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 Status Claims 1-15 are pending. 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 and 3- 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by McCarthy et al (herein ‘McCarthy’; US 2003/0069384 A1) . McCarthy discloses a n uncapped polyindane oligomer (PIBP) of the following formula , wherein n = 3-10 [p. 0023, 0026] [ PIBP formula has 2 phenolic reactive groups per molecule, see instant claim 3] : . McCarthy discloses the PIBP is prepared from 1,3-diisopropyenylbenzene (DIBP), alternatively 1,2-diisopropenylbenzene , in the presence of an acid catalyst ( trifluoroacetic acid ; Brønsted acid ) and the product of the cracking of bisphenol A [see instant claims 7-11] [p. 0044, 0070-0072]. McCarthy discloses the preparation of a polyester functionalized PIBP by capping with terephthaloyl chloride followed by precipitation into methanol [see instant claims 1 and 12] [ex. 26, p. 0083] . Regarding the structural formulas claimed by applicants, the functionalized PIBP exemplified by McCarthy is represented by: R y / R x = Y 2 -Ar-R 11 ; Y 2 = -C(O)-; R 11 = -C(O)- OMe or -C(O)-OH [ see instant claim 1] ; R 1 /R 2 = H, m = 0 [ see instant claims 4-6] . McCarthy discloses the functionalized PIBP are used to prepare thermosetting compositions and laminates thereof [ see instant claims 13-15 ] [p. 0001, 0025, 0069]. 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 . 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) claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy et a l (herein ‘McCarthy’; US 2003/0069384 A1) in view of Yeager et al (herein ‘Yeager’; US 2001 / 0053820 A1) . The disclosure of McCarthy is above and is applied here as such. McCarthy is directed towards "functionalized" polyindanes , i.e., polyindanes having additional functional moieties capable of crosslinking or curing in the presence a curing agent and/or other potential copolymer/co-monomer resins [p. 0015, 0020, 0023, 0063]. McCarthy exemplifies the preparation of functional polyindanes with reactive moieties including carbonate, allyl, cyanate, epoxy, and ester [p. 0082-0087]. Although McCarthy demonstrates functionalization of polyindanes with curable functional groups, McCarthy is silent with respect to the functionalization of polyindanes with (meth)acrylic groups. Yeager is directed toward capping the phenolic residues of poly(arylene ether) resins in order to improve /control curing properties [p. 0004-0006, 0011]. Yeager teaches a preferred embodiment wherein the capped poly(arylene ether) is prepared by reaction of an uncapped poly(arylene ether) with an anhydride [p. 0029]. Yeager exemplifies the preparation of a capped poly(arylene ether) resins by the reaction of methacrylic anhydride with the hydroxyl end groups of poly(2,6-dimethylphenylene ether) resins having various molecular weights [p. 0028, 0109, 0112]. Yeager teaches potential applications for the use of the composition include those known to the art for thermosetting resins, particularly those having properties such as high Tg , toughness, excellent dielectric properties, and good flow properties [p. 0103]. In light of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to functionalize the polyindanes of McCarthy with acrylic moieties, as taught by Yeager, in order install curable functional groups to polyindanes , and to improve/control the curing of the polyindanes thereof . Furthermore, a skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation of success in this endeavor as both McCarthy and Yeager functionalize phenolic chain ends of aromatic polymers with curable functional groups . T he polymer chain ends in the examples of McCarthy and Yeager have significantly similar electronic and steric environments and would be expected to behave similarly under the same reaction conditions . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HOLLEY GRACE HESTER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5435 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00AM -5:00PM . 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 Randy Gulakowski can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1302 . 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. /HOLLEY GRACE HESTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1766 /RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766