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. Claims 1-10 are pending. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 1 -4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,029,868 (“Carlson”) . As to claim s 1 -4 , Carlson teaches a terpolymer of tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), hexafluoropropylene (HFP), and perfluoro (propyl vinyl ether) (PPVE) (abstract). While the recited content of the monomers is not exemplified, Carlson teaches that the preferred weight of the polymerized units include between 5 to 8 weight percent of HFP and 0. 7 5 and 2 wt percent of PPVE (3:29-39). The Office calculates that, assuming the remainder is tetrafluoroethylene units, that this calculates as approximately 3.4-5.5 mol % of HFP, which closely encompasses the recited range of claims 1 and 2, and approximately 0.28 to 0.78 mol % of PPVE, which has substantial overlap with the ranges of claims 1 and 3. Given the substantial overlap with the preferred ranges taught by Carlson, preparing the terpolymer having the recited mol % is an obvious modification suggested by Carlson. While Carlson does not exemplify the recited melt flow rate, Carlson teaches a melt viscosity at 372 degrees between 10 3 and 10 7 , preferably between 10 4 and 10 6 poise (3:44-59). Given the relation between melt viscosity and melt flow rate, this calculates to a range of melt flow rate of 0.005 to 53, which encompasses the recited range, and a preferred range of melt flow rate of 0.05 to 5.3, which substantially overlaps the recited ranges of claims 1 and 4. Given the substantial overlap, it would be an obvious modification to provide melt flow rates, including in the recited range, and taught to be in preferred range for melt fabrication by Carlson. As to claims 9 and 10, Carlson teaches the use of the resin for wire insulation ( 1:15-16, 4:7-8), which suggests coated electric wire. Claim (s) 5 -8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,029,868 (“Carlson”) in view of US 2017 / 0260344 (“ Iwamura ”). As to claim 5, Carlson is silent as to the content of the recited functional groups. Iwamura teaches similar fluororesin , including terpolymers encompassing the recited formula (para. 0085), and teaches preferably 350 down to 0 functional groups per 1,000,000 carbon atoms (para. 0114; para. 0108, teaching recited functional groups) in order to assist in providing a molded article. As such, modifying the resin of Carlson to have a low degree of functional groups, including below 90, as Iwamura teaches this provides for moldability. As to claims 6-8, Carlson teaches that the terpolymer is melt-fabricable by ordinary processes (3:40-43), but does not specify molded articles of the recited methods. Iwamura teaches similar fluororesin , including terpolymers encompassing the recited formula (para. 0085), and teaches the fluororesin may be molded by extrusion molding, transfer molding, injection molding among others (para. 0047 ), thus suggesting these resins may be used to form injection molded, extrusion formed, or transfer molded articles as required by claims 6-8. 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, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 8 of copending Application No. 18/450,567 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claim 1 recites a copolymer having the same units as recited, with a melt flow rate substantially overlapping the recited range of claims 1 and 4. While copending claim 1 recites amount of HFP and PPVE in terms of wt %, it is calculated that in such a terpolymer as recited, the wt % is calculated to provide 4.1 to 5.3 mol percent of HFP, which overlaps the range of claim 1, and 0.58 to 0.94 mol percent of PPVE, which overlaps the range of claims 1 and 3. As such, polymers having the recited characteristics of claims 1, 3, and 4 are an obvious modification in the recited range of copending claim 1. Copending claim 7 recites the injection molded article of claim 6. Copending claim 8 recites a coated electric wire as required by claims 9 and 10. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 5, 7, and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/450,567 in view of US 2017 / 0260344 (“ Iwamura ”). Copending claim 1 does not recite the amounts of all the recited functional groups of claim 5 . Iwamura teaches similar fluororesin , including terpolymers encompassing the recited formula (para. 0085), and teaches preferably 350 down to 0 functional groups per 1,000,000 carbon atoms (para. 0114; para. 0108, teaching recited functional groups) in order to assist in providing a molded article. As such, modifying the resin of copending claim 1 to have a low degree of functional groups, including below 90, as Iwamura teaches this provides for moldability. As to claims 7 and 8, copending claim 1 does not teach transfer molded or extrusion formed article. Iwamura teaches similar fluororesin , including terpolymers encompassing the recited formula (para. 0085), and teaches the fluororesin may be molded by extrusion molding, transfer molding, injection molding among others (para. 0047), thus suggesting these resins may be used to form injection molded, extrusion formed, or transfer molded articles as required by claims 7 and 8. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/451,213 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claim 5 recites a fluorine containing polymer having the recited units. While copending claim 5 recites mass percentages of HFP and PPVE, these amounts in a terpolymer with TFE, are calculated to provide a mol percentage of 3.4-5.2 mol % HFP and 0.31-1.2 mol % PPVE, which substantially overlap the ranges of claims 1-3, and therefore the provision of the monomers in the recited mol percent is an obvious variation of the recitation of copending claim 5. The melt flow rate recited by copending claim 5 is also substantially entirely overlapping the recited ranges of claims 1 and 4, and thus the melt flow rate is an obvious modification within the range of copending claim 5. C opending c laim 5 also recites the functional unit content required by claim 5 . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 6-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/451,213 in view of US 2017 / 0260344 (“ Iwamura ”). As to claims 6-8, copending claim 5 does not teach injection, transfer molded or e x trusion formed article. Iwamura teaches similar fluororesin , including terpolymers encompassing the recited formula (para. 0085), and teaches the fluororesin may be molded by extrusion molding, transfer molding, injection molding among others (para. 0047), thus suggesting these resins may be used to form injection molded, extrusion formed, or transfer molded articles as required by claims 6-8. As to claims 9 and 10, copending claim 5 does not recite the end uses. However, Iwamura teaches similar fluororesin , including terpolymers encompassing the recited formula (para. 0085), and teaches the recited end uses (para. 0052), and as such, the recited end uses of claims 9 and 10 are an obvious modification suggested by Iwamura . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims 1 , 3, 5, and 7 -10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 , 3, and 5-8 of copending Application No. 18/451,227 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claim 1 recites a fluorine containing copolymer having the same three units, and contents by mol percent of HFP and PPVE overlapping the recited ranges of claim 1, and melt flow rate overlapping the recited range of claims 1 and 4. As such, providing a copolymer of the recited unit content and melt flow rate is an obvious modification in the range of claim 1. Copending claim 3 recites a PPVE content within the range of claim 3. Copending claim 5 recites the functional group content within the range of claim 5. Copending claim 6 recites an extrusion formed article recited by claim 7. Copending claim 7 recites a transfer molded article required by claim 8. Copending claim 8 recites a coated electric wire as required by claims 9 and 10. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/451,227 in view of US 2017 / 0260344 (“ Iwamura ”). Copending claim 1 does not teach injection molded article. Iwamura teaches similar fluororesin , including terpolymers encompassing the recited formula (para. 0085), and teaches the fluororesin may be molded by extrusion molding, transfer molding, injection molding among others (para. 0047), thus suggesting these resins may be used to form injection molded, extrusion formed, or transfer molded articles as required by claim 6. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims 1-3 and 5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/451,915 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claim 5 recites a fluorine containing polymer having the recited units. While copending claim 5 recites mass percentages of HFP and PPVE, these amounts in a terpolymer with TFE, are calculated to provide a mol percentage of 3.4- 4.9 mol % HFP and 0. 54- -1. 1 mol % PPVE, which substantially overlap the ranges of claims 1-3, and therefore the provision of the monomers in the recited mol percent is an obvious variation of the recitation of copending claim 5. The melt flow rate recited by copending claim 5 overlaps the range of claim 1 , and thus the melt flow rate is an obvious modification within the range of copending claim 5. C opending c laim 5 also recites the functional unit content required by claim 5. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 6-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/451,915 in view of US 2017 / 0260344 (“ Iwamura ”). As to claims 6-8, copending claim 5 does not teach injection , transfer molded or e x trusion formed article. Iwamura teaches similar fluororesin , including terpolymers encompassing the recited formula (para. 0085), and teaches the fluororesin may be molded by extrusion molding, transfer molding, injection molding among others (para. 0047), thus suggesting these resins may be used to form injection molded, extrusion formed, or transfer molded articles as required by claims 6-8. As to claims 9 and 10, copending claim 5 does not recite the end uses. However, Iwamura teaches similar fluororesin , including terpolymers encompassing the recited formula (para. 0085), and teaches the recited end uses (para. 0052), and as such, the recited end uses of claims 9 and 10 are an obvious modification suggested by Iwamura . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-7 of copending Application No. 18/451,927 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claim 1 recites a fluorine containing copolymer having the same three units, and melt flow rate overlapping the range of claim 1. While copending claim 1 provides amounts in wt %, the Office calculates in such a terpolymer, these amounts provide 3.4-4.9 mol percent HFP, and 0.58-1.1 mol percent PVPE, which substantially overlap the ranges of claims 1-3. As such, the copolymer of the recited unit content and melt flow rate is an obvious modification within the ranges recited by copending claim 1. Copending claim 5 recites the further limitation of claim 5. Copending claim 6 recites the further limitation of claim 6. Copending claim 9 recites an electric wire coating as required by claims 9 and 10. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 7 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/451,927 in view of US 2017 / 0260344 (“ Iwamura ”). As to claims 7 and 8, copending claim 1 does not teach transfer molded or extrusion formed article. Iwamura teaches similar fluororesin , including terpolymers encompassing the recited formula (para. 0085), and teaches the fluororesin may be molded by extrusion molding, transfer molding, injection molding among others (para. 0047), thus suggesting these resins may be used to form injection molded, extrusion formed, or transfer molded articles as required by claims 7 and 8. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7-9 of copending Application No. 18/451,945 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claim 1 recites a fluorine containing copolymer having the same three units, and melt flow rate within the range of claims 1 and 4. While copending claim 1 provides amounts in wt %, the Office calculates in such a terpolymer, these amounts provide 4.1-5.3 mol percent HFP, which overlaps the range of claim 1 and 0.46-0.74 mol percent PVPE, which is within the range of claims 1 and 3. As such, the copolymer of the recited unit content and melt flow rate of claims 1, 3, and 4 is an obvious modification within the ranges recited by copending claim 1. Copending claims 7 and 8 recite the further limitation of claims 7 and 8. Copending claim 9 recites a coated electric wire as required by claims 9 and 10. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 5 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/451,945 in view of US 2017 / 0260344 (“ Iwamura ”). Copending claim 1 does not recite the amounts of all the recited functional groups of claim 5. Iwamura teaches similar fluororesin , including terpolymers encompassing the recited formula (para. 0085), and teaches preferably 350 down to 0 functional groups per 1,000,000 carbon atoms (para. 0114; para. 0108, teaching recited functional groups) in order to assist in providing a molded article. As such, modifying the resin of copending claim 1 to have a low degree of functional groups, including below 90, as Iwamura teaches this provides for moldability. As to claim 7, copending claim 1 does not teach transfer molded or extrusion formed article. Iwamura teaches similar fluororesin , including terpolymers encompassing the recited formula (para. 0085), and teaches the fluororesin may be molded by extrusion molding, transfer molding, injection molding among others (para. 0047), thus suggesting these resins may be used to form injection molded, extrusion formed, or transfer molded articles as required by claims 7 and 8. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-4888 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm . 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 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. /KREGG T BROOKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764