DETAILED ACTION 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- 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-3 and 5 of copending Application No. 18/451,502 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Copending claims are drawn to substantially the same copolymer comprising a tetrafluoroethylene unit and a perfluoro( propyl vinyl ether) unit, wherein the copolymer has a content of perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit of 4. 8 to 6 . 2 % by mass, a melt flow rate of 1 7 .0 to 23 .0 g/10 min, and a total number of functional groups of 5 0 or less per 10 6 main-chain carbon atoms. Exemplary copolymer in Table 3 discloses a copolymer having 4.9 wt % of perfluoro( propyl vinyl ether) units, a melt flow rate of 17 and less than 6 functional groups. Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP § 804 where it is disclosed that “the specification can always be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of a term in a patent claim.” In re Boylan , 392 F. 2d 1017, 157 USPQ 370 (CCPA 1986). Further, those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent . In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619,622 (CCPA 1970). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim s 1-4 are directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claim s 1-3 and 5 of commonly assigned Application No. 18/451,502 for the same reasons elucidated in preceding paragraph 2 . The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The USPTO normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). Commonly assigned Application No. 18/451,502 , discussed above, may form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and the patentably indistinct inventions were not commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention. In order for the examiner to resolve this issue the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i) to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Alternatively, the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii) to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; the application must also be amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. A showing that the inventions were commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 based upon the commonly assigned case. Alternatively, applicant may take action to amend or cancel claims such that the applications, or the patent and the application, no longer contain claims directed to patentably indistinct inventions. Claims 1- 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-7 of US 12,459,174 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Patent claims are drawn to substantially the same injection molded article made from a copolymer comprising a tetrafluoroethylene unit and a perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit, wherein the copolymer has a content of perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit of 4. 7 to 7.0 % by mass, a melt flow rate of 11.0 to 22 .0 g/10 min, and a total number of functional groups of 2 0 or less per 10 6 main-chain carbon atoms. Exemplary copolymer in Table 3 discloses a copolymer having 4.9 wt % of perfluoro( propyl vinyl ether) units, a melt flow rate of 1 3 and less than 6 functional groups. Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP § 804 where it is disclosed that “the specification can always be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of a term in a patent claim.” In re Boylan , 392 F. 2d 1017, 157 USPQ 370 (CCPA 1986). Further, those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent . In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619,622 (CCPA 1970). Claim s 1- 3 are directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claim s 1 and 4-7 of commonly assigned US 12,459,174 for the same reasons elucidated in preceding paragraph 4 . The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The USPTO normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). Commonly assigned US 12,459,174 , discussed above, may form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and the patentably indistinct inventions were not commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention. In order for the examiner to resolve this issue the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i) to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Alternatively, the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii) to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; the application must also be amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. A showing that the inventions were commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 based upon the commonly assigned case. Alternatively, applicant may take action to amend or cancel claims such that the applications, or the patent and the application, no longer contain claims directed to patentably indistinct inventions. Claims 1- 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4- 8 of US 12,459,175 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Patent claims are drawn to substantially the same injection molded joint made from a copolymer comprising a tetrafluoroethylene unit and a perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit, wherein the copolymer has a content of perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit of 3.9 to 4.8 % by mass, a melt flow rate of 11.0 to 19 .0 g/10 min, and a total number of functional groups of 20 or less per 10 6 main-chain carbon atoms. Ranges of comonomer content, melt flow rate and number of functional groups overlap substantially that one or ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the article of patent is an obvious embodiment of the article recited in instant claims . Claim s 1- 4 are directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claim s 1 and 4- 8 of commonly assigned US 12,459,17 5 for the same reasons elucidated in preceding paragraph 6 . The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The USPTO normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). Commonly assigned US 12,459,17 5 , discussed above, may form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and the patentably indistinct inventions were not commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention. In order for the examiner to resolve this issue the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i) to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Alternatively, the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii) to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; the application must also be amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. A showing that the inventions were commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 based upon the commonly assigned case. Alternatively, applicant may take action to amend or cancel claims such that the applications, or the patent and the application, no longer contain claims directed to patentably indistinct inventions. Conclusion The present invention is drawn to a copolymer comprising a tetrafluoroethylene unit and a perfluoro( propyl vinyl ether) unit, wherein the copolymer has a content of perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit of 4.6 to 5.1 % by mass, a melt flow rate of 11.0 to 17.0 g/10 min, and a total number of functional groups of 40 or less per 10 6 main-chain carbon atoms. See claims for full details. The closest prior art is listed below ; none of these references teaches the subject of instant claims. Isaka et al . (US 12,555,826) discloses a TFE/PPVE copolymer having 4.6 mass % of PPVE, a melt flow rate of 14.8 g/10 min and 310 functional groups per 10 6 carbon atoms. Aoyama et al . (US 7,169,868) discloses a TFE/PPVE copolymer having 4. 2 mass % of PPVE, a melt flow rate of 16.2 g/10 min and less than 1 functional group per 10 6 carbon atoms . Imamura et al . (US 12,054,566) discloses a TFE/PPVE copolymer having 4.0 mass % of PPVE, a melt flow rate of 13 g/10 min and 4 functional groups per 10 6 carbon atoms. Murakami et al . (US 2014/0227533) discloses a TFE/PPVE copolymer having 1.5 mole % (3.8 mass %) of PPVE, a melt flow rate of 14.8 g/10 min and 21 functional groups per 10 6 carbon atoms. Imamura et al . (US 12, 312 , 427 6) discloses a TFE/PPVE copolymer having 4. 5 to 4.7 mass % of PPVE, a melt flow rate of 10 to 23 g/10 min. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rip A. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-1104. The examiner can be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571)270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RIP A LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 March 12, 2026