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. 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. Priority 3. This application is a CON of PCT/JP2022/008444 02/28/2022 . Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application JAPAN 2021-031105 02/26/2021 filed on 09/29/23 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 12/05/23, 01/31/24, 03/14/24, 01/15/25, 04/17/25, 08/28/25, and 10/24/25 have been considered. Please refer to Applicant's copy of the 1449 submitted herewith. 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 -7 of copending Application No. 18 /451915 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claimed inventions are directed to a copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene unit , hexafluoropropylene unit, and perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit , wherein regarding instant claim 1 , copending claim 1 discloses a copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene unit , hexafluoropropylene unit , and perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit , wherein the copolymer has a content of hexafluoropropylene unit of 5.0 to 7.0% by mass, perfluoro( alkyl vinyl ether) unit of 1 . 4 to 2 . 9 % by mass, encompassing instant claim range of 1.5 to 2.6 % by mass with respect to the whole monomer units, a melt flow rate at 372 0 C of 9 to 40 g/10 min, wherein copending claim 5 discloses perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) unit is a perfluoro ( propyl vinyl ether) unit . A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the copolymer , wherein copending claims 1 discloses the copolymer has a content of perfluoro( alkyl vinyl ether) unit of 1.4 to 2.9 % by mass, encompassing instant claim 1 range . It is well-settled that where 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, 267 (CCPA 1976). Instant claims 2, 4, 6-7 are same as copending claims 2, 4, 6-7. R egarding instant claim 3 , copending claim 3 discloses perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) unit of 1. 7 to 2. 4 % by mass, and wherein copending claim 5 discloses perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) unit is a perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit . R egarding instant claim 5, copending claim 1 discloses total number of CF=CF 2 , -CF 2 H, -COF, -COOH, -COOCH 3 , -CONH 2 , and -CH 2 OH of 90 or less per 10 6 main-chain carbon atoms. Regarding i nstant claim 8 , copending claim 7 discloses a coated electric wire comprising a coating layer comprising the fluorine-containing copolymer of claim 1. Such coated electric wire inherently teaches an electric wire, comprising: a core wire; and a coating layer installed on the periphery of the core wire and obtained from an electric wire coating material comprising the fluorine-containing copolymer according to claim 1. 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. 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 . Claims 1- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura (WO 2019/187725; for English translation US 2021/0024769 applied). Regarding claim s 1 -4 , Imamura discloses a fluorine-containing copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene unit , hexafluoropropylene unit and perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit (para [00 43 ] , [0050], [0051] ) , wherein the copolymer has a content of hexafluoropropylene unit of 0.1 to 25% by mass (para [0051]-[0052], [0055], encompassing claim 1 range of 5.0 to 7.0 mass or claim 2 range of 5.2 to 6.8% by mass, perfluoro(propyl vinyl ether) unit of 0.1 to 10 % by mass (para [0043 ], [00 51 ] -[0053], [0055] ), encompassing claim 1 range of 1.5 to 2.6 % by mass or claim 3 range of 1. 7 to 2. 4 % by mass with respect to the whole monomer units, a melt flow rate at 372 0 C of 0. 5 to 40 g/10 min (para [0061]), encompassing claim 1 range of 9 to 40 g/10 min or claim 4 range of 11 to 38 g/10 min . A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the copolymer , wherein Imamura discloses the content of hexafluoropropylene unit of 0.1 to 25% by mass, perfluoro (propyl vinyl ether) unit of 0.1 to 10 % by mass, and a melt flow rate at 372 0 C of 0. 5 to 40 g/10 min, encompassing the requirement of claim s 1-4 . It is well-settled that where 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, 267 (CCPA 1976). Regarding claim 5 , Imamura discloses total number of CF=CF 2 , -CF 2 H, -COF, -COOH, -COOCH 3 , -CONH 2 , and -CH 2 OH of 6 or less per 10 6 main-chain carbon atoms (para [0021], [0027], table 1), fall into claimed range of 90 or less per 10 6 main-chain carbon atoms. Regarding claim 6 , Imamura incorporated the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses a n injection molded article comprising the copolymer (para [0072], [0080]). Regarding claim 7 , Imamura incorporated the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses a coated electric wire comprising a coating layer comprising the copolymer (para [0072], [008 1 ]). Regarding claim 8 , Imamura incorporated the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses an electric wire comprising a core wire and a coating layer installed on the periphery of the core wire and obtained from an electric wire coating material comprising the fluorine-containing copolymer (para [0081]-[0083]). Conclusion References EI Du Point (JP 52-109588), Daikin Industries (WO 01/18076), Daikin Industries (JP 2020-100823), and EI Du Point (JP 10-292054) were cumulative in nature to the above rejection and thus not set forth. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-4807 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9.00 AM to 5.50 PM (EST) . 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 RANDY P GULAKOWSKI can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1302 . 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. /KUMAR R BHUSHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766