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. DETAILED ACTION Summary This is the initial Office action based on the 18560648 application filed 11/13/23 Claim(s) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 are pending and claim(s)1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 have been fully considered 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) 4,7,12,13,14,17,18,22 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(s) 4 has the phrase, “the molar ratio,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language; Particularly, it is unclear if the phrase refers to something previously mentioned (albeit without proper antecedent basis), OR if this phrase is setting forth a new element Claim(s) 7 has the phrase, “the average repeating unit composition,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language; Particularly, it is unclear if the phrase refers to something previously mentioned (albeit without proper antecedent basis), OR if this phrase is setting forth a new element Claim(s) 12 has the phrase, “Teflon® AF 2400 ,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language; Particularly, trademark is indefinite Claim(s) 13 has the phrase, “the carbon dioxide selectivity,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language; Particularly, it is unclear if the phrase refers to something previously mentioned (albeit without proper antecedent basis), OR if this phrase is setting forth a new element Claim(s) 14 has the phrase, “the carbon dioxide permeance,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language; Particularly, it is unclear if the phrase refers to something previously mentioned (albeit without proper antecedent basis), OR if this phrase is setting forth a new element Claim(s) 17 has the phrase, “the carbon dioxide selectivity,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language; Particularly, it is unclear if the phrase refers to something previously mentioned (albeit without proper antecedent basis), OR if this phrase is setting forth a new element Claim(s) 18 has the phrase, “the carbon dioxide permeance,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language; Particularly, it is unclear if the phrase refers to something previously mentioned (albeit without proper antecedent basis), OR if this phrase is setting forth a new element Claim(s) 22 has the phrase, “Teflon® AF 2400 ,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language; Particularly, trademark is indefinite Though one or more of the claim (s) are indefinite, for the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner has done his best to ascertain their meaning for the following 35 USC § 102 and/or 35 USC § 103 rejection(s) 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, 2, 3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 20100036073 (herein known as ATEN) With regard to claim (s) 1, 2, 3 , ATEN sufficiently teaches a "tetrafluoroethylene and a monomer having at least one functional group and a polymerizable carbon-carbon double bond" (i.e. fluorinated copolymer) comprising (as follows, and), especially at abstract " other than tetrafluoroethylene is...perfluoro-2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxole (PDD)", especially at abstract, para 8, within the scope of the first repeating unit comprising a fluorinated and cyclic structure from the first repeating unit according to instant specification para 13, 4,5-difluoro-2,2- bis(trifluoromethyl)-1 ,3-dioxole is PDD, and claim 2 ATEN sufficiently teaches "about 1 weight percent or less of repeating units arising from a perfluoromonomer other than tetrafluoroethylene," especially at para 8; Instant specification para 16, “The composition of the fluorinated copolymers can have a wide range with molar ratios of a first repeating unit to second repeating unit that are between 1:1and 1:99” (i.e. 1%; i.e. evidence reasonably indicating within the scope of a backbone) ATEN sufficiently teaches functional group (FG) "FG contains an amide group and a polymerizable carbon-carbon double bond. Examples include N-methyl-N-vinyl acetamide", especially at para 36, within the scope of the second repeating unit comprises a pendant amide functionality and has the structure according to instant claim 3 With regard to claim 6, ATEN sufficiently teaches an additional repeating unit from a comonomer of tetrafluoroethylene, especially at abstract, para 6,8 Allowable Subject Matter Claim(s) 5,8,9,10,11,15,16,19,20,21 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANTHONY R SHUMATE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5546 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M,T,Th,F . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872 . 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 . /ANTHONY SHUMATE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776