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. § 112(b) 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. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claim 1 recites a melt flow rate of a copolymer. The measurement of a melt flow rate depends upon the choice of a mass load applied to a sample; higher mass loads will lead to a higher measured melt flow rate. No specific mass load is inherent to the measurement of a melt flow rate, and this condition must be specified for one of ordinary skill in the art both to understand the scope of the recited property and to perform a measurement of the recited property. Because numerical values of the recited melt flow rate property may be interpreted in different ways based upon different choices for the mass loads, and because the claim does not specify a mass load, the claim does not set forth the scope of the recited melt flow rate with reasonable clarity. Claims 2-5 are dependent upon independent claim 1, and they are indefinite for the same reason. For the purpose of searching and applying prior art, the claims have been interpreted as though they recited the conditions set forth in the specification with respect to the examples (5 kg load, 372 °C, and the procedure of ASTM D1238). 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 1-3 and 5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-8 of copending a pplication serial n o. 18/452,806 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. US ‘806 claims a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene and 2.8-6.0 wt% of perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) (see claims 1-2 of US ‘806), corresponding to about 1.07 to 2.34 mol% of perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) , and this range of amounts overlaps the presently recited range. The copolymer of US ‘806 has the same melt flow rate and number of functional groups that are presently recited (see claim 1 of US ‘806). US ‘806 does not specifically claim a copolymer having a content of perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) within the presently recited range of 2.26 to 2.75 mol%. In light of the recitation in US ‘806 of a range of amounts of perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) , one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make any of the copolymers within the scope of US ‘806, including the copolymers having amounts of perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) that overlap the presently recited range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made copolymers according to US ‘806 having a content of perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) within the range of 2.26 to 2.34 mol%. The further limitations of present claims 2-3 and 5 are adequately set forth in claims 1 and 4 of US ‘806. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented . Prior Art The following references are noted though not relied upon in a rejection. US 2005 / 0020792 A1 to Aoyama describes copolymers of TFE and PFVE having a content of PFVE of 3.5, 4.0, or 4.5 mass% to 6 or 7 mass % (see ¶¶ [00 33 ] - [00 34 ]) , and these ranges overlap the presently recited ranges of PPVE contents . The copolymers are subjected to fluorine gas treatment and have not more than 50 unstable terminal groups per 10 6 carbon atoms (see ¶ [0054]). The copolymers have a melt flow rate of 0.1 to 50 or 0.5 to 40 g/10 min (see ¶ [0045]), which broadly overlaps the presently recited range of 3.0 to 11.0 g/10 min. US 2003 / 0013791 A1 to Blong describes a copolymer (see C omparative E xample 4 in Table 2 on p. 5 ) having 2.6 mol% of units of PPVE and a melt flow rate of 3.4 g/10 min . 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