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 1-4 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. Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Braun et al ( C-F Activation at Rhodium Boryl Complexes: Formation of2-Fluoroalkyl-1,3,2-Dioxaborolanes by Catalytic Functionalization of Hexafluoropropene . Angewandte Chemie . 23 February 2009, vol. 121, no. 10, pp. 1850-1854, DOI: 10.1002/ange.200805041 ; cited on IDS ). Braun teaches the catalytic borylation of 3,3,3-trifluoropropene as shown in scheme 3. Compound 4 is the major product and corresponds to formula (A1) of instant claim 1, wherein G1 is a fluoroalkyl group, n is 2, and M and its substituents are Bpin ( pinacole borane) which corresponds to R5. 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaladi (Alkene hydroboration with pinacolborane catalysed by lithium diisobutyltert-butoxyaluminum hydride. RSC Advances. 23 August 2019, vol. 9, no. 45, pp. 26483-26486, DOI: 10.1039/C9RA04699B ; cited on IDS ) and further in view of Braun et al (C-F Activation at Rhodium Boryl Complexes: Formation of2-Fluoroalkyl-1,3,2-Dioxaborolanes by Catalytic Functionalization of Hexafluoropropene . Angewandte Chemie . 23 February 2009, vol. 121, no. 10, pp. 1850-1854, DOI: 10.1002/ange.200805041 ; cited on IDS ) . Jaladi teaches the production of organoboranes from the corresponding alkenes, and the subsequent cross-coupling of the organoborane and a organohalide via Suzuki coupling [ left column, lines 3-1 from the bottom, scheme 3, bottom paragraph reaction ]. Braun demonstrates the borylation of 3,3,3-trifluoropropene . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to cross-couple the organoborane of Braun with an organohalide in order to prepare other substances. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 2, the examiner could locate no prior art, alone or in combination, that teaches or suggests the borylation of a (poly) oxy fluoroalkylene chain (G1 and G2). Regarding claim 5; Murotani (US 2014/0302332 A1; cited on IDS) teaches a surface treating agent containing a fluorinated ether compound having hydrolysable silyl groups [p. 0003-0004]. Although the surface treatment agents prepared by Murotani may be preared from compounds represented by claimed formula (E1) and (E2), Murotani fails to teach a preparation method wherein the fluorinated ethers are prepared from organoboranes as recited in instant claim 1. T he examiner could locate no prior art, alone or in combination, that teaches or suggests obtaining a compound by the production method of instant claim 3 and further reacting it in order to introduce a reactive silyl group into the compound. 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