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 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. Claims 1-4 are 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. Applicant discloses in association with the claimed copolymer a melt flow rate of 45.0 to 55.0 g/10 min at 372° C but does not mention a load used in the measurement thus rendering the claims indefinite. 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 . Claims 1 and 2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of copending Application No. 1/453,775 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Co-pending claim 1 discloses a injected molded article of manufacture made from a copolymer of comparable makeup but where the breadth of the ranges defining the fluoro (propyl vinyl ether) content and the melt flow index of said copolymer is somewhat broader. At the same time, MPEP 2144.05 instructs that, [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). “A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 56USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed Cir. 2003). “A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 56USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed Cir. 2003). This analysis applies to both of the aforementioned claimed ranges. 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaka et al., WO 2021/039864. To the extent that it evolved from a National stage application of the aforementioned international disclosure, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0181698 is believed to have an identical disclosure and is used as a faithful translation of the WIPO document into the English language. All citation of teaching location will be those for the U.S. publication. Isaka teaches a genus of TFE/PAVE copolymers having suitability for the production of insulating members used in batteries. A most favored permutation of the PAVE monomer is perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) [0021] and most favored embodiments of the copolymer are those having between 5.6-6.0% weight percent of perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) and 92.0-94.4% of TFE [0022-0023]. The prior art copolymers have a correspondingly low amount of the same functional groups ([0034], Table 1) and melt flow indices may vary between 30 and 80 with magnitudes of 40g/10 minutes being most favored [0031] but where at least one exemplification of the copolymer, Example 2, has a melt flow rate of 61 g/10 min [0109]. It is, therefore, the position of the Office that it would be obvious to make/try as alternatives insulating members that have comonomer contributions in the same narrow window, and with equally low functional group content, but where the melt flow index of the copolymer would be within the claimed range. “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments.” In re Susi , 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories , 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Claim s 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0314153 . Isaka teaches a genus of tetrafluoroethylene copolymers with either hexafluoropropylene or, relevant to the present discussion, perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether), or PPVE, having suitability for the producing insulating sleeves or conductor wires. In one favored permutation of the prior art invention- see Examples (6 and) 7- the PPVE content is consistent with that claimed as is total number of unstable functional groups COF, COOH, and CH 2 OH per 10 6 carbon atoms. The Examiner concedes, however, that the MFR of this embodiment, at 61 g/10 min is higher both than that claimed, and also the range contemplated in [0035]. Paragraph [0035] discusses acceptable melt flow rate (MFR) in terms of the crack resistance and melt viscosity sufficiently high that the copolymer can be processed into very thin sleeves for wires wherein lower values of MFR are sought for the former to be optimized while the latter demands higher melt flow rates. In the act of optimizing the makeup/structure of the copolymer with these competing considerations in mind, a skilled practitioner of the instant invention will produce similarly-constituted copolymers with melt flow rates varied between 35 and 48, a range that overlaps that which is claimed . “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art ( ie . does not require undue experimentation).” In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. “Discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.” In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the course of conducting a survey of the prior art, the Examiner encountered numerous disclosures directed to the preparation of TFE/PPVE copolymers featuring some, but not all, of the claimed attributes. Often, it was the melt flow rate that would differ substantially. These are listed on the PTO-892 form. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MARC S ZIMMER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1096 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30-5:00 . 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 Heidi Kelley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. March 17, 2026 /MARC S ZIMMER/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1765