DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-8 are currently pending in the application. 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura et al. (WO 2019/187725 A1). At the outset, it is noted that the WIPO publication to Imamura is relied upon f or date purposes and the US 11, 926 ,7 53 patent is relied upon herein below as its English equivalent. Regarding claims 1-5, Imamura teaches a fluororesin having a total n umber of functional groups per 10 6 main-chain carbon atoms , at preferably 6 or less and particularly preferably at 0, in order to obtain superior high-frequency electrical properties (Ab., col. 3, line 16-col. 4 line 6), wherein said functional groups may be of CF═CF 2 , - CF 2 H, - COF, - COOH, - COOCH 3 , - CONH 2 , and CH 2 OH. (col. 5, lines 14-67). Thus, Imamura teaches type of functional groups and an upper number thereof within the scope of the claimed invention. Disclosed fluororesins include a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) , hexafluoropropylene (HFP) and perfluoro (alkyl vinyl ether) (PAVE), preferably one having TFE:HF P :P AVE unit s at a mass ratio of (75 to 99.8 ):( 0.1 to 25 ):(0. 1 to 25 ) (col. 7, lines 36- 62 ), and having a melt flow rate (MFR), preferably of from 0.1-40 g/10 min (per ASTM D1238, 372 o C) (col. 8, lines 43-47). Additionally, the small genus of disclosed PAVE monomers includes perfluoro( propyl vinyl ether) (P P VE) as a preferred species (col. 5, lines col. 6, lines 28 -57). Thus, Imamura teaches overlapping ranges for the MFR, and the amounts of perfluoro(ethyl vinyl ether) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP) units. Imamura is silent on fluoro resin having the claimed MFR and amounts of monomer units in one single embodiment as claimed . At the outset, it is noted that in 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). See MPEP § 2144.05. Given the teaching in Imamura on fluororesins of overlapping scope, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide for any fluororesin within the scope of Imamura, including those comprising HFP and P P VE in claimed amounts, having the claimed MFR and the claimed type and number of terminal groups. Regarding claim 6-8, Imamura teaches injection and extrusion molding of the fluororesin, for forming articles such as a sheet, an electric wire, a container and a tube (Ab., col. 9, line 55-col. 10, line 66 ). Claim s 1-5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitahara et al. (US 2010/0314 1 54 A1) , alone, or in view of Yokotani et al. (US 2019/0382544 A1). Kitahara teaches a fluoropolymer for coating an electric wire, comprising a fluorocopolymer (FEP) having a melt flow rate (MFR) at 372 o C, of from 10 to 60 g/10 min (Ab.,), and having units of tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) , hexafluoropropylene (HFP) and perfluoro (alkyl vinyl ether) (PFVE/PAVE), preferably one having TFE:HF P :P F VE unit s at a mass ratio (the sum of all units being 100) at (75 to 95 ):( 4 to 20 ):(0. 3 to 3 ) . Additionally, the small genus of disclosed PFVE monomers includes perfluoro( propy l vinyl ether) (P P VE) as a preferred species (Ab., [001 3 ]-[001 5 ], [0019]-[0022], Synthesis Examples 1-14 , ref. claims). Thus, Kitahara’s fluorocopolymers have overlapping ranges for the MFR, and the amounts of perfluoro(ethyl vinyl ether) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP) units. Kitahara further teaches fluoropolymer with prefer ably few or no thermally unstable end group, such as -COOH, -CH 2 OH, -COF, -CF = CF-, -CON H 2 , -COOCH 3 and the like in the chain , and preferably, with less than or equal to 5 of - CF 2 H groups, per 10 6 carbon atoms [0027]-[0028] . Kitahara is silent on a fluoropolymer having a melt flow rate , monomer units in claimed amounts , and having a number and type of function al groups as in the claimed invention. As stated in paragraph 7 above, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Given the teaching in Kitahara on fluoro polymers having overlapping amounts of monomer units and MFR, prefer ably having no - COOH, -CH 2 OH, -COF, -CF = CF-, -CON H 2 , -COOCH 3 groups in the chain , and less than or equal to 5 of -CF 2 H groups, per 10 6 carbon atoms , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare fluoropolymer s within the scope of Kitahara , including those within the scope of the claimed invention . A skilled artisan would reasonably expect the claimed -CF = CF 2 group , as with the disclosed unstable -CF = CF- group , to be unstable due to unsaturation and therefore, be absent in the Kitahara’s chains having no unstable groups. In the alternative, t he secondary reference to Yokotani teaches fluororesins suitable for wire insulation, having a number, i.e., the sum of all unstable groups, e.g., - COF, - COOH, - CF 2 H, - COOCH 3 , - CH 2 OH, CONH 2 , and - CF═CF 2 groups, at 20 or smaller or 0 , per 10 6 carbon atoms, in order to achieve a low dissipation factor within a high frequency region (10 GHz or higher) [0172], [0230] . In view of the advantages taught in Yokotani, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide for fluoropolymers comprising units in claimed amounts, and having MFR and HFP and P A VE units with the claimed ranges as prescribed by Kitahara , including those of the claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brothers et al. (US 2007/0292685 A1 ) , in view of Imamura et al. (WO 2019/187725 A). Regarding claims 1-5, Brothers teaches fluoropolymers for producing insulated wires, comprising units of tetrafluoroethyelene (TFE), hexafluoropropylene (HFP) and perfluoro (alkyl vinyl ether) (PAVE), such as a TFE/HFP/P A VE terpolymer , wherein the HFP content is about 6 -17 wt . % , and the PAVE content is about 0.2 to 3 .0 wt . % , preferably of perfluoro ( propyl vinyl ether) ( P P VE ), and having a melt flow rate (MFR) of at least 10, and most preferably, at least 26 (per ASTM D-1238) (Ab., [0013]). Thus, the amount of monomer units and the melt flow rate overlap in scope with those of the claimed invention. Brothers further t eaches that the polymer end group s are -CF₃ , that unstable groups e.g., -CONH₂, -COOH, -COF may be converted by fluorination and that hydrogen containing groups, COF, -COOH and -CF=CF 2 are absent as a result of fluorination [0016]-[00 17 ]. Brothers is silent on a fluoropolymer having MFR and units in amount as claimed, and having a total number of claimed functional groups within the claimed upper limit. As stated in paragraph 7 above, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Incorporating the discussion on Imamura from paragraphs 4 and 5 above, and given the teaching in Brothers on fluoropolymers suitable for forming an insulated wire, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide for fluoropolymers having a MFR and units in claimed amounts, and having a total number of functional groups as prescribed by Imamura , so as to provide for superior high-frequency electrical properties , absent evidence to the contrary. Regarding claims 6-8, Brothers teaches the use of the fluoropolymers in injection molding, and melt extrusion to form a tube, a pipe, or an insulated wire coating (Ab., [0018], [0027]). 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 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/449,927 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claim 1 is as follows. Additionally . copending claim 5 recites perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) unit as perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit. Although copending claim s are silent on a copolymer comprising monomer units in amounts as claimed in a single embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for copolymers within the scope of copending claims, including those of the claimed invention (obviates claims 1-5). As stated in paragraph 7 above, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the ranges to yield products having the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claims 6-8, copending claims 6-8 obviate the claimed limitations. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 9 of copending Application No. 18/450567 reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claims 1, 5 and 6 are as follows. Although copending claims are silent on a copolymer having units in claimed amounts and the total number of groups within the claimed upper limit in a single embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for copolymers within the scope of copending claims, including those of the claimed invention. Noting that the recitation “of 90 or less” in copending claims 5 and 6 includes 0 as its lower limit, 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). In this regard, the specification teaches ranges capable of providing for the claimed groups overlap ping amounts [0029]-[0032]. As stated in paragraph 7 above, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the ranges to yield products having the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claims 6-8, copending claims 7-9 obviate the claimed limitations. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/451213 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claim 1 is as follows. Additionally, copending claim 5 recites perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) unit as perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit. Although copending claims are silent on a copolymer as claimed in a single embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for copolymers within the scope of copending claims, including those of the claimed invention (obviates claims 1-5). As stated in paragraph 7 above, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the ranges to yield products having the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claims 6-8, copending claims 6, and 10 obviate the claimed limitations. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/451927 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claims 1 and 5 are as follows. Although copending claims are silent on a copolymer having the total number of groups within the claimed upper limit in a single embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for copolymers within the scope of copending claims, including those of the claimed invention. As stated in paragraph 7 above, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the ranges to yield products having the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claims 6-8, copending claims 7-9 obviate the claimed limitations. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/452849 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claims 1 and 5 are as follows. Although copending claims are silent on a copolymer having the total number of groups within the claimed upper limit in a single embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for copolymers within the scope of copending claims, including those of the claimed invention. As stated in paragraph 7 above, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the ranges to yield products having the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claims 6-8, copending claims 6 and 7 obviate the claimed limitations. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/452878 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claims 1 and 5 are as follows. Although copending claims are silent on a copolymer having the total number of groups within the claimed upper limit in a single embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for copolymers within the scope of copending claims, including those of the claimed invention. As stated in paragraph 7 above, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the ranges to yield products having the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claims 6-8, copending claims 6 and 7 obviate the claimed limitations. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/452808 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claims 1 and 5 are as follows. Although copending claims are silent on a copolymer having the total number of groups within the claimed upper limit in a single embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for copolymers within the scope of copending claims, including those of the claimed invention. As stated in paragraph 7 above, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the ranges to yield products having the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claims 6-8, copending claims 6 -8 obviate the claimed limitations. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Satya Sastri at (571) 272 1112. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5.30PM (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /Satya B Sastri/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762