DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. 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. 2. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura et al (US 2016/0319089) only, or alternatively in view of Namura (US 2002/0099143). 3. Imamura et al discloses a modified fluorine-containing copolymer obtained by irradiating a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) unit and perfluoroalkyl ether unit (PAVE) , the modified copolymer having as low as 10 functional groups -CF=CF 2 , -CF 2 H, -COF, -COOH, -COOCH 3 , -CONH 2 and -CH 2 OH per 10 6 carbon atoms (Abstract, [0030] -[ 0031]) , wherein: - the TFE/PAVE copolymer is having preferably more than 5%wt and preferably less than 7%mass of PAVE units ([0070]); - MFR of preferably 0.5 g/10 min or more and less than 40 g/10 min ([0109]); - PAVE is preferably perfluoro propyl vinyl ether (PPVE) ([0068]). 4. Based on the teachings of Imamura et al , it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use the TFE/PPVE copolymer having 5-7%mass of PPVE and MFR of 0.5 g/10 min, or 0.7 g/10 min, and subject said TFE/PPVE copolymer to irradiation to produce the final modified TFE/PPVE copolymer having as low as 10 functional groups of -CF =CF 2 , -CF 2 H, -COF, -COOH, -COOCH 3 , -CONH 2 and -CH 2 OH per 10 6 main-chain carbon atoms , as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). 5. All ranges referring to the TFE/PAVE (TFE/PPVE) copolymer of Imamura et al are overlapping with the corresponding ranges of those as claimed in instant invention. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari , 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) . 6. As to instant claims 3-6, Imamura et al further discloses molded articles produced by extrusion molding (as to instant claim 3), transfer molding ([0120], as to instant claim 4), wherein the molded articles include sheet or tube, or an electric wire and electric wire coating materials ([0138] -[ 0142]). 7. In the alternative, though Imamura et al does not explicitly and with sufficient specificity disclose the TFE/PPVE copolymers having both PPVE unit in amount of 4.9-7%mass and MFR of 0.5-1.5 g/10 min or 0.7-1.3 g/10 min, Namura discloses TFE/PAVE copolymers, wherein PAVE is preferably PPVE ([0011]), comprising at least 4%wt of PAVE and MFR of no greater than 4 g/10 min, or about 0.5-3 g/10 min (Abstract, [0012]), wherein Namura specifically exemplifies said copolymers having both content of P EVE of 6.6%wt and MFR of 1 g/10 min (Example 2, Table1) ; P EVE content of 5.1%wt and MFR of 1.2 g/10 min (Example 5 in Table 3) and PPVE content of 5.2%wt and MFR of 1.5 g/10 min (Example 7, Table 3) Thus, Namura explicitly teaches the TFE/PAVE copolymers having both P AVE (PPVE and PEVE) unit s in amount within the range of 4.9-7%mass and MFR within the range of 0.5-1.5 g/10 min or 0.7-1.3 g/10 min . Though the specific examples provided in Tables 1 and 3 of Namura are based mostly on the use of PEVE as the PAVE units, since the PPVE are cited by Namura as being preferable units along with PEVE ([0011]), it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art that the TFE copolymers having PPVE as comonomers and having both P PVE unit s in amount within the range of 4.9-7%mass and MFR within the range of 0.5-1.5 g/10 min and 0.7-1.3 g/10 min are within the teachings of Namura as well . U nder 35 USC 103 a preferred embodiment such as an example is not controlling. Rather, all disclosures “including unpreferred embodiments” must be considered. In re Lamberti 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) citing In re Mills 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA 1972). 8. Since the TFE/PAVE copolymers having both content of P AVE of 6.6%wt and MFR of 1 g/10 min; P AVE content of 5.1%wt and MFR of 1.2 g/10 min and P AVE content of 5.2%wt and MFR of 1.5 g/10 min are specifically are taught in the art as exemplified by Namura , and PPVE is specifically cited by Namura as being preferable PAVE, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to i ) synthesize TFE/PPVE copolymers having P PVE of 6.6%wt and MFR of 1 g/10 min; P PVE content of 5.1%wt and MFR of 1.2 g/10 min , following examples 1 and 5 of Namura and/or ii) to choose the TFE/PPVE copolymer having PPVE content of 5.2%wt and MFR of 1.5 g/10 min of Namura , and to use, or obvious to try to use said copolymers i ) and ii) as the TFE/PPVE copolymers subjected to modification by irradiation in the process of Imamura et al , so to reduce the content of functional groups of -CF=CF 2 , -CF 2 H, -COF, -COOH, - COOCH 3 , -CONH 2 and -CH 2 OH in said copolymers to as low as 10 per 10 6 carbon atoms as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention . MPEP 2141 9. Claims 1- 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama et al (US 7,169,868) only, or alternatively in view of Namura (US 2002/0099143). 10. Aoyama et al discloses a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene and perfluoropropyl vinyl ether (PPVE) having: 1) 3.5-6%mass, preferably over 4%mass of PPVE (col. 6, lines 40-45); 2) MFR of 0.1-50 g/10 min, preferably 0.5 g/10 min and over (col. 5, lines 52-54); 3) not more than 20 of unstable terminal groups per 1x10 6 carbon atoms (col. 2, lines 55-65; col. 7, lines 35-47). 11. Based on the teachings of Aoyama et al , it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and use the TFE/PPVE copolymer having 4-6 %mass of PPVE and MFR of 0.5 g/10 min, or 0.7 g/10 min, and subject said TFE/PPVE copolymer to fluoride treatment to produce the final modified TFE/PPVE copolymer having less than 20 functional groups of -CF =CF 2 , -CF 2 H, -COF, -COOH, -COOCH 3 , -CONH 2 and -CH 2 OH per 10 6 main-chain carbon atoms , as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). 12 . All ranges referring to the TFE/PAVE (TFE/PPVE) copolymer of Aoyama et al are overlapping with the corresponding ranges of those as claimed in instant invention. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari , 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) . 13 . As to instant claims 3- 4, 6, Aoyama et al further discloses molded articles produced by extrusion molding (as to instant claim 3), transfer molding ( col. 10, lines 46-53 , as to instant claim 4), wherein the molded articles include pipe (Abstract, as to instant claim 6). 14 . In the alternative, though Aoyama et al does not explicitly and with sufficient specificity disclose the TFE/PPVE copolymers having both PPVE unit in amount of 4.9-7%mass and MFR of 0.5-1.5 g/10 min or 0.7-1.3 g/10 min, Namura discloses TFE/PAVE copolymers, wherein PAVE is preferably PPVE ([0011]), comprising at least 4%wt of PAVE and MFR of no greater than 4 g/10 min, or about 0.5-3 g/10 min (Abstract, [0012]), wherein Namura specifically exemplifies said copolymers having both content of PEVE of 6.6%wt and MFR of 1 g/10 min (Example 2, Table1); PEVE content of 5.1%wt and MFR of 1.2 g/10 min (Example 5 in Table 3) and PPVE content of 5.2%wt and MFR of 1.5 g/10 min (Example 7, Table 3) Thus, Namura explicitly teaches the TFE/PAVE copolymers having both P AVE (PPVE and PEVE) unit s in amount within the range of 4.9-7%mass and MFR within the range of 0.5-1.5 g/10 min or 0.7-1.3 g/10 min . Though the specific examples provided in Tables 1 and 3 of Namura are based mostly on the use of PEVE as the PAVE units, since the PPVE are cited by Namura as being preferable units along with PEVE ([0011]), it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art that the TFE copolymers having PPVE as comonomers and having both P PVE unit s in amount within the range of 4.9-7%mass and MFR within the range of 0.5-1.5 g/10 min and 0.7-1.3 g/10 min are within the teachings of Namura as well . U nder 35 USC 103 a preferred embodiment such as an example is not controlling. Rather, all disclosures “including unpreferred embodiments” must be considered. In re Lamberti 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) citing In re Mills 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA 1972). 15 . Since the TFE/PAVE copolymers having both content of PAVE of 6.6%wt and MFR of 1 g/10 min; PAVE content of 5.1%wt and MFR of 1.2 g/10 min and PAVE content of 5.2%wt and MFR of 1.5 g/10 min are specifically are taught in the art as exemplified by Namura , and PPVE is specifically cited by Namura as being preferable PAVE, therefore, it would have been obvious to a one of ordinary skill in the art to i ) synthesize TFE/PPVE copolymers having PPVE of 6.6%wt and MFR of 1 g/10 min; PPVE content of 5.1%wt and MFR of 1.2 g/10 min, following examples 1 and 5 of Namura and/or ii) to choose the TFE/PPVE copolymer having PPVE content of 5.2%wt and MFR of 1.5 g/10 min of Namura , and to use, or obvious to try to use said copolymers i ) and ii) as the TFE/PPVE copolymers subjected to modification by the process of Aoyama et al , so to reduce the content of functional groups of -CF=CF 2 , -CF 2 H, -COF, -COOH, - COOCH 3 , -CONH 2 and -CH 2 OH in said copolymers to less than 20 per 10 6 carbon atoms as well, since it would have been obvious to choose material based on its suitability. Case law holds that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 USC 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention . MPEP 2141 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Obviousness Double Patenting Rejection I 16. Claim s 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims1-6 of a copending application 18/450,491 (published US 2023/0391917). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons. 17. The application 18/450,491 claims a copolymer, comprising tetrafluoroethylene unit and perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit, wherein the copolymer has a content of perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit of 2.7 to 4.9% by mass with respect to the whole of the monomer units, a melt flow rate at 372°C of 0.7 to 1.4 g/10 min, or 0.7 to 1.3 g/10 min and the total number of -CF=CF 2 , -CF 2 H, -COF, -COOH, -COOCH 3 , -CONH 2 and -CH 2 OH of 20 or less per 10 6 main-chain carbon atoms. Further claimed a n extrusion formed article, a transfer molded article, a coated electric and a formed article, comprising the copolymer, wherein the formed article is a sheet or a pipe. 18. Thus, the limitations claimed in the present invention are obvious variants of the limitations claimed in the application 18/450,491. Obviousness Double Patenting Rejection I I 19 . Claim s 1- 4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 5 of a copending application 18/ 891,549 (published US 202 5/0011494 ). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons. 20 . The application 18/891,549 claims a copolymer, comprising tetrafluoroethylene unit and perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit, wherein the copolymer has a content of perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit of 4.3-6.0 % by mass with respect to the whole of the monomer units, a melt flow rate at 372°C of 0.7 to 1.4 g/10 min, or 0.7 to 1.3 g/10 min and the total number of -CF=CF 2 , -CF 2 H, -COF, -COOH, -COOCH 3 , -CONH 2 and -CH 2 OH of 20 or less per 10 6 main-chain carbon atoms. Further claimed a n extrusion formed article, a transfer molded article, comprising the copolymer . 21 . Thus, the limitations claimed in the present invention are obvious variants of the limitations claimed in the application 18/450,491. 22. Claims 1-4 are directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claims 1-5 of a copending application 18/891,549 (published US 2025/0011494). Specifically, see the discussion in paragraphs 19-21 above. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute an interference between applications or a patent and an application of com mon ownership (see MPEP Chapter 2300). The copending application 18/891,549 , discussed above, would form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) and the conflicting inventions were not commonly owned at the time the invention in this application was made. In order for the examiner to resolve this issue, the assignee can, under 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and 37 CFR 1.78(c), either show that the conflicting inventions were commonly owned at the time the invention in this application was made, or name the prior inventor of the conflicting subject matter. A showing that the inventions were commonly owned at the time the invention in this application was made will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based upon the commonly assigned case as a reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g), or 35 U.S.C. 102(e) for applications pending on or after December 10, 2004. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT IRINA KRYLOVA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7349 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9am-5pm EST M-F . 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. /IRINA KRYLOVA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764