed ranges. The same or similar values falling within the claimed ranges will necessarily be present after carrying out the modification applied above because the modified composition is identical to the claimed composition. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. Thus, modification of Gao as applied above reads on claim 3. Regarding claim 7, Gao teaches species within the scope of the claimed crosslinking agents at page 3, [0041]. Regarding claim 8, Gao teaches isopropyl titanate and tetrabutyl titanate (p. 3, [0041]). Regarding claim 9, fillers reading on the claimed species are disclosed at page 3, [0034]. Regarding claims 10 and 11, Gao does not disclose any of the claimed functional fillers. Claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 3, which permits inclusion of 0 parts by weight of the functional filler. Gao effectively teaches 0 parts by weight of the indicated functional fillers, including an anti-mold agent, and therefore reads on claims 10 and 11. Regarding claim 12, Gao’s example 2 illustrates a method including the steps of (a) mixing an alkoxy-terminated polyorganosiloxane with a branched silicone oil (i.e. plasticizer); adding inorganic filler and catechol-containing polymeric additive; mixing at 130°C under vacuum; adding crosslinking agent under vacuum at 60°C; and adding catalyst under a nitrogen atmosphere (p. 4, [0052]-[0064]). Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Takamatsu et al. (JP 2020037619A; machine translation). Regarding claim 1, Gao teaches a process wherein PVP is reacted with 2-chloro-3,’4’-dihydroxyacetophenone at a weight ratio of approximately 10:0 to approximately 1:1 (p. 2, [0031]-[0032]) ; the reaction product is purified by precipitating in a solvent such as hexane ; the purified product is freeze dried or dried using a vacuum pump ; and the product is formed into a powder state by grinding (p. 4, [0051]). Gao’s weight ratio of approximately 10:0 to approximately 1:1 overlaps the claimed range of 0.8:1 to 1.2:1. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I). While Gao suggests grinding into a powder state and Example 1 generically describes the use of a “pulverizer” (p. 4, [0051]), the reference does not teach ball milling as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, Takamatsu teaches a PVP composition useful in applications such as adhesives (Abstract; p. 1, [0001]). After drying, the PVP is pulverized by commonly used methods, including pulverization with a ball mill (p. 5-6, [0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to conduct Gao’s grinding/pulverizing step in a ball mill, as Takamatsu demonstrates this to be a commonly used method in the art for pulverizing PVP compositions. Modification in this way reads on claim 1. Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Bingol et al. (US 2018/0133360). Regarding claims 4-6, Gao remains as applied to claims 2 and 3 above. Gao’s composition may include a catalyst which can catalyze curing in the presence of moisture (p. 3, [0041]). Gao does not teach a polyorganosiloxane or plasticizer meeting the limitations of claims 4-6. In the same field of endeavor, Bingol teaches a moisture-curable adhesive composition based on reactive silicone polymers (Abstract). Suitable reactive silicone polymers include a mixture of a hydroxyl-terminated polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)having a molecular formula corresponding to the claimed formula where n=2 to 5,000 (p. 4, [0039]-[0042]) and an alkoxy-terminated polyorganosiloxane corresponding to the claimed formula when R3 is C1 alkyl and the remaining R groups are C1 alkyl or phenyl, where n=2 to 5,000 (p. 4, [0043]-[0048]). The composition further includes a plasticizer such as trimethylsiloxy -terminated PDMS (p. 7, [0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select Bingol’s combination of reactive silicone polymers for use as the polyorganosiloxane component of Gao’s composition, as they are recognized in the art as being suitable for use in this capacity. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select Bingol’s trimethylsiloxy -terminated PDMS (i.e. a methyl-terminated polyorganosiloxane) as a plasticizer for use in Gao’s composition, as it is suggested for use in a compositionally similar adhesive with a similar curing mechanism. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. Modification in this way reads on claims 4-6. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT S JONES JR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7733 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9 AM - 5 PM Pacific . 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. /ROBERT S JONES JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762