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. 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 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/044,026 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to polythiol compositions and optical articles prepared therefrom comprising a main tetrafunctional polythiol and a minor amount sub-polythiol compound. The sub-polythiol compound is present in overlapping amounts within the claimed inventions. The copending application does not teach certain properties pertaining to the polythiol composition. However, said properties would be present absent a showing the contrary. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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. Claim s 1-1 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2018/173820 to Tokunaga et al. As to claims 1, 5-6, 10-15 , Tokunaga discloses a process for preparing a polythiol composition and reacting of the polythiol composition with polyisocyanates to prepare optical articles (See Examples) wherein 55.72 parts by weight of degassed water (dissolved oxygen concentration 2 ppm), and 0.78 parts by weight of a 30.3% aqueous sodium hydroxide solution were charged into the reactor and cooled to 10°C. Next, 134.7 parts by weight of 99.94% epichlorohydrin was added dropwise at 9-11° C over 3.9 hours, and the mixture was stirred for 60 minutes. Next, 327.95 parts by weight of a 17.3 wt% aqueous sodium sulfide solution with an absorbance of 0.130 at 350 nm was added dropwise over 3.0 hours at 28-30°C, and the mixture was stirred for another 3.0 hours. Next, 256.4 parts by weight of 99.3% pure thiourea is added, and while stirring, 170.0 parts by weight of 99.7% hydrochloric acid gas is added at 21 to 73°C. The temperature was then increased, and the mixture was stirred at 110°C under reflux for 3 hours to carry out the thiuronium chloride reaction. After cooling to 45°C, 466.2 parts by weight of toluene was added, and the mixture was cooled to 32°C. 340.7 parts by weight of a 25.4% by weight aqueous ammonia solution was added over 25 minutes at 30-38°C. After raising the temperature to 60°C, the hydrolysis reaction was carried out by stirring for 1 hour to obtain a toluene solution of polythiol. 250.0 parts by weight of 4% hydrochloric acid was added to the toluene solution, and acid washing was performed at 36-38°C for 15 minutes. After the wastewater layer was discharged, 125.0 parts by weight of 35% hydrochloric acid was added, and washing was performed twice at 35-38°C for 30 minutes each. Next, 125.0 parts by weight of deaerated water (dissolved oxygen concentration 2 ppm) was added, and washing was performed five times at 35-38°C for 30 minutes each. After removing toluene and trace amounts of water under heating and reduced pressure, the mixture was filtered under reduced pressure using a 1.2 μm PTFE type membrane filter to obtain 254.1 parts by weight of a polythiol compound mainly composed of 4,8-dimercaptomethyl-1,11-dimercapto-3,6,9-trithiaundecane, 4,7-dimercaptomethyl-1,11-dimercapto-3,6,9-trithiaundecane, and 5,7-dimercaptomethyl-1,11-dimercapto-3,6,9-trithiaundecane. The analysis results of the obtained polythiol compounds are shown in Table 1. The polythiol composition is mainly composed of tetrafunctional polythiols represented by the following: Which meets instant claims 5-6 with regards to the formulas. The method of preparation of a polythiol composition and converting to a polythiol based compound taught in Tokunaga is the same as the method used in the instant specification. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that some higher molecular weight polythiols are present including those within the claims and those within the claimed amounts even after the distillation step to remove solvents and low-boiling compounds (0056). Therefore, the preparation of the polythiol composition would contain mixtures of tetrafunctional polythiol in combination with higher molecular weight polythiols including those claimed and within the claimed values. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. As to claims 2-4 and 7-9, t he method of preparation of a polythiol composition and converting to a polythiol based compound taught in Tokunaga is the same as the method used in the instant specification. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that some higher molecular weight polythiols are present including those within the claims and those within the claimed amounts even after the distillation step to remove solvents and low-boiling compounds (0056). Therefore, the preparation of the polythiol composition would contain mixtures of tetrafunctional polythiol in combination with higher molecular weight polythiols and would further provide the polythiol composition with the same values of the instant claims. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL L LEONARD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7450 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M - F 7:00-4:00 . 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 Joseph Del Sole can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1130 . 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. /MICHAEL L LEONARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763