DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species C (Fig. 1C), claims 1-3, 5-10, 14-18 and 20, in the reply filed on 02/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 11-13 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/25/2026.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by REXFORD et al. (US 2013/0042781 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rexford et al. disclose a multicolor strobing pyrotechnic flare (Figs. 2, 3; and at least paras [0032], [0033], [0034]) comprising a plurality of alternating pyrotechnic layers 42, 46, wherein the plurality of alternating pyrotechnic layers comprises n pyrotechnic layers and the n pyrotechnic layers comprise m different pyrotechnic layer types (layer 42 is red; layer 46 is white), wherein n is 2 to 2,000 and m is 2 to 2,000, wherein the n pyrotechnic layers comprise a first pyrotechnic layer 42 (red) and a second pyrotechnic layer 46 (white), wherein the first pyrotechnic layer 42 comprises a first pyrotechnic compound and the second pyrotechnic layer 46 comprises a second pyrotechnic compound, wherein burning of the first pyrotechnic compound emits a first color (red) and burning of the second pyrotechnic compound emits a second color (white) and the first color and the second color are different (red v’s white).
Regarding claim 2, Rexford et al. disclose that the flare comprises a stack of the plurality of alternating pyrotechnic layers 42, 46 (Figs. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 3, Rexford et al. disclose that the plurality of alternating pyrotechnic layers comprises a third propellent layer 52 (blue), wherein the third pyrotechnic layer comprises a third pyrotechnic compound and the third pyrotechnic compound emits a third color (blue) when burning and the third color is different than the first color and the second color (Figs. 2, 3; and at least paras [0032], [0033], [0034]).
Regarding claim 5, Rexford et al. disclose that the burning of the pyrotechnic layers 42, 46 and 52 produces, red light, white light and blue light respectively. Red light falls in the range about 620-750 nm, white light, a mixture of many visible wavelengths falls in the range about 380-750), and blue light falls in the range about 450-495 nm.
Regarding claim 6, Rexford et al. disclose a great variety of pyrotechnic compounds that read on the claim 6 limitations (see at least paras [0044] thru [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, it is inherent to Rexford et al. that the different pyrotechnic compositions of layers 42, 46 and 52 are not precisely the same.
Regarding claim 9, Rexford et al. layers 42 and 46 read on the recited thickness options (Figs. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 10, the Rexford et al. flare is in a linear stack configuration.
Regarding claim 14, Rexford et al. disclose a method of providing a pyrotechnic effect comprising providing a multicolor strobing pyrotechnic flare (Figs. 2, 3; and at least paras [0032], [0033], [0034]) comprising a plurality of alternating pyrotechnic layers , wherein the plurality of alternating pyrotechnic layers 42, 46, 52 comprises n pyrotechnic layers comprising m different pyrotechnic layer types, wherein n is 2 to 2,000 and m is 2 to 2,000; igniting a surface of the flare, wherein igniting the surface of the flare sequentially burns a first pyrotechnic layer of the n pyrotechnic layers and a second pyrotechnic layer of the n pyrotechnic layers, wherein as the first pyrotechnic layer burns the first pyrotechnic layer 42 emits a first color (red) and as the second pyrotechnic layer 46 burns the second pyrotechnic layer emits a second color (white), wherein the first color and the second color are different (red v’s white).
Regarding claim 15, the burning of the Rexford et al. pyrotechnic layer 42, 46, 52 emit the colors red, white and blue respectively.
Regarding claim 16, Rexford et al. disclose manufacturing the pyrotechnic assembly (see at least paras [0032], [0033], [0035]).
Regarding claim 20, Rexford et al. disclose that a first pyrotechnic layer of the n pyrotechnic layers comprises a first pyrotechnic compound 42 and a second pyrotechnic layer n pyrotechnic layers comprises a second pyrotechnic compound 46, wherein burning of the first pyrotechnic compound 42 emits a first color (red) and burning of the second pyrotechnic compound 46 emits a second color (white) and the first color and the second color are different (red v’s blue).
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.
Claims 8, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REXFORD et al. (US 2013/0042781 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Rexford et al. does not disclose the specific arrangement recited in claim 8. However, in paragraph [0055], Rexford et al. state that ordering the colors within the stack of illuminant assemblies could be altered as desired.
To alter the arrangement of the Rexford et al. pyrotechnic layers to match the recited arrangement of claim 8, would have been an obvious arrangement to try for a POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention, the motivation being to enable the Rexford et al. flare to produce additional signaling effects.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Rexford et al. do not disclose that the pyrotechnic layers are assembled layer by layer by an additive manufacturing. However, additive manufacturing is now a ubiquitously well-known efficient method of manufacturing a layered structure in the explosive, pyrotechnic or munitions arts, such as pyrotechnic targets, liners for shaped charges, etc.
To employ additive manufacturing to assemble the layers of the Rexford et al. pyrotechnic flare would have been obvious for a POSITA to try before the effective filing date of the invention, the motivation being to utilize a ubiquitously well-known efficient method of manufacturing a layered structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20, as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (US 7,617,776 B1), have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S BERGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5am.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 571-272-6874. 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.
/JAMES S BERGIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights