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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.— Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Option (ii) of claim 1 requires that wax be applied after separation from the liquid and drying. Dependent claim 7 indicates wax is apply after separation from the liquid “and optionally drying”. As drying is required prior to wax application in claim 1, but optional within claim 7, claim 7 fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As claims 8-11 depend from claim 7, they are rejected for the same issue discussed above. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 . 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. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutmann (US 2016/0244587 A1 ) in view of McCoskey (U.S. Pat. No. 5,041,251). Regarding Claim 1 , Gutmann teaches methods of producing expanded thermoplastic elastomer foam particles comprising mixing thermoplastic elastomer melt with a blowing agent within an extruder, pressing the melt through a die plate into a pelletizing chamber, and comminuting the melt into individual pellets with cooling , wherein a temperature-regulated liquid flows through the pelletizing chamber (¶ 22-31 ). Embodiments are taught where p e lletization is used at defined pressures/temperatures, so as the pellets are expanded to a desire degree in the liquid and solidified to form the foam particles (¶ 31-34 ). Gutmann differs from the subject matter claimed in that features ( i ) and/or (ii) are not described. McCoskey teaches it was known in the art plastic pellets can be rendered non-tacky / non-blocking by adhering non-sticky material (Abstract). McCoskey teaches the use of such materials renders the plastic particles pourable / free-flowing during transportation / storage (Col. 1, Line 59 to Col. 2, Line 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the non-sticky material adhering protocols of McCoskey toward the pellets of Gutmann because doing so would facilitate the pourable / free-flowing characteristics of the resulting particles during transportation / storage as taught by McCoskey . McCoskey teaches embodiments where cooling water containing non-sticky powdered material is passed through a cutting chamber driven by an underwater pelletizer (Col. 3, Lines 11-18), whereby non-sticky material coats the surface of the pellets as they are being produced (Col. 5, Lines 11-23); reading on option ( i ). McCoskey also teaches the dried polymer particles can be later dusted with non-sticky material after drying (Col. 3, Lines 30-35), reading on option (ii). McCoskey teaches various non-sticky materials are known, inclusive of waxes (Col. 5, Lines 24-33). Regarding Claims 2-4 , Gutmann teaches aqueous fluids in the pelletizer are preferred (¶ 27). McCoskey teaches the aqueous mixtures used have less than 5 wt % non-sticky material (Col. 5, Lines 47-54) of which the non-sticky material has a n average particle size below 80 microns (Col. 5, Lines 37-43). The disclosed ranges overlap those claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and McCoskey suggests the claimed range . A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of McCoskey . See MPEP 2123. Regarding Claims 5 and 6 , Gutmann teaches the temperature of the liquid in the pelletizing chamber preferably ranges from 10-60 degrees C (¶ 37) and pressures ranging from 0.7-20 bar (¶ 35). The disclosed ranges overlap those claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Gutmann suggests the claimed range . A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Gutmann . See MPEP 2123. Regarding Claims 7 and 8 , McCoskey also teaches the dried polymer particles can be later dusted with non-sticky material (Col. 3, Lines 30-35), construed as applying wax in power form after separation of particles from liquid /drying. McCoskey teaches the non-sticky material has an average particle size below 250 micros (Col. 5, Lines 43-46), which overlaps the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and McCoskey suggests the claimed range . A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of McCoskey . See MPEP 2123. Regarding Claims 9 and 11 , McCoskey teaches embodiments where specified quantities of dried pellets / non-sticky material are introduced into either a vibrating paddle blender or drum and agitated (Col. 8, Lines 61-65; Col. 9, Lines 46-50). It is implied that such vessels are closed prior to agitation or, alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to close such vessels so as to prevent spillage / exit prior to obtaining a desired blend of materials. A temperature/pressure range is not specified and therefore, it is implied the particles are mixed at ambient temperatures and pressures. Regarding Claim 10 , McCoskey teaches non-sticky material is used in excess, whereby twice as mich powder to particles or even more is possible (Col. 5, Line 62 to Col. 6, Line 6). Therefore, McCoskey suggests overlapping ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and McCoskey suggests the claimed range . A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of McCoskey . See MPEP 2123. Related Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prissok (US 2010/0222442 A1) also pertains to expandable/expanded thermoplastic elastomer particles (Abstract; ¶ 32, 87). Prissok notes it was known antiblocking agents are suitable for application prior to and/or after the foaming process (¶ 77). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEPHEN E RIETH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6274 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 8AM-4PM Mountain Standard Time . 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 Duane Smith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1166 . 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. /STEPHEN E RIETH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759