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. Obviousness-type 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms . The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp . Claims 1 -20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18694605 . Note particularly that c laims 5, 6 and 11-20 of the instant application recite a polyester resin characterized by one or more of the following performance properties (i) a melt tension of 15 mN or more as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C, a taking up speed of 100 m/min, and a shear rate of 243 s-; and /or a melt viscosity of 26000 dPa - s or more and a shear rate of 30 s- 1 and 6500 dPa - s or less as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C and a shear rate of 2000 s- 1 as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C. Corresponding to related applications claims 3-6 and 12-20 note that these claims are directed to a polyester resin exhibiting the same melt tension and melt viscosity properties, measured under the same conditions. The claims of the instant application do not recite additional limitations with respect to these performance properties that would render the claimed subject matter patentable distinct from the subject matter claimed in the related application. Although the independent claims of the two applications differ in the compositional requirements, the dependent claims are directed to the same inventive concept, that is a polyester resin defined by the recited melt tension and/or melt viscosity characteristics. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the related application contains dependent claims which, when read as a whole, contain the same subject as claim 1 of the present application, respectively and thus would have been obvious over the claimed invention. It is clear that all the elements of the application claims are to be found in related application claims (as the application claims fully encompasses related application claims). The difference between the application claims and the related application claims lies in the fact that the related application claim includes many more elements and is, thus, much more specific. Thus, the invention of claims of the related application is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claims. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29USPQ2d2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claims is anticipated by claims of the related application, it is not patentably distinct from claims of the related application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPub 20130115402. See paragraph [0023]-[0025], [0032]-[0040], [0078]-[0090] and claim 1 in view of USPub 20120184678. See paragraphs [0007], [0026], [0042], [0043] and claims 1 and 5. With regard to claim 1 directed to a polyester resin comprising a constituent moiety derived from dicarboxylic acid component and a constituent moiety derived from alcohol component, wherein a content of a compound represented by Formula (I) is 0.0002 to 5.9% by weight in 100% by weight of the alcohol component: [Chemical Formula 1] in the formula, m and n each represent 1 to 1000, 1 represents 0 to 1000, R represents an aromatic hydrocarbon group having 6 to 20 carbon atoms, and R 2 ,R 3 , and R 4 each represent a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms. USPub 20130115402 discloses a polyester resin comprising moieties derived from a dicarboxylic acid component and an alcohol component, thereby providing a polyester resin framework corresponding to that recited in claim 1. The reference further teaches incorporating epoxy functional, glycidyl containing components into such polyester resins in controlled amounts for modifying resin properties. See abstract, paragraph [0023]-[002 9 ], [0032]-[0040], [0078]-[0090] and claim 1. USPub 20120184678 discloses epoxy-functional compounds derived from alcohol components, including glycidyl-containing structures, suitable for incorporation into polyester and condensation polymer systems, and further teaches that such epoxy- functional alcohol-derived compounds may be present in defined weight percentages relative to the alcohol component to achieve desired polymer characteristics. See paragraph s [0007], [0026], [0042] , [0043] and claims 1 and 5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine theses teachings because both references are directed to polyester resin systems incorporating polyfunctional, alcohol compounds to control resin properties and such modification represents the use of known elements according to known methods yielding predictable results. With regard to claim 2 directed to the polyester resin according to claim 1, wherein the compound represented by Formula (I) has weight average molecular weight of 200 or more and 500000 or less. Note in USPub 20130115402 paragraph [0048] the average molecular eight of 1000 to 10000 falls within that which is claimed. I n view of the teachings in USPub 20130115402 and USPub 20120184678 as discussed above, i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select or optimize the recited weight-average molecular weight range for the epoxy-functional compound incorporated into the polyester resin, as molecular weight selection represents a routine design choice for controlling resin processability and performance, as taught and suggested by USPub 20130115402 see paragraphs [0031] and [0048] and USPub 20120184678 see abstract and paragraphs[0002] –[0004] and claim 18 . Note in USPub 20130115402 paragraph [0048] the average molecular eight of 1000 to 10000 falls within that which is claimed. With regard to claim 3 directed to the polyester resin according t o claim 1,wherein the dicarboxylic acid component comprises 85 to 100 mol% of terephthalic acid in 100 mol% of the dicarboxylic acid component and the alcohol component comprises ethylene glycol. In view of the teachings in USPub 20130115402 and USPub 20120184678 as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol in the recited molar proportions, since USPub 20130115402 teaches PET polyester system . See E xample 1 and USPub 20120184678 teaches modifying such systems using polyfunctional alcohol compounds . See paragraph [0008] and Table 3 . With regard to claim 4 directed to the polyester resin according t o claim 1,wherein a content of cyclic tetramer in the polyester resin is less than 2680 ppm. In view of the teachings in USPub 20130115402 see paragraphs [0199] and [0229] and USPub 20120184678 see paragraph [0045] as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to achieve and control cyclic tetramer content within the claimed limit, as reduction of cyclic oligomers is a known and predictable objective in polyester resin formulation, as suggested by the combined teachings of USPub 20130115402 and USPub 20120184678 . With regard to claim 5 directed to the polyester resin according t o claim 1,wherein the polyester resin has melt tension of 15 mN or more as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C, a taking up speed of 100 m/min, and a shear rate of 243 s- 1 . In view of the teachings in USPub 20130115402 directed to high melt strength polyester (see abstract) and USPub 20120184678 ( see paragraph s [0011], [0066] ) . I t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to, achieve the recited melt tension under the specified processing conditions, as melt tension is a known function of molecular weight, branching and chain extrusion taugh t by the combined teachings of USPub 20130115402 and USPub 20120184678 . Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since the references indirectly disclose the parameters and it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003). With regard to claim 6 directed to the polyester resin according t o claim 1,wherein the polyester resin has melt viscosity of 26000 dPa - s or more as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C and a shear rate of 30 s- 1 and 6500 dPa - s or less as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C and a shear rate of 2000 s- 1 . In view of the teachings in USPub 20130115402 directed to high melt strength polyester (see abstract) and USPub 20120184678 (see paragraphs [0011], [0066]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to achieve the claimed melt viscosity values at the specified shear rates and temperatures since viscosity control by chain extrusion and molecular structures is taught in USPub 20130115402 and USPub 20120184678 . Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since the references indirectly disclose the parameters and it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971).One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003). With regard to claim 7 directed to the polyester resin according to claim 2, wherein the dicarboxylic acid component comprises 85 to 100 mol% of terephthalic acid in 100 mol% of the dicarboxylic acid component and the alcohol component comprises ethylene glycol. USPub 20130115402 teaches PET polyester system. See example 1 and USPub 20120184678 teaches modifying such systems using polyfunctional alcohol compounds. See paragraph [0008] and Table 3. In view of the teachings in USPub 20130115402 and USPub 20120184678 as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the compositional limitations of claim 2 with the PET monomer of claim 3 since both USPub 20130115402 and USPub 20120184678 are directed to a polyester resins modified to improve processability and performance. With regard to claim 8 directed to the polyester resin according to claim 2, wherein a content of cyclic tetramer in the polyester resin is less than 2680 ppm. In view of the teachings in USPub 20130115402 see paragraphs [0199] and [0229] and USPub 20120184678 see paragraph [0045] as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to achieve and control cyclic tetramer content within the claimed limit, as reduction of cyclic oligomers is a known and predictable objective in polyester resin formulation, as suggested by the combined teachings of USPub 20130115402 and USPub 20120184678. With regard to claim 9 directed to the polyester resin according to claim 3, wherein a content of cyclic tetramer in the polyester resin is less than 2680 ppm. See the discussion for claim 8 and claim 3. With regard to claim 10 directed to the polyester resin according to claim 7, wherein a content of cyclic tetramer in the polyester resin is less than 2680 ppm. See the discussion for claim 8 and claim 7. With regard to claim 11 directed to the polyester resin according to claim 2, wherein the polyester resin has melt tension of 15 mN or more as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C, a taking up speed of 100 m/min, and a shear rate of 243 s- 1 . See discussion for claim 5. With regard to claim 12 directed to the polyester resin according to claim 3, wherein the polyester resin has melt tension of 15 mN or more as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C, a taking up speed of 100 m/min, and a shear rate of 243 s- 1 . See discussion for claim 5. With regard to claim 13 directed to the polyester resin according to claim 4, wherein the polyester resin has melt tension of 15 mN or more as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C, a taking up speed of 100 m/min, and a shear rate of 243 s- 1 . See discussion for claim 5. With regard to claim 14 directed to the polyester resin according to claim 7, wherein the polyester resin has melt tension of 15 mN or more as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C, a taking up speed of 100 m/min, and a shear rate of 243 s-1. See discussion for claim 5. With regard to claim 15 directed to the polyester resin according to claim 8, wherein the polyester resin has melt tension of 15 mN or more as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C, a taking up speed of 100 m/min, and a shear rate of 243 s-1. See discussion for claim 5. With regard to claim 16 directed to the polyester resin according to claim 9, wherein the polyester resin has melt tension of 15 mN or more as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C, a taking up speed of 100 m/min, and a shear rate of 243 s-1. See discussion for claims 5, 6 and 3. With regard to claim 17 directed to the polyester resin according to claim 2, wherein the polyester resin has melt viscosity of 26000 dPa - s or more as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C and a shear rate of 30 s- 1 and 6500 dPa - s or less as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C and a shear rate of 2000 s- 1 . See discussion for claims 5, 6 and 2. With regard to claim 18 directed to the polyester resin according to claim 3, wherein the polyester resin has melt viscosity of 26000 dPa - s or more as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C and a shear rate of 30 s- 1 and 6500 dPa - s or less as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C and a shear rate of 2000 s- 1 . See discussion for claims 5, 6 and 3. With regard to claim 19 directed to the polyester resin according to claim 4, wherein the polyester resin has melt viscosity of 26000 dPa - s or more as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C and a shear rate of 30 s- 1 and 6500 dPa - s or less as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C and a shear rate of 2000 s- 1 . See discussion for claims 5, 6 and 4. With regard to claim 20 directed to the polyester resin according to claim 5, wherein the polyester resin has melt viscosity of 26000 dPa - s or more as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C and a shear rate of 30 s-1 and 6500 dPa - s or less as measured under conditions of a temperature of 270°C and a shear rate of 2000 s-1. See discussion for claims 5 and 6. Information Disclosure Statement Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office. Improper Claim Dependency Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30. 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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571 270-1831. 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. /Terressa Boykin/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765