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 Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 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. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 101775102 A (herein “Lu”). The attached computer-generated English translation of Lu is referred to herein. As to claims 1 and 4: Lu describes a method (see Example 1 in ¶ [0023]) comprising preparing a mixed solution of a RAFT polymer having a trithiocarbonate end group and of 1-hydroxycyclohexyl benzophenone (an alcohol compound); and irradiating the solution with a high-pressure mercury lamp . Lu discloses (id.) that UV-Vis absorption spectroscopy showed that the characteristic absorption peak of the trithiocarbonate end group at 436nm disappeared , corresponding to the presently recited step of removing a thiocarbonylthio group from the polymer. Claims 1- 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated b y Chemical Communications, 2017, 53(11), 1888-1891 (herein “ Discekici ”). As to claim s 1 -4 : Discekici describes a method (see Figs. 3 and 4; and see the procedure on p. S I 7 of the Supporting Information) comprising preparing a mixed solution of a RAFT polymer having a thiocarbonylthio end group (see the middle of p. SI 7) and of the compound eosin Y (a phenol compound; see the bottom of p. SI 7); and irradiating the solution with 465 nm blue LEDs . Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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. Claim s 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Controlled Radical Polymerization: Mechanisms (herein “Xu”) in view of Organic Process Research & Development, 2016, 20(10), 1792-1798 (herein “Clark”) and Chemical Communications, 2017, 53(11), 1888-1891 (herein “ Discekici ”). Xu describes photopolymerization of methyl methacrylate in the presence of a RAFT agent (see the procedure at the bottom of p. 251) includin g irradiating the reaction mixture with a blue LED light. Xu does not disclose the presently recited steps of using a rotating reactor or the presently recited steps of removing the thiocarbonylthio group from the polymer. Clark describes a photoreactor (see the abstract and Figure 1) including a rotary evaporator inclined with respect to the vertical direction and LEDs that are used to irradiate the reaction flask. Clark discloses that the reactor works on the principle of creating a thin film by rotation of the reaction flask (see the top right of p. 1793), and Clark discloses that the reactor as advantages regarding productivity, temperature control, and decoupl ing of the residence time from the flow rate (see the paragraph bridging pp. 1793-1794). In light of Clark, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform Xu’s photopolymerization in Clark’s rotary evaporator for the advanta ges regarding productivity, temperature control, and decoupling of the residence time from the flow rate . Discekici discloses that the presence of reactive and colored CTAs at the chain-end of a RAFT product is often detrimental to material performance (see the first paragraph on p. 1888). Discekici describes a method of removing the thiocarbonylthio chain-end (see Figs. 3 and 4; and see the procedure on p. SI 7 of the Supporting Information) comprising preparing a mixed solution of a RAFT polymer having a thiocarbonylthio end group (see the middle of p. SI 7) and of the compound eosin Y (a phenol compound; see the bottom of p. SI 7); and irradiating the solution with 465 nm blue LEDs. In light of Discekici, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to mix Xu’s polymer in a solution with eosin Y and irradiate the solution with 465 nm blue LEDs in the manner taught by Discekici in order to decolor the polymer and to improve the polymer’s material performance . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed Xu’s photopolymerization in Clark’s rotary evaporator ; and further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Discekici’s process to remove the thiocarbonylthio group from Xu’s polymer, thereby arriving at the presently claimed methods. 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 . Claim s 1- 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-5 of copending a pplication serial n o. 18/454,094 in view of Discekici . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other . US ‘094 c laims a method of producing a RAFT polymer comprising polymerizing a monomer with a RAFT agent in the manner presently recited in claim 5 (see claims 1 and 5 of US ‘094). US ‘094 does not claim the step presently recited in claim 1 of irradiating a solution of the polymer and an alcohol or phenol compound to remove the thiocarbonylthio group from the polymer. Discekici discloses that the presence of reactive and colored CTAs at the chain-end of a RAFT product is often detrimental to material performance (see the first paragraph on p. 1888). Discekici describes a method of removing the thiocarbonylthio chain-end (see Figs. 3 and 4; and see the procedure on p. SI 7 of the Supporting Information) comprising preparing a mixed solution of a RAFT polymer having a thiocarbonylthio end group (see the middle of p. SI 7) and of the compound eosin Y (a phenol compound; see the bottom of p. SI 7); and irradiating the solution with 465 nm blue LEDs. In light of Discekici, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to mix the polymer made by the method of US ‘094 in a solution with eosin Y and irradiate the solution with 465 nm blue LEDs in the manner taught by Discekici in order to decolor the polymer and to improve the polymer’s material performance . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed Discekici ’s process to remove the thiocarbonylthio group from the polymer made by the process of US ‘094, thereby arriving at the presently claimed methods. 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 RICHARD A. HUHN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7345 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 6 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 Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7026 . 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. /RICHARD A. HUHN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764