Detailed Office Action Notice of Pre-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 Response to Amendment The amendment filed on 02/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 11 – 19 have been canceled. Claims 1 – 10 are pending and under examination. Restriction/Election Applicant’s election of Group I, Claims 1 – 10 in the reply filed on 02/27/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim Rejections – U.S.C. § 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. Claims 1 – 10 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. Regarding claims 1 and 6, phrases “substantive internal discontinuities” and “substantive internal cracks” are indefinite. The term “ substantive ” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ substantive ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, the claims do not provide a standard for how to measure/or determine whether a discontinuity/crack is “substantive” o r not . Moreover, a review of the specification also does not appear to provide a standard for determining whether discontinuities/cracks are “substantive” or not . “ Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ” (MPEP 2173.05(b)) Claims 2 – 5 and 7 – 10 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §103 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 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. 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 . Claim s 1 – 3 and 5 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson (US 11,167,346) in view of Posson (US 6,427,599) and Ataman (“EBS Wax”, NPL) Regarding claim 1 , Sanderson teaches a method of producing a pyrotechnic material through combining a first, second, and third powder through tubes into a mixer [ Fig 1]. The first, second and third powders are a metal powder, a fluoropolymer, and a binder powder [Col 5, line 1 – 7]. The mixed components are passed to an extruder [Fig 1], meeting the claimed limitation of passing the uniform powder mixture through an extrusion die to form an extrudate. The extrusion process would have pressure applied and Sanderson teaches that elevated temperatures can be used [Col 4, line 36 – 38], meeting the claimed limitations of applying elevated temperature and pressure. Sanderson does not expressly teach a fourth tube for transporting a fourth component of the pyrotechnic compositon or that a wax powder is included. Posson teaches a method of producing pyrotechnic material including for a flare or decoy [Abstract]. Posson teaches a particular example including an MTV mixture [Fig 8]. Posson teaches that the composition can be produced by extrusion [Col 17, line 46 – 47] and suggests that the presence of a lubricant can aid in the manufacturing process [Col 17, line 55 – 57]. In particular, Posson teaches that the composition can include a mold release agent such as Acrawax C [Col 19, line 55 – 57] (which is Ethylene bis( stearamide ) wax). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Sanderson to include a lubricant/mold release agent component in the composition, in particular Acrawax C, as disclosed by Posson . Posson is directed to the powder metallurgical production of flare/pyrotechnic compositions, including MTV, and as such, is in the same filed of endeavor as Sanderson. Additionally, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Posson to be pertinent to the method of Sanderson and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying them to Sanderson. Lastly, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply them because lubricants/mold release agents reduce interparticle friction as well as friction between the apparatus walls and material . To this, Ataman discusses Ethylene bis( stearamide ) wax (EBS WAX) [Title]. Ataman states that EBS is used in various industries as both an internal/external lubricant and mold release agent [Page 2]. Ataman states that one such industry is powder metallurgy [Page 2] wherein the compound serves to reduce inter-particle friction as well as die-wall friction [Page 3]. EBS wax is commercially available and is supplied as fine granules or powder [page 1], meeting the claimed limitation of wax powder. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used /selected EBS wax powder ( Acrawax C) in the method of Sanderson as-modified because of its friction reducing benefits as well as because of its commercial availability. Sanderson teaches that the extrusion method includes heating to over 120°F [Col 6, line 10 – 12] and as evidenced by Ataman, EBS has a melting point of ~144-146°C [Page 1], which is above the temperature of the extrusion process of Sanderson. While Sanderson as-modified does not expressly state that a fourth transportation tube is included in the apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus of Sanderson to include a fourth transportation tube to accommodate a fourth powder component. Sanderson suggests in both the figures and description that the extrusion device contains a separate tube for each functional component powder and Sanderson also explicitly states that the system can have additional components/configurations [Col 3, line 14 – 16]. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan possessing ordinary creativity would have reasonably inferred that an additional tube should be provided to accommodate an additional component powder such as the lubricant/mold release agent of Posson /Ataman. Moreover, given the teachings in Sanderson that the system can have additional components/configuration, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (MPEP 2141.03 I) Lastly, given that the combination of prior art uses a wax powder as a lubricant/release agent of the same composition as claims 7 and 8 in an extrusion process, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the prior art combination would naturally result in attaining an extrudate that did not contain substantive internal discontinuities, absent evidence to the contrary. Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations LTD., 945 F.3d 1184, 1191, 2019 USPQ2d 494084 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where the court stated that a proper finding of inherency does not require that all limitations are taught in a single reference, and that inherency may meet a missing claim limitation when the limitation is "the natural result of the combination of prior art elements." (emphasis in original) "In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent charac teristic necessarily f lows from the teachings of the applied prior art." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original) (MPEP 2112 IV) Regarding claims 2 – 3, Sanderson in view of Posson and Ataman teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Posson teaches that the mold release agent/ Acrwax C can be include d in the composition in a range of 0.05 – 2 wt % of the composition [Col 19, line 54 – 56, 62 – 65], which overlaps with the claimed range of claim 2 and the claimed value of claim 3 . With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping ranges as disclosed. Selection of overlapping ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness , absent evidence of unexpected results or criticality (See MPEP § 2144.05 I). “ 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) ” Regarding claim 5, Sanderson in view of Posson and Ataman teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sanderson teaches that the extrusion method includes heating to over 120°F [Col 6, line 10 – 12] and as evidenced by Ataman, EBS has a melting point of ~144-146°C [Page 1] , which is above the temperature of the extrusion process of Sanderson. As such, it would be reasonably expected that the wax would not be melted during the extrusion process. Regarding claim 6 , Sanderson in view of Posson and Ataman teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sanderson in view of Posson and Ataman t eaches performing extrusion of flare material with EBS as applied in claim 1. Given that the combination of prior art uses a wax powder as a lubricant/release agent of the same composition as claims 7 and 8 in an extrusion process, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the prior art combination would naturally result in attaining an extrudate that did not contain substantive internal cracks spart apart from the external surface , absent evidence to the contrary. “inherency may meet a missing claim limitation when the limitation is "the natural result of the combination of prior art elements." (MPEP 2112 IV)(see above) Regarding claims 7 – 8, Sanderson in view of Posson and Ataman teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sanderson teaches that the metal powder can be magnesium , the fluoropolymer powder can be polytetrafluoroethylene powder , the binder powder can be a composite of polytetrafluoroethylene and a copolymer including vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene monomer s [Col 3, line 30 – 36] , meeting the claimed limitations of claim 7 . Ataman t eaches EBS wax particulate as a lubricant [ Page 1] , which meets the claimed limitations of “amide wax” in claim 7 and 8. Regarding claim 9, Sanderson in view of Posson and Ataman teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sanderson in view of Posson and Ataman t eaches performing extrusion of flare material with EBS as a lubricant material as applied in claim 1. Given that the combination of prior art uses a wax powder as a lubricant of the same composition as claims 7 and 8 in an extrusion process, there is a reasonable expectation to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the lubricant of the prior art combination would reduce shear force accumulation during the process, absent evidence to the contrary. “inherency may meet a missing claim limitation when the limitation is "the natural result of the combination of prior art elements." (MPEP 2112 IV)(see above) Regarding claim 10, Sanderson in view of Posson and Ataman teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sanderson teaches that shearing of the binder to increase content between an adhesive material in the binder and the metal powder [Claim 1]. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson (US 11,167,346) in view of Posson (US 6,427,599) and Ataman (“EBS Wax”, NPL), as applied in claim 1, in further view of Griffith (US 3,265,778) Regarding claim 4, Sanderson in view of Posso n and Ataman teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Sanderson as-modified does not expressly teach including the wax powder composition (specifically EBS wax) as a layer along the surface of the extrusion die. Griffith teaches a method of extruding explosive material [title]. Griffith teaches that the extruder comprises a means from supplying a film of lubricant between the extruding material and the walls of the extruder block [Col 2, line 50 – 55]. Given that the material is a “lubricant”, it is implied that it reduces friction of the material with the wall and thereby velocity gradient of the extrudate exiting the die. Moreover, Ataman expressly recognizes that EBS wax is beneficial for reducing die-wall friction with the material [Page 3]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Sanderson with the teachings of Griffith of providing a means for lubricating between the extruding material and die walls. Griffith is directed to the extrusion of explosive material and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings pertinent to the method of Sanderson. Moreover, given that Sanderson also uses an extrusion process, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Griffith to Sanderson. Lastly, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that a lubricant reduces friction and as such, would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Griffith to the method of Sanderson to attain said benefit. As discussed in Ataman, EBS wax is beneficial for reducing die-wall friction with the material [Page 3] which would provide further motivation in using this composition as the die-wall lubricant. 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 – 3 and 5 – 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 14 – 15, 21 – 22, 29 – 30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,167,346 (henceforth US ‘346) in view of Posson (US 6,427,599) and Ataman (“EBS Wax”, NPL). Regarding claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 10, US ‘346 claims a method of producing a pyrotechnic material through combining a first, second, and third powder through tubes into a mixer [claim 14, 15]. The first, second and third powders are a metal powder, a fluoropolymer, and a binder powder [ claim 8 ]. The mixed components are passed to an extruder [ claim 8 ], meeting the claimed limitation of passing the uniform powder mixture through an extrusion die to form an extrudate. The extrusion process would have pressure applied and US ‘346 claims that elevated temperatures can be used [ claim 29 ], meeting the claimed limitations of applying elevated temperature and pressure. US ‘346 claims that the metal powder can be magnesium, the fluoropolymer powder can be polytetrafluoroethylene powder , the binder powder can be a composite of polytetrafluoroethylene and a copolymer including vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene monomer s [Claim 13, claim 22], meeting the claimed limitations of claim 7. US ‘346 claims shearing a binder powder with an adhesive material [claim 9]. For the reasons discussed above in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 , the prior art of Posson and Ataman (in addition to the claims of US ‘346) render the claims (1 – 3 and 5 – 10) obvious prima facie . Posson /Ataman reasonably suggests that an amide wax (claim 7, 8) powder can be included with the composition (in an amount that overlaps claims 1 and 2) and the prior art combination reasonably suggests that a fourth tube would be included with the combination as an additional configuration . Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 14 – 15, 21 – 22, 29 – 30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,167,346 in view of Posson (US 6,427,599), Ataman (“EBS Wax”, NPL), and Griffith (US 3,265,778) For the reasons discussed above in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 , the prior art of Griffith (in addition to the claims of US ‘346, Posson , and Ataman) render the claims obvious prima facie . Griffith reasonably suggests using a lubricating agent on the area between the extruding material and extruding die wall. Relevant Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10,173,944 – extrudable flare composition similar to MTV with other additive additions such ESD modifiers or surfactant US 6,312,625 – extrudable flare composition similar to MTV with other additive additions US 4,145,328 – Forming a mixture of titanium powder with organic resins and PTFE US 6,485,586 – Use of paraffin wax as binder in incendiary composition which improves ESD sensitivity US2391988 – Use of paraffin wax and mixtures of waxes in formation of combustibles including flares ATK Thiokol (NPL) – Disclosure of the use of carnauba wax as a binder in extrusion of MTV flares Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5602 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M - F (8 - 5) . 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 Sally Merkling can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6297 . 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. /AUSTIN POLLOCK/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738 /BRIAN D WALCK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738