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 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. 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- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira et al. (US 2003/0220458) in view of Fukuoka et al. (JP 2005-320497) . Note: A machine translation is being used for JP 2005-320497. Considering Claim s 1 -4 : Taira et al. teaches a fluorine containing copolymer comprising 85 to 95.5% by mole of tetrafluoroethylene, 5 to 10 mole percent of hexafluoropropylene and 0.1 to 5 mole percent of perfluorovinyl ether (¶0014), and having a melt flow rate of 0.5 to 3 g/10 min (¶0025). Taira et al. teaches the amount of hexafluoropropylene controls the heat resistance, melt moldability and stress cracking resistance (¶0022) and teaches the amount of perfluorovinyl ether as controlling the liquid chemical permeation (¶0023). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amounts of hexafluoropropylene and perfluorovinyl ether within the ranges of Taira et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Taira et al. suggests, to control the heat resistance, melt moldability, stress cracking resistance, and liquid chemical permeation of the polymer. Taira et al. is silent towards the functional group content of the polymer. However, Fukuoka et al. teaches a tetrafluoroethylene copolymer having a functional group content of unstable terminal groups of 10 to 100 per 10 6 main chain carbon atoms (Abstract). As the claimed structures would fall within the category of unstable terminal units, the disclosure of Fukuoka et al. covers the claimed property. Taira et al. and Fukuoka et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely tetrafluoroethylene copolymers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have controlled the number of functional groups in the polymer of Taira et al., as in Fukuoka et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Fukuoka et al. suggests, to provide excellent crack resistance and low dielectric loss tangent (pg. 2). Considering Claim 5 : Taira et al. teaches the perfluoro vinyl ether as being a perfluoro( propyl vinyl ether) unit (¶0048). Considering claims 6-8 : Taira et al. teaches forming a injection molded, transfer molded, or extrusion molded article from the copolymer (¶0029). Considering Claim 9 : Taira et al. does not teach a coated electrical wire. However, Fukuoka et al. teaches using a tetrafluoroethylene copolymer as the coating layer in a coated wire (pg. 4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the copolymer of Taira et al. in a coated wire, as in Fukuoka et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Fukuoka et al. suggests, they have excellent thermal stability and crack resistance (pg. 4). Considering Claim 10 : Taira et al. teaches a film made from the copolymer (¶0030). 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- 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 , 6, and 7 of copending Application No. 18/888,922 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Considering Claims 1- 5 : Claim 1 of application ‘922 teaches a fluorine containing copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene in an amount of 8.0 to 9.4 mass percent and a perfluoro( propyl vinyl ether) in an amount of 0.6 to 1.5 mass percent, where the melt flow rate is 6.8 to 9.9 g/10 min, and the functional groups per main-chain carbon atoms is 90 or less. Application ‘922 teaches an amount of hexafluoropropylene that is sufficiently close to the claimed range that a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the copolymers to have substantially similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985 ). See MPEP § 2144.05. Considering Claims 6-8 : Claim 6 of Application ‘922 teaches an injection molded article made from the polymer. The term injected molded is a product by process limitation. "[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) . See MPEP § 2113. Considering Claims 9 and 10 : Claim 7 of Application ‘922 teaches a wire coating comprising the copolymer . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6-8 of copending Application No. 18/889,631 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Considering Claims 1-5 : Claim 1 of application ‘631 teaches a fluorine containing copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene in an amount of 8.0 to 9.4 mass percent and a perfluoro( propyl vinyl ether) in an amount of 0.6 to 1.5 mass percent, where the melt flow rate is 2.9 to 5.3 g/10 min, and the functional groups per main-chain carbon atoms is 90 or less. Application ‘631 teaches an amount of hexafluoropropylene that is sufficiently close to the claimed range that a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the copolymers to have substantially similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985 ). See MPEP § 2144.05. Considering Claims 6-8 : Claims 6 and 7 of Application ‘631 teaches an extrusion and transfer molded article made from the polymer. The term injected molded is a product by process limitation. "[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) . See MPEP § 2113. Considering Claims 9 and 10 : Claim 9 of Application ‘631 teaches a wire coating comprising the copolymer. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 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: Considering Claims 1-5 : Claim 5 of application ‘227 teaches a fluorine containing copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene in an amount of 4.10 to 5.20 mass percent and a perfluoro( propyl vinyl ether) in an amount of 0.53 to 0.86 mass percent, where the melt flow rate is 0.7 to 2.5 g/10 min, and the functional groups per main-chain carbon atoms is 50 or less. Considering Claims 6-8 : Claims 6 and 7 of Application ‘227 teaches an extrusion and transfer molded article made from the polymer. The term injected molded is a product by process limitation. "[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) . See MPEP § 2113. Considering Claims 9 and 10 : Claim 8 of Application ‘227 teaches a wire coating comprising the copolymer. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-8 of copending Application No. 18/452,878 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Considering Claims 1-5 : Claim 5 of application ‘878 teaches a fluorine containing copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene in an amount of 7.0 to 8.5 mass percent and a perfluoro( propyl vinyl ether) in an amount of 1.5 to 2.9 mass percent, where the melt flow rate is 9 to 15 g/10 min, and the functional groups per main-chain carbon atoms is 90 or less. Considering Claims 6-8 : Claims 6 of Application ‘878 teaches an injection molded article made from the polymer. The term injected molded is a product by process limitation. "[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 878 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) . See MPEP § 2113. Considering Claims 9 and 10 : Claim 7 of Application ‘878 teaches a wire coating comprising the copolymer. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-8 of copending Application No. 18/452,892 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Considering Claims 1-5 : Claim 5 of application ‘892 teaches a fluorine containing copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene in an amount of 7.6 to 10.3 mass percent and a perfluoro( propyl vinyl ether) in an amount of 1.4 to 2.4 mass percent, where the melt flow rate is 4.5 to 9.5 g/10 min, and the functional groups per main-chain carbon atoms is 90 or less. Application ‘631 teaches an amount of hexafluoropropylene that is sufficiently close to the claimed range that a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the copolymers to have substantially similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985 ). See MPEP § 2144.05. Considering Claims 6-8 : Claims 6 of Application ‘892 teaches an injection molded article made from the polymer. The term injected molded is a product by process limitation. "[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 892 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) . See MPEP § 2113. Considering Claims 9 and 10 : Claim 7 of Application ‘892 teaches a wire coating comprising the copolymer. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-8 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: Considering Claims 1-5 : Claim 5 of application ‘915 teaches a fluorine containing copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene in an amount of 5.0 to 7.0 mass percent and a perfluoro( propyl vinyl ether) in an amount of 1.4 to 2.9 mass percent, where the melt flow rate is 9 to 40 g/10 min, and the functional groups per main-chain carbon atoms is 90 or less. Considering Claims 6-8 : Claims 6 of Application ‘915 teaches an injection molded article made from the polymer. The term injected molded is a product by process limitation. "[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 915 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) . See MPEP § 2113. Considering Claims 9 and 10 : Claim 7 of Application ‘915 teaches a wire coating comprising the copolymer. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 , 5 , 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: Considering Claims 1-5 : Claim 5 of application ‘ 567 teaches a fluorine containing copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene in an amount of 6.0 to 7.6 mass percent and a perfluoro( propyl vinyl ether) in an amount of 1.5 to 2.4 mass percent, where the melt flow rate is 4.5 to 9.5 g/10 min, and the functional groups per main-chain carbon atoms is 90 or less. Considering Claims 6-8 : Claims 7 of Application ‘ 567 teaches an injection molded article made from the polymer. The term injected molded is a product by process limitation. "[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 567 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) . See MPEP § 2113. Considering Claims 9 and 10 : Claim 8 of Application ‘ 567 teaches a wire coating comprising the copolymer. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-8 of copending Application No. 18/452,868 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Considering Claims 1-5 : Claim 5 of application ‘868 teaches a fluorine containing copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene in an amount of 7.6 to 10.3 mass percent and a perfluoro( propyl vinyl ether) in an amount of 1.3 to 2.9 mass percent, where the melt flow rate is 0.7 to 4.5 g/10 min, and the functional groups per main-chain carbon atoms is 50 or less. Application ‘631 teaches an amount of hexafluoropropylene that is sufficiently close to the claimed range that a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the copolymers to have substantially similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985 ). See MPEP § 2144.05. Considering Claims 6-8 : Claims 6 and 7 of Application ‘868 teaches an extrusion and transfer molded article made from the polymer. The term injected molded is a product by process limitation. "[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 868 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) . See MPEP § 2113. Considering Claims 9 and 10 : Claim 8 of Application ‘868 teaches a wire coating comprising the copolymer. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 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: Considering Claims 1-5 : Claim 5 of application ‘927 teaches a fluorine containing copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene in an amount of 5.0 to 7.0 mass percent and a perfluoro( propyl vinyl ether) in an amount of 1.5 to 2.6 mass percent, where the melt flow rate is 9 to 40 g/10 min, and the functional groups per main-chain carbon atoms is 90 or less. Considering Claims 6-8 : Claim 6 of Application ‘927 teaches an injection molded article made from the polymer. The term injected molded is a product by process limitation. "[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 927 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) . See MPEP § 2113. Considering Claims 9 and 10 : Claim 7 of Application ‘927 teaches a wire coating comprising the copolymer. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 7, and 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: Considering Claims 1-5 : Claim 6 of application ‘567 teaches a fluorine containing copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene in an amount of 6.0 to 7.6 mass percent and a perfluoro( propyl vinyl ether) in an amount of 1.2 to 2.9 mass percent, where the melt flow rate is 2.8 to 4.4 g/10 min, and the functional groups per main-chain carbon atoms is 60 or less. Considering Claims 6-8 : Claims 7 of Application ‘567 teaches an injection molded article made from the polymer. The term injected molded is a product by process limitation. "[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 567 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) . See MPEP § 2113. Considering Claims 9 and 10 : Claim 9 of Application ‘567 teaches a wire coating comprising the copolymer. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Co rrespondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3297 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30-5:00 . 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 Mark Eashoo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1197 . 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. /LIAM J HEINCER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767