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. 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 1-5, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17-20, 23-26, and 37-38 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13-14, 18-19, 22, 25, and 32 of copending Application No. 18/551,965 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims include an acetoacetate terminated polyester polyol derived from at least one dimer fatty acid or diol and at least one residue of a linear or branched C2 to C26 diacid or diol. Further, both sets of claims are drawn to elastomeric polymer compositions for use as adhesive or coatings containing the polyester polyol and acrylate functional components, wherein the elastomeric compositions are free of isocyanate. Accordingly, the invention claimed in the copending application is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claim s . Since the application claim s are anticipated by the claim set in the copending application, they are not patentably distinct. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17-20, 23-26, and 37-38 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-9, 11-12, 14-18, 20-21, 25-27, and 36 of copending Application No. 18/ 551,952 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims include an acetoacetate terminated polyester polyol derived from at least one dimer fatty acid or diol and at least one residue of a linear or branched C2 to C26 diacid or diol. Further, both sets of claims are drawn to elastomeric polymer compositions for use as adhesives or coatings containing the polyester polyol and acrylate functional components, wherein the elastomeric compositions are free of isocyanate. Accordingly, the invention claimed in the copending application is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claim s . Since the application claim s are anticipated by the claim set in the copending application, they are not patentably distinct. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the weigh t ratio " in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the range FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT " in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the dimerisation FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT " in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by WO-2020123278 to Kuo et al. Cited on IDS (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0388229 will be used for citation purposes). As to claim 1, Kuo discloses a acetoacetate functional polyester wherein the polyester comprises the reaction product of 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-cyclobutanediol, hexahydrophthalic anhydride, neopentyl glycol, and trimethylolpropane (0147). Kuo discloses reacting the polyester with t-butyl acetoacetate to obtain the acetoacetate functional polyester (0148). Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JP-4831993. As to claim 1, the reference discloses a acetoacetate functional polyester wherein dimethylterephthlate and ethylene glycol were mixed with an esterification catalyst to prepare a polyester polyol (PET) that is terminated and further reacted with phenyl acetoacetate (Example 1, See Translation). 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 1-5, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17-20, 23-26, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0121456 to Bae et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0195305 to Kuo et al. As to claim s 1 -4 , 7, 10, 13, and 20, Bae discloses polymeric plasticizers comprising residues of recycled PET, 17.8% of dimer fatty acid (claimed a)) , 55.49% of recycled propylene glycol (diol, claimed b)) , and 2-butyloctanoic acid (0189), wherein the polymeric plasticizers have hydroxyl values of less than 25 mg KOH/g (0026). Bae further teaches modifiers including ethyl acetoacetate or methyl acetoacetate (0121). Bae does not expressly incorporating the acetoacetate to the terminal portion of the polyester polyol. However, Kuo discloses acetoacetate-functionalized alkyl coatings derived from fatty acids, fatty diols, polyols, and dicarboxylic acids wherein methyl or ethyl acetoacetate are added to terminate the polyols derived from the fatty acids. At the time of filing it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add ethyl acetoacetate or methyl acetoacetate taught in Bae in accordance with the process taught in Kuo to increase the molecular weight of the polyol and to effectively terminate the polyol with acetoacetate groups in order to provide superior tack-free time properties and lower VOC (0013). As to claim 5, Bae discloses molecular weights of the polymeric plasticizer range from 1,000 to 8,000 g/mol (0019). As to claim 15, Bae discloses dimer acids derived from linoleic acid and linolenic acid (0112). As to claims 17-19, Bae discloses suitable diacarboxylic acids including adipic acid may be added (0191) or succinic acid (0194) or azelaic acid (0046, 0111). As to claims 20 and 23, Bae disclose polymeric compositions comprising the plasticizer that is free of isocyanates (See Specification). As to claims 24-25, Bae discloses plasticizing thermoplastic acrylates with the polymeric plasticizer (0155). As to claim 26, Bae discloses the addition of other additives including fillers, lubricants, and stabilizers depending on the application and performance requirements (0164). As to claims 37 and 38, Bae discloses wherein the plasticized compositions are suitable in areas such as coatings (0209). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL L LEONARD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7450 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M - F 7:00-4:00 . 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 Joseph Del Sole can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1130 . 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. /MICHAEL L LEONARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763